Washington Post: Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominee

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I'm officially at a loss for words...Changing the U.S. one "law" at a time.

Washington Post Article




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
It's about damn time! Good for Reid, too bad it took him so long. I can guarantee that if the Republiklansmen had a simple majority in the Senate, they would have already changed the rule themselves; especially if they were facing the unprecedented obstructionism the Democrats are currently facing.


+19 more 
posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Funny, when Reid was in the minority, he thought the 'nuclear option' was a terrible thing.

But he is all good with it now.


+6 more 
posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Here is what Al Gore called it when the Republicans toyed with the nuclear option in 2005:


On April 27, 2005, Former Vice President Al Gore said, "Their grand design is an all-powerful executive using a weakened legislature to fashion a compliant judiciary in its own image. ... What is involved here is a power grab."


]Wikipedia: Nuclear Option



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

butcherguy
Funny, when Reid was in the minority, he thought the 'nuclear option' was a terrible thing.

But he is all good with it now.


How many of Bush's nominees did the Democrats filibuster back then?

That's exactly what I thought. ZERO.


+5 more 
posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

LeatherNLace

butcherguy
Funny, when Reid was in the minority, he thought the 'nuclear option' was a terrible thing.

But he is all good with it now.


How many of Bush's nominees did the Democrats filibuster back then?

That's exactly what I thought. ZERO.

Not exactly right.


In response to claims of "Senate obstructionism," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) pointed out that only 10 of 214 nominations by President Bush have been turned down

By Reid's own admission.
Wikipedia: Nuclear Option
edit on 21-11-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

lovebeck
I'm officially at a loss for words...Changing the U.S. one "law" at a time.

Washington Post Article



another day of the spite house and its minions.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
This is absurd, why are they focusing on this non-issue? They should be focusing on term limits in Congress, lobbying reform, and rezoning Congressional districts so that they aren't blatantly designed to always have a certain party win. Oh wait, I'm sorry I've been living in my fantasy land in my head where politicians are actually responsible and do the right things instead of worrying about how to abuse their power. I think I may retreat back into my head, its so much more pleasant there.


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Obama is on TV right now.

BeeEss'ing his way through it.

The whole thing is about checks & balances.

Many of these Obama 'appointees' may not be qualified.

The bitter disgusted Democrats are trying to *get even* with their own failures.

Watch for a further power grab soon.

I hope people are happy with the totalitarian agenda



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

LeatherNLace

butcherguy
Funny, when Reid was in the minority, he thought the 'nuclear option' was a terrible thing.

But he is all good with it now.


How many of Bush's nominees did the Democrats filibuster back then?

That's exactly what I thought. ZERO.


Maybe that's because the nominees were actually qualified to serve in an unbiased way.




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Things aren't going well for obama now he is getting dangerous, like a wounded animal.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





The bitter disgusted Democrats are trying to *get even* with their own failures.

They could have done this quite some time ago.
Why now?
This is a way to paint a new story onto the TV screens....

Shifting away from the Obamacare debacle.
edit on 21-11-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Not only is he a double talker he's also the biggest baby I have ever seen in a president.

Everybody should keep their eyes open because we are going to see some very bad decisions that are going to hurt the American people very soon.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

lovebeck
I'm officially at a loss for words...Changing the U.S. one "law" at a time.


Uh... that IS the job description of legislators, as specified in the constitution.

Besides, this is just a rule change. There's nothing shady about this at all. It should have been done a long time ago.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I'm surprised they didn't include a clause that says "only applies when Democrats are in power". Heck, maybe they did!



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by xuenchen
 





The bitter disgusted Democrats are trying to *get even* with their own failures.

They could have did this quite some time ago.
Why now?
This is a way to paint a new story onto the TV screens....

Shifting away from the Obamacare debacle.


Now because they need a jolt in the ratings.

They don't realize how wrong they will end up being.

They are preaching to their own scattered and dwindling legions.

And they are solidifying a growing base of non-supporters.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


Yeah, except he will cry when the tables are turned.

Gotta love Progressives. Things are always different for THEM.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Can someone explain to someone in the UK, using simple terms, what's changed?

As a non-American, just curious.
edit on k013911bpmThu, 21 Nov 2013 13:39:21 -0600 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


As far as I can tell the Senate rule change will only apply to nominees to high offices, excluding the supreme court. This will not affect any treaties.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


Since the Dems don't like being filibustered, Reid changed the rule that requires a certain of amount of votes to end it to a lower number that accommodates him at this time.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join