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

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

DrEugeneFixer
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.


Thanks, I've edited since then as I just read that bit. Which makes your answer look odd, so apologies for that.

Does it basically mean Obama can now appoint whoever he wants with a simple majority, not a 2/3rds one?

Sorry if this sounds dumb to the Americans reading.




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Pointing out my earlier thread so people can read all the comments on this important issue. I'll link this thread to that one as well. :

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Double post, so I'll use it to comment.

When the vote was taken you could hear Senators strategizing on the various Senate microphones, and that would make for an interesting transcript.
edit on 21-11-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

DrEugeneFixer

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.


According to the Post:

The rule change means that federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been required for more than two centuries.


I never stated there was anything "shady" about this. I am, however, concerned when a "rule change" as you call it, even occurs. What happens when they decide to change other "rules" as they see fit? Then what?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

khimbar
Thanks, I've edited since then as I just read that bit. Which makes your answer look odd, so apologies for that.

Does it basically mean Obama can now appoint whoever he wants with a simple majority, not a 2/3rds one?

Sorry if this sounds dumb to the Americans reading.


Don't worry about the editing thing.

Yes, basically, that is right, but the number required was 60, not 67 (which would be 2/3 of 100)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

lovebeck
What happens when they decide to change other "rules" as they see fit? Then what?


Then nothing. The constitution specifies that each chamber shall determine its own rules.


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.-- article 2, section 5 of the US constitution.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Obama does a 180 again....

from a speech when he was a Senator....

"Obama: Nuclear Option Not What Founders Had In Mind, Will Poison Washington "



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
And this is how the tyranny of the majority begins...

there are reasons that certain things require a super majority, like constitutional changes



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

BomSquad
And this is how the tyranny of the majority begins...

there are reasons that certain things require a super majority, like constitutional changes


Exactly.
And like you said, it is just beginning.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

Yep.
There are a huge list of Democrats railing against the nuclear option....
Back then.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

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

Washington Post Article



This will backfire in their faces in 2014. Watch.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

BomSquad
And this is how the tyranny of the majority begins...

there are reasons that certain things require a super majority, like constitutional changes


There are also reasons that certain things, like rule changes, only require a majority vote.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
And Harry Reid in 2008 says;



Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said in a 2008 interview that as long as he was the Senate Majority Leader, the nuclear option would never happen under his watch.

“As long as I am the Leader, the answer’s no,” he said. “I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country.

Reid railed against Republicans who fought for the measure, saying it would lead to a unicameral legislature and that the U.S. Senate was purposefully set up by the Founding Fathers to have different rules than the House of Representatives. Such a measure like the nuclear option, he said, would “change our country forever.”



FLASHBACK: Reid in 2008: ‘As Long As I Am The Leader’ We Will Not Have a Nuclear Option




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

DrEugeneFixer

BomSquad
And this is how the tyranny of the majority begins...

there are reasons that certain things require a super majority, like constitutional changes


There are also reasons that certain things, like rule changes, only require a majority vote.

Current Republicans and 2005 Democrats have railed against the nuclear option.

Sounds bipartisan.

You think that they are both wrong?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


The whole idea of super majorities is to slow the pace of change. When we start allowing 50% +1 to be able to enact anything they wish, you will see more and more outrage from the 50% -1 crowd. This will eventually, in the long term, create a great deal of disharmony, not just in our Senate, but in the nation as a whole.

This will accelerate the rate of change in our society enforced with the rule of law as opposed to the gradual change of society by the ideas of public opinion.

I am afraid I am not being as clear as I would like, but that is the best I can do under my current circumstances (I'm at work).



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



And Harry Reid in 2008 says.....


Just goes to show the corruption of our so called government! OH! But of course, when it is "our team" with the ball, we cheer em on! However, it is the people whom suffer for the deeds of their "Feudalistic" Lords! I do have to say this though, "The back and forth between the two parties has gone on long enough, that for ANY person with average cognitive functions to not see thru the deception of BOTH parties, is quite frankly, unforgivable in my eyes!".

Our these people really any better than any other kind of predator that law enforcement pursues on a daily basis?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

butcherguy

Current Republicans and 2005 Democrats have railed against the nuclear option.

Sounds bipartisan.

You think that they are both wrong?


Yep. The president's nominees should get an up or down vote every time.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

DrEugeneFixer

butcherguy

Current Republicans and 2005 Democrats have railed against the nuclear option.

Sounds bipartisan.

You think that they are both wrong?


Yep. The president's nominees should get an up or down vote every time.


I think these nominee conformations should require a 2/3 majority vote.

That way the unbiased integrity stays intact.

I also think legislation should require 2/3.

Single party rule is dangerous.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

xuenchen
I think these nominee conformations should require a 2/3 majority vote.

That way the unbiased integrity stays intact.

I also think legislation should require 2/3.

Single party rule is dangerous.


Yep, the only thing worse than tyranny of the majority is tyranny by a minority.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

DrEugeneFixer

xuenchen
I think these nominee conformations should require a 2/3 majority vote.

That way the unbiased integrity stays intact.

I also think legislation should require 2/3.

Single party rule is dangerous.


Yep, the only thing worse than tyranny of the majority is tyranny by a minority.

With no 2/3.... little happens.

When you don't require the 2/3, a whole lot of bad can happen.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join