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

DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by Snarl

 

It's just a senate rule change.

A rule change?? Now you're using words to downplay.

The action by one guy has changed the politics of our country from that of a 'republic' to that of a 'true democracy.' Anything can happen now.

Remember this so you can point out to your kids where everything finally fell apart.

You might think this is a good thing because progressives currently hold the reins. When the Republicans are back in control and start doing the bidding of their corporate masters ... whoo boy ... I wonder if Tina Turner has a spare room she might loan me.

Yep, it's just a rule change, so was the Constitution.

reply to post by BABYBULL24

Obviously the plan all along. The important thing to take away from your video is not that this is a progressive move nor a conservative move ... it is a purple move ... and a move against all of us ... The People.

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

Washington Post Article

Yes in the legally prescribed manner. Not just whining endlessly after trying over and over and losing.

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.

Actually, you are incorrect. Reid resisted the 'nuclear' option and only recently has seen the need to modify the filibuster particularly which regard to Executive appointments.

butcherguy
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

A certain Senator from Texas was vilified recently for filibustering against Obamacare. Even members of his own party chastised him.

Some polls show 93% of the people opposing Obamacare now that they see how flawed it is.

Who is the tyrant?

Not a fillibuster - only one in his deluded mind. He was allowed to speak during a no business period. Read the dictionary or enclopedia occasionally.

khimbar
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)

Since no one bothered to answer your valid question I'll add a bit here.

First - this rule change is, in fact, only valid for the duration of this congressional session.

Second - the republicans have been obstructive in allowing President Obama to make appointments to many important positions hence obstructing government function (their purpose).

A quote form Mother Jones via Truthdig:

www.truthdig.com...

There are 100 senators, and winning a simple majority (51 senators, or 50 if the vice president votes to break a tie) was once sufficient to confirm presidential nominees and pass legislation. But over the past several decades, both parties have increasingly used the filibuster—a procedural move that requires 60 senators to end debate and force a vote—to block the other side’s agenda. Since 2009, when Obama took office, Senate Republicans have used constant filibuster threats to force Democrats to win 60 votes to do almost anything. On Thursday, Democrats finally decided they’d had enough, and changed the rules. In the future, executive-branch and judicial nominees will be subject to simple up-or-down majority votes. But the filibuster lives on partially: Legislation and Supreme Court nominees will still be subject to filibusters.

From the NY Times:
www.nytimes.com...

This is a relatively modest step toward returning basic governance to the chamber. It does not change the 60-vote requirement that Republicans have made routine for virtually all legislation, perverting the majoritarian vision of the Constitution. It does not ban the filibuster for judicial nominees, though we wish it did because Republicans are still holding up too many federal court candidates.

Nonetheless, Mr. Reid’s move would be an extremely important reassertion of majority rule, finally allowing a president’s nominees to cabinet departments and other agencies to come to a confirmation vote. The president’s right to assemble an executive team without encountering ideological litmus tests from the Senate is fundamental, as history shows. From the Eisenhower to the Ford administrations, there were no filibusters of executive nominees. Over the next 32 years, there were 20.

And finally from wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...

A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal. It is sometimes referred to as talking out a bill,[1] and characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.

Snarl

DrEugeneFixer
It's just a senate rule change.

A rule change?? Now you're using words to downplay.

The action by one guy has changed the politics of our country from that of a 'republic' to that of a 'true democracy.' Anything can happen now.

The senate rule change was accomplished by a majority vote of the senate. It does not establish pure democracy. The constitution and the supreme court still limit legislation. Not to mention that the rule change only applies to executive appointees. They will still be subject to scrutiny and an up or down vote by the senators.

Don't try and make this into something that it's not.

butcherguy
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)

It's much bigger than that. They are going to stack the courts with friends so that when the Republicans take over the Senate and dismantle Obamacare they will be able to use the courts as much as possible to stop them.

FyreByrd

butcherguy
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

A certain Senator from Texas was vilified recently for filibustering against Obamacare. Even members of his own party chastised him.

Some polls show 93% of the people opposing Obamacare now that they see how flawed it is.

Who is the tyrant?

Not a fillibuster - only one in his deluded mind. He was allowed to speak during a no business period. Read the dictionary or enclopedia occasionally.

TEchnically correct,
But, if one bothers to google search occasionally, you would find that the MSM called it a filibuster while it happened.

The press played it as a filibuster while it was happening, so you might want to write letters to all those news outlets and tell them to use a dictionary also. I am sure that it upset you when that happened.

This is actually good news!

It shows that this administration knows that it is doomed (thanks to Obamacare) and that if it does not do this now, it won't have a chance past the 2014 elections.

Now is the time to start pushing 3rd party candidates.

Put pressure on the GOP.

Because the democrats, the liberal progressive democrats, are done!

Just restating the obvious...they cause a stink with this to redirect attention from the failed ObamaCare, they do this, changing a rule they all fought to keep during Bush, they are pushing off the 2014 sign up until after the elections, Obama either lies about everything or doesn't know anything, they spy on you and read your email, they are using the IRS as a weapon, they are erasing the constitution, etc., etc., etc.

Does everyone else see this? Do you see where this is going? This is the beginning of a pure takeover of the United States government and the establishment (eventually) of a Dictator Group. How? By controlling the rules and the dependants in this country so that the vote is locked for the same group. Electronic voting to hide the true election results, allowing illegals to vote, more and more government employees who have to vote for those "protecting" their jobs. Do you see it? DO YOU SEE YOU ARE BEING LIED TO TO ESTABLISH A DICTATORSHIP?

Everyone who doesn't want to be ruled must vote against everything this organized crime organization wants. Everything! Whether you agree with it or not. And if you don't...eventually, once you are no longer needed to protect their power...YOU will become the enemy. Not just the Right...but ALL citizens. And if you don't "wake up" and see it...you will wake up one day a slave. A Revolution WILL occur! Your decisions NOW decide which side you are on.

pbs.twimg.com...


this is the reason

jimmyx
pbs.twimg.com...


this is the reason

edit on 22-11-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

Yes...that is true. Buy why? Because Obama is playing chess, positioning his pieces for the grand plan to take personal and party power and force their will upon everyone...not just the right. Positioning pieces for what purpose exactly? I don't know for sure. Eventually to have full control of the government but for now, so he/they can do anything they want regardless if the people disagree. Thoughts? Taking away your right to bear arms, removing the two election presidential limit, remove all protection of individuals privacy...etc. Maybe a simple law stating that any laws established during this period can not be revoked?

They are realizing that they are getting caught doing things that people don't like while working their big plans. So how do you fix that? Make it so it doesn't matter what people think by making them unable to do anything about it...legally. You see...the Right is now the enemy, but once they don't need you...you will be the enemy also.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Perhaps the appointees were of a high caliber moral and ethical issue and there was no danger in letting the appointments stand.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


what the president is trying to do IS HIS JOB!...he appoints federal judges, THAT'S HIS JOB!...he gets to appoint his own cabinet leaders, THAT'S HIS JOB!...it's under his constitutional powers, it's under his job decription...what's wrong with you?...I don't like the judges that bush appointed, but I don 't think it was a government takeover....geez, hyperbolic much???

reply to post by FyreByrd


Thank you kindly.

One final question if I may? In absolute practical terms, what can Obama do today now this is passed that he couldn't do yesterday before it passed?

Apologies if that's a dumb question again.

thesaneone
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.

We should be afraid, very afraid. There will be little that can be done to stop anything this president wants to enforce.