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

reply to post by searching411


I went over this in another thread on this same topic...the Democrats "obstructed" more of Bush's appointments from 2003-2007 (when they were the Senate minority) than the Republicans have of Obamas from 2009-2013.

The score is 27 blocked Bush appointees, 15 blocked Obama appointees.

searching411

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.

afraid?....how can you justify this?
pbs.twimg.com...
isn't it obvious? the amount of filibustered presidential appointees is unprecedented for EITHER a democratic president or a republican president, in the entire 200+ years of American history......and you're not afraid of that??

BobM88
reply to post by searching411

 

I went over this in another thread on this same topic...the Democrats "obstructed" more of Bush's appointments from 2003-2007 (when they were the Senate minority) than the Republicans have of Obamas from 2009-2013.

The score is 27 blocked Bush appointees, 15 blocked Obama appointees.

really?
www.loc.gov... these people (the congressional research service, which is an official part of congress) are lying about this?...pbs.twimg.com...

jimmyx

searching411

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.

afraid?....how can you justify this?
pbs.twimg.com...
isn't it obvious? the amount of filibustered presidential appointees is unprecedented for EITHER a democratic president or a republican president, in the entire 200+ years of American history......and you're not afraid of that??

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

In 2005, when the Republicans just mentioned the threat of the nuclear option, many Democrats, including Reid himself, called the maneuver a power grab.
I agree with that assessment and I am happy that the Republicans did not employ the maneuver.

Were the Democrats uninformed, or were they lying when they made those statements then? They obviously don't call it a power grab now. So what is it?

I don't need to see quotes from Republicans in 2005 saying that they thought the nuclear option was a good idea.... they didn't use it.

The unprecedented thing here is that the Democrats in the Senate employed the manuever.
When the Republicans take control of the Senate again (not making a prediction of when, but it is bound to happen... look at history) I think that they will most likely reverse this, but will be more apt to use the nuclear option because the precedent has been set.

reply to post by jimmyx


Could be...your library of congress link returns a "page not found" and that image is simply something on an image hosting site that shows some numbers and says "source: congressional research office". Show me the numbers. I got mine from Wikipedia.

BobM88
reply to post by searching411

 

I went over this in another thread on this same topic...the Democrats "obstructed" more of Bush's appointments from 2003-2007 (when they were the Senate minority) than the Republicans have of Obamas from 2009-2013.

The score is 27 blocked Bush appointees, 15 blocked Obama appointees.

Really? Then how do you account for the fact that In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations with half of them occurring during the Obama Administration – (during the last four and a half years.)

I think that half of 168 is indeed more than 15.

No wonder Bill Clinton said republicans didn't know arithmetic.

Or, how about this little factoid; Only 23 district court nominees have been filibustered in the entire history of this country. Twenty of them were nominated by President Obama.

Kinda blows your 15 number out of the water, now doesn't it?

Lies only work until the truth comes out.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

i've never seen progressives shower the constitution with such praise and adoration until now... "that's not what the founders had in mind"


it doesn't matter that our country has been hemoraging constitutional rights and freedoms for some time (due to both parties), it doesn't matter that obama, reid, and al gore completely changed their positions, all that matters is that the "progressives" are winning.

and that isn't actually true either. you're fighting for a group of people who don't give a flying frick about you. of course i am speaking about our current government in it's entirety.

reply to post by Flatfish


Here: please explain this then:

Bush appointees

Obama Appointees

While you're at it: show me how 1/2 of them have been since Obama...images from mediamatters.org aren't enough for me.

Cloture Attempts on Nominations: Data and
Historical Development

reply to post by Flatfish

your point rests on a logical fallacy.

obama has a history of appointing his friends, those who got him elected, and generally very extreme individuals over people who know what they're doing.

reply to post by lovebeck


The scary part about this agenda move is just that. This is a huge "tell" in there agenda.

If the GOP wins in 2016 they can now easily repeal Obamacare, why would the Dem's take this kind of chance when Obama is at 37% ?

If the GOP pull it together and win the Senate and retain the House like one imagine they should then again Obama is dead in the water.

For the Dem's to do something like this under the guise of obstructionism is misdirection at its best. One can only imagine what Obama and his handlers will do between now and 2014 election's.

Should be historically interesting.

I am editing this in that I just heard something to the effect that this nuke option is temporary and if the GOP become in control it is no longer in effect, this came from Limbaugh and he is not sure so have to wait and see.

I find this hard to believe but then again most everything about today in America is hard to believe.

reply to post by butcherguy


It's not 2005...this isn't checks and balances...this isn't about limiting government...this is about crippling the US Government as long as the GOP does not have the power they demand. The anarchists have repeatedly demonstrated this intent with the Debt Ceiling threats, shut-downs etc.

Hypocrisy..... flip flop flip flop .... pathetic.

grabien.com...

Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Chris Dodd

reply to post by Indigo5


Oh, so let me get this straight.

The process of Filibuster, which 0bama himself and others, have been on record stating it was a good thing, and that the Nuclear option was wrong, is now a terrible thing, only because now the shoe is on the other foot.


You Progressives really are the biggest hypocrites out there.

One thing that is okay and good to do when Dems are in power, is now bad and terrible when Dems are without the power in this instance.

It is always different for Progressives.

macman
is now a terrible thing, only because now the shoe is on the other foot.

Strange you got that from the facts?

It is a "terrible thing" because more Presidential Nominees have been filibustered under Pres. Obama than ALL past Presidents COMBINED going back to the civil war.

There is no rationale for these filibusters. Nominees where GOP have gone on record saying they were qualified have still been filibustered...just cuz they can.

The "rule" of requiring a 2/3rds majority to cease a Filibuster was implemented in 1919...you would think that "constitutionalists" would be relieved to see the Senate return to the founders design?

Here...Let me try to speak your language...

Rush Limbaugh: "The Constitution Says Nothing About This. The Constitution Says Simple Majority, 51 Votes."

Sean Hannity: "I Believe It's Unconstitutional To Filibuster."

Rich Lowry: Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." National Review editor and Fox News contributor Rich Lowry

Karl Rove: "We Believe That Fairness Means That [Nominees] Deserve An Up-Or-Down Vote."

Indigo5
reply to post by butcherguy

 

It's not 2005...this isn't checks and balances...this isn't about limiting government...this is about crippling the US Government as long as the GOP does not have the power they demand. The anarchists have repeatedly demonstrated this intent with the Debt Ceiling threats, shut-downs etc.

Couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer the simplest of questions:

Were the Democrats uninformed, or were they lying when they made those statements then? They obviously don't call it a power grab now. So what is it?

Don't give me a bunch of drivel about... ooooh, since the civil war....the R's are meanies, they don't have any answers.... blah blah blah.
Thanks in advance.

reply to post by Indigo5


Yeah, ah-ha. And the quotes mean what????

Basically the filibuster was good for 0bama, Reid and Hillary several years ago when it suited them.
The Nuclear option was bad for 0bama, Reid and Hillary several years ago when it didn't suite them.

Now, the tides have changed, and it has been reversed by the cry-baby in chief and the followers of.


I state again. It is always different for Progressives.

And it is sad to think you champion this crap, as when the power shift happens again, and Dems want to filibuster, you and many others will cry the loudest about the rule not being fair.

You are a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

reply to post by macman


The problem with people like him/her is when the tables are switched and the gop take advantage of this cluster muck they are going to cry about how this was G.W fault.

People on both sides need to see this as a loss for all American's not just a right-left issue.

Indigo5

macman
is now a terrible thing, only because now the shoe is on the other foot.

Strange you got that from the facts?

It is a "terrible thing" because more Presidential Nominees have been filibustered under Pres. Obama than ALL past Presidents COMBINED going back to the civil war.

There is no rationale for these filibusters. Nominees where GOP have gone on record saying they were qualified have still been filibustered...just cuz they can.

The "rule" of requiring a 2/3rds majority to cease a Filibuster was implemented in 1919...you would think that "constitutionalists" would be relieved to see the Senate return to the founders design?

Here...Let me try to speak your language...

Rush Limbaugh: "The Constitution Says Nothing About This. The Constitution Says Simple Majority, 51 Votes."

Sean Hannity: "I Believe It's Unconstitutional To Filibuster."

Rich Lowry: Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." National Review editor and Fox News contributor Rich Lowry

Karl Rove: "We Believe That Fairness Means That [Nominees] Deserve An Up-Or-Down Vote."

edit on 22-11-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Let me try to speak your language:

I've read that a few times today...the spiel about more nominees filibustered under obama than any other President, and here you are repeating it like its true.

Here, try some facts:
Actual figures

What Limbaugh, Hannity, et al; had to say in 2005 is irrelevant. Why? Because they're not in the Senate, and unlike in 2005 when the "Nuclear Option" was threatened by the republicans, in 2013 the democrats have actually done it.

butcherguy

Couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer the simplest of questions:

Were the Democrats uninformed, or were they lying when they made those statements then? They obviously don't call it a power grab now. So what is it?

Sure I did?

Indigo5
more Presidential Nominees have been filibustered under Pres. Obama than ALL past Presidents COMBINED going back to the civil war.

In order for it to be the "same thing"...the 7 Filibusters during the Bush Admin would need to equal the 44 filibusters under Obama?

7 does not equal 44

A rainshower is not a hurricane.

"Consent" does not equal anarchy.

In order for you to make your argument you must first claim equivalence in a scenario that literally has no equivalence going back hundreds of years.

reply to post by Indigo5


So your stance is that it is ok as long as it is not used too much? Because that seems to be the direction you speak whenever anyone brings up the flip-flopping the current Democrats heads are doing. If you only do it every now and then, well it's just a-ok, but God forbid you start doing it a bunch of times. So who draws the line? What is the magic number of filibusters that a minority Senate can acceptably do before the nuclear option needs to be invoked? Because the way I see it, the filibuster is (was) just a tool. There aren't any stipulations on how often you are allowed to use it, and changing the rules because your opponent is using that tool too much is just playing dirty (and hypocritical since they've used it before too).