m.g. scottclearfield, UTWow, so much can be said about the immature,
childish, Reid and his take the ball home and not play by the rules anymore....SERIOUSLY? When 3/4 or more of all the filibusters concerning
judicial nominees have taken place trying to block President Obama?It is the republicans who polluted the sand in the box, and their foolish,
blinded supporters who allowed it.
Pagan said correctly: 82 filibusters under Obama.
86 filibusters under every other President in American history.Yep, it's Obama's fault?Of course facts matter not to
the adherents of the conservative religion.
Lost in DC,No. It only adds to the partisan dysfunction that will
haunt the next several presidencies.atl134,Maybe the
rule change will be okay. But the political sting will remain and there will be
the penchant for payback when the opportunity presents itself - then we all
@Semi-strong"The political pendulum will swing and they will find
themselves on the other side of this rule."Actually, I really
don't mind if Republicans only need 50 + 1 to get their appointees through
in such a time. Democrats rarely ever filibustered their nominations anyway and
frankly an administration should have leeway to get their own people appointed
since that's what the voters voted for. I think keeping the filibuster for
Supreme Court nominations and for regular legislation is a good thing. @Mountanman"Can you hypocritical Demos name one Obama nominee that
did not get approved? "Every proposed ATF head during
Obama's first term, every CFPB head based on their hatred of Warren and the
entire idea of the CFPB (until Obama got Cordrey through via recess
appointment), almost every person Obama has nominated to the DC Court of Appeals
(this year that includes rejections of Robert Wilkins just this past week,
Cornelia Pillard, Caitlin Halligan, and Patricia Millett)."you
guys in 2005 defending filibustering "There have been around 170
judicial nomination filibusters in US history, over 80 of them are during
Obama's Presidency. The nuclear option wouldn't happen if Republicans
weren't blocking everyone.
@Pagan--why do you keep claiming the two wars cost four trillion dollars?
It's not even close.And yes! We've been in Afghanistan
all of the passed five years.More than three quarters of the worlds
military weapons have come from our country. Much of it in the passed five
years. Mexican Cartels, South Korea Egypt, Pakistan, Syrian Rebels, Indonesia,
etc, do not make their own weapons. Comes from our nation. The country who
wants to disarm their citizens.China, and Russia equals a combined
The Constitution allows the Senate and House to make their own in-house
rules.The Senate changed the rule from 2/3 to 60 in 1975.Articulate well thought out comparisons to Hitler were rampant at that
point.Right?LOLThe House rule is based upon
a simple majority.The Senate rule should be based upon the same
premise."...The maneuvering occurred after a decade in which
first one party, then the other, nursed a lengthening list of
grievances...".Maneuvering...nursing grievances...Surefire skills for success in any enterprise.
'Democrats were sure in favor of filibustering when THEY were the
minority!' Let's actually look at this claim, shall we? ‘When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm
elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 (From Dems) to a record
139 in 2007-2008.' (From Republicans) **'The Rise Of
Cloture: How GOP Filibuster Threats Have Changed The Senate' - Ben Frumin
and Jason Reif - Talking Points Memo – 01/27/10 So 68 under
Dems. 139 under Republicans. Almost double. As of 2012,
almost 400 Republican filibusters in Senate. 82 filibusters under
Obama. 86 filibusters under every other President in American
history. Claims are great. But when they are proven
wrong, some are simply lying, to try and gain support. Who said
something about bearing false witness...?
Jamesmeyer,President Bush worked across the table because the people
across the table were willing to work with him. Tell me which republican leader
will work with President Obama? John Boenher did in 2011 and had a deal on the
debt until the tea party members of the house put an end to that and they have
done nothing but obstruct since then.
I believe that Reid finally concluded that since GOP cooperation on things like
judicial appointments was so close to zero that there was almost no downside in
changing the rule. The filibuster totals absolutely back that view. By contrast,
Badger's attempted to tie this to "1930's Germany" is just an
attempted revision of BOTH the past and present.
atl134c’mon, repeat three timesDem good, repub bad.Oh, wait, that has been the theme of every comment you’ve ever
posted.You are not saying reid is acting maturely, you are just
excusing him.Thanks for confirming how immature harry is.SCFan,Sure they understand hypocrisy, they use it ALL THE TIME10CC,So a supposition – what if? – is justification for
changing the rules?Pagan,So you are OK with al queda attacking
us and killing over 3000 US citizens? Thanks.Semi-strong,Stifling anything BO wants is the best way to preserve the wealth and strength
of the nation.
I can think of many governments who seize with power, rather than cooperation,
but I've not much good to say of any of them. What would be hilarious is
if the Republican party holds the house and takes control of the senate or the
white house.President Bush worked across the table, one must give
him that. It's something our current president sorely lacks.
Democrats were sure in favor of filibustering when THEY were the minority! Can
you hypocritical Demos name one Obama nominee that did not get approved? You
guys are making it so easy to defeat you in future elections! All the GOP has to
do is show the tapes of you guys in 2005 defending filibustering to protect the
minority and compare that with what you say NOW! This power grab and now
Obamacare? Early Christmas gifts for the GOP!
This is evidence of the increasing partisanship infesting Washington.Any clear-eyed analysis shows that the Republicans have been stymieing
anything and everything Pres. Obama wants. Even non-controversial nominees
later approved by wide margins have been "slow walked" through the
process. Republicans have simply stopped the process and there was no good way
out.That said, this will likely come back to bite the Democrats
hard. The political pendulum will swing and they will find themselves on the
other side of this rule. Further, this just indicates just how poorly the
Senate is able to get along these days.This is not good for either
party. And leaders on both sides should be looking hard in the mirror and
asking "is what we are doing really best for our country long-term?"
Democrats need regulation.
'Power gets concentrated to the party. Remind anyone of the 1930's
Germany?' Let's use a more recent example.
2001. Republicans had a majority in the House, Senate and a 2 time Republican
President. Result? Invaded two countries, 500k dead and
$4 trillion dollars lost. Patriot Act stripes away American privacy, NDAA,
TSA… and the national debt, doubled. But hey,
let's get more upset about a website. Because 'that's how Hitler
Don't want to do your job..? **'Since Democrats took
control of the Senate in 2006, Republicans Have Mounted 380 Filibusters' -
12-09-12 - Sarah Jones '“Since Democrats took control of
the Senate in 2006, Republicans have mounted 380 filibusters. This far exceeds
anything we’ve seen before in the Senate. By comparison, in Lyndon B.
Johnson’s six years as Senate majority leader, he faced just one
filibuster.” If you don't want to do your job… I know PLENTY of other people who will work Part time. And
make $175,000 a year. Since the GOP 'took America back'
they are officially the LEAST productive congress in history. Factually shutting
down the government. Do your job. Or someone else will.
Power gets concentrated to the party. Remind anyone of the 1930's
Germany?A double win for the democrats, more power, and distract
from the current crisis they have caused, the ACA. Incidentally,
Hitler enacted huge social programs during 1930's.
@mg scottSeriously, Democrats rarely filibustered Bush appointees.
Meanwhile, Senator Graham has a hold on EVERY Obama appointee because he wants
something something Benghazi please-get-me-past-my-primary. Over
half of all filibusters of judicial nominees in US history have been during the
Obama administration."We all know that this move is the the
first in an attempt to STACK the DC circuit court of appeals with liberal judges
so Obama can put as many lifetime leftist judicial appointments as possible. I
remember Roosevelt tried to stack the court to"No, these are not
even remotely close. The DC circuit has 11 seats. 3 are vacant. It's the
president's job to nominate replacements. What Roosevelt tried to do was
add extra seats to the Surpeme Court instead of the 9. If Obama was trying to
put 12 or more in the DC circuit then that would be court packing. What
he's doing right now is his job, nominating replacements when spots open
up. Any president is supposed to be filling those spots. The only ones going for
partisan gain here are the Republicans who believe only they can appoint judges.
It's about time! Change the rules for the old boys club. Get the ball
moving and do something back there. When the GOP regains control let them do it
as well. Right now, nothing gets done because "that's the way
it's always been done".
While I think mg scotts comments about childish behavior is rather lopsided
seeing as both sides have been behaving so poorly in this situation I do think
changing the rules is a bad idea. I would like to be believe people are smart
enough to see that the republican party has been doing nothing but sitting back
on their hands and saying no to everything that comes along. So far the poll
numbers generally bare that out but if not then we get the government we
atl134The Democrats rarely filibustered Bush??? Oh come on. Your
definition of rare would be well done on my menu.We all know that
this move is the the first in an attempt to STACK the DC circuit court of
appeals with liberal judges so Obama can put as many lifetime leftist judicial
appointments as possible. I remember Roosevelt tried to stack the court too.
Didn't work. Be careful what you wish for, because this basically throws
out the rule book the Senate has lived by for most of its existence. And, I
certainly don't want to read anymore complaints about the Republicans not
cooperating in Congress. No one will work with people who throw dung in their
face. Now this country will become even more divided.
Items of note:1. Over half of all filibusters, ever, have occurred
since Obama became president. It used to be selectively used, but has become
the default way of business. "If you don't have 60 votes, you
can't do anything".2. Reid and other Democrats came to
believe that Republicans would have changed the rules anyway, if they got a
majority in the Senate and occupied the White House. (Yes, things have
descended to that point in Washington.)3. The issue that caused Reid
to finally use the nuclear option was three openings on the DC circuit court,
which is an important part of the federal judiciary. All signs pointed to
McConnell and the GOP blocking the nominees until Obama's second term is
over. This in no way resembles anything the Constitutional framers intended.Supreme Court nominees, and any legislation still has the 60 vote
This isn't about legislation, just just judicial and executive nominees.
I totally agree with m.g. scott. Harry Reid has proven himself to be the kind of
person that if he can't have exactly what he wants, he'll keep
changing the rules until he does. This senate rule has been in place
for many decades and used through many different administrations... both
democrat and republican. It's meant to allow the minority party to still
have a voice in congressional affairs. Both parties previously saw the wisdom in
that. Apparently, there will be no end to the liberal political
changes under Obama's administration... both with policies and rules.
It's little wonder Obama's approval rating is now at an all-time low.
Democrats should remember the old cliche... Be careful what you ask
for. It might just come back to bite you. And in this case, it definitely
will. It's just a question of time. The ebb and flow of political party
majorities will definitely continue.
"I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these
rules. In the long run it is not a good result for either party. One day
Democrats will be in the majority and this rule change will be no fairer to a
Republican minority than it is to a Democrat minority." Guess
who said that in 2005 when he was a Senator?Do I even need to answer
that?I wonder if Democrats even understand the concept of hypocrisy?
But since the new rule of Democrat politics is "The ends justify the
means" I guess this fits in pretty well with their two faced values.
Democrats very rarely filibustered appointees made by Bush. Republicans do it
for just about every single one made by Obama. I really don't care if the
filibuster is eliminated for appointees (it will stay in place for other
legislation) and Republicans get into the White House. Republicans should be
able to pick their own staff too.
@m.g.scottImmature? Reid? How about Senator Graham who put a hold on every
single administration appointee just because he's angsting about Benghazi
for political primary purposes? The Republicans have been abusing the system for
years and Reid didn't want to go this route but if Republicans are going to
keep blocking appointees to everything for reasons that aren't relevant to
the DHS or ATF or Appeals Court... then it's the fault of Republicans for
setting unprecedented levels of obstruction.
OK Democrats, you went ahead and used the "nuclear option" according to
news after my first post. A few years ago, when some Republicans wanted to do
this in the Senate and make it a 51 vote body rather than a 60 vote, it was
criticized, and discouraged as a bad idea from Democrats, Republicans, and media
pundits of all stripes. Well, Well. What now? I think this is being done by
the Democrats because they see the writing on the wall. Next election it will
be goodby to the Democrat majority in the Senate, and now is the time to stack
the deck on the courts, which is what this is all about. All I can say to Reid
and Obama is, what goes around, comes around. One day you will regret having
done this when the new Robert Bork is about to be put on the Supreme Court and
you can't stop it.
Wow, so much can be said about the immature, childish, Reid and his take the
ball home and not play by the rules anymore. If the Democrats get away with
this, it will be all out war in Congress, for the rest of Obama, and probably
forever. And yet they say we are supposed to be working together to get stuff
done. Imagine how the Democrats will feel if they find themselves in the
minority in Congress after 2014 and their only hope of stopping Republican
legislation is the fillabuster. And Particularly if the next President is
Republican. Then, the Democrats will cry foul all over the place if they
don't have the 60 vote protection against stopping the filabuster. Reid
has done it himself many times when he was minority leader. But now, he wants
it his way. Why don't he and the Democrats just craft a bill that says:
When Democrats are in the minority they CAN fillabuster, but if the Republicans
are in the minority they CANNOT fillabuster. That's about the level of
Democrat leadership thinking these days. I'm sure Obama would sign it too.