Comments about ‘In our opinion: 'Nuclear option' was a bad move’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Nov. 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
HappyHeathen
Puyallu, Wa.

“some recent judicial appointments”

Some? There are 93 court vacancies with debate effectively dead. “Some” isn’t quite the word you were looking for.

The Democrats were tired of the Republicans blocking President Barack Obama's nominations for pretty much everything, and especially the D.C. Circuit. Good for them changing the rules.

BYUalum
South Jordan, UT

Equally concerning is that key players from the president down to the majority leader of the Senate were adamantly opposed to this kind of measure in 2005 before they were the governing party. They were against it before they were for it! This is about dominating party control which the Founding Fathers knew that we could not have and keep out Republic!

As a citizenry we must make sure there is balance in our government and vote these individuals out of office in November 2014 if we do not want a dictatorship in this country!

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

82 filibusters under Obama.
86 filibusters under every other President in American history combined.

Something had to be done, this is a joke and not a representative government when congress is more beholden to the gang than their constituents.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

As a conservative constitutionalist, If I were President with a Republican house and Senate, but not enough to block a filibuster, I would eliminate the filibuster and do the following:

1. Pass a national right to work law.
2. Ban public employee labor unions.
3. Freeze all accounts of labor unions.
4. Return all money from the former and now defunct public employees labor unions to those who gave them the money.
5. All employees who were formerly forced to join a labor union but now leave would receive their money back in the proportion they paid in. Forced dues for an organization you oppose is wrong.
6. Investigate all universities for discrimination against conservatives. Universities that discriminate against conservatives in their hiring practices would not be eligible for government funds and their students would not be eligible for government loans or grants.
7. Investigate the major news networks and Hollywood for discrimination against conservatives. Those guilty would lose the right to use the public airways and all credentials to attend government press conferences and the like.

Do this and the Democrats could not ever win another election.

Ranch
Here, UT

The "nuclear option" was the only option, imho. The Republicans have filibustered nearly every Obama nominee, no matter how qualified. This nonsense has to stop.

Additionally, do you not think that the first thing Republicans would do the moment they regain the Senate would be to change the rules so as to prevent the Democrats from being as obstructinist as the Republicans have been for the last 5 years?

rw123
Sandy, UT

Yet another example of one majority party using cutthroat politics to get what they want, whether it's really wise or not. I don't call into question their motives or their sincerity. But, there still is that *rule of law* principle and that *separation of powers* thing that seem to get lost when one party has a majority and abuses it's power. And the fact that it will lead to more partisanship is appalling given the lack of cooperation already demonstrated between both parties.

But, when Republicans do get in power, I - as a voter - would urge them not to exact revenge by doing the very same thing back to the democrats, I would urge them to do what is right for the country instead, whatever that may be at the time. *Turnabout is fair play* has some truth to it, but it's a lousy way to govern.

To both parties, I would say, instead of this constant junior-high-ish bickering, work to restore trust and confidence in the government. Take the higher road, please!

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

The Democrats are essentially immune to the "what goes around comes around" argument in regards to the filibuster. The more genteel liberals just don't have the temperaments to mount such a campaign of sabotage and deceit against a future republican president. (Heck, they even worked with the bumbling Bush/Cheney administration.)

Its a false equivalency to compare the two parties, Democrats have remained fairly moderate, while the Republicans have unilaterally gone off the right wing rails.

Semi-Strong
Louisville, KY

I agree with the posters above that the president's appointments were being blocked unfairly.

But I agree with the editorial that this will be bad in the long run.

The blockage has been caused by political rancor - a "my way or the highway" attitude.

I see this as only making it worse over the long run.

Short term gain. Long term pain.

A better way SHOULD have been found. The question is was there enough goodwill for anyone to find such a compromise?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

We have two issues at play here. Neither are good "governing"

One is the so called "nuclear option" . One must recognize that they did not change the overall rules on what is needed to pass legislation; only for presidential appointments.

Two is that the obstruction is being misused. I can support reasonable opposition to a presidential appointee based on substance. But that is not what is happening here. It is wrong is to block viable appointees in an effort to change other "unrelated" issues. Again, the GOP is using the wrong avenue to achieve a goal.

While I am not a fan of changing the rules, I am also opposed to blocking appointments of qualified, reasonable people in an effort to win concessions on other, totally unrelated areas.

We have a totally dysfunctional government.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Does anyone seriously doubt for one moment that were the roles reversed, i.e. a Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican president with minority Democrats egregiously obstructing the President's ability to make straightforward appointments to fill federal vacancies, that the Republicans would have "gone nuclear" far, far sooner than the Democrats have in the face of historic levels of obstruction? They'd have done it in a heartbeat and boasted about it.

The level of obstructionism from the Republicans in the Senate is simply without precedent. For this minority to keep these judicial positions vacant just so they can prove to their Tea Party base that they are ideologically pure borders on criminal.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Imagine the outcry and hyperventilating from the left if the GOP had done this when they were the majority in the Senate! In fact, all we have to do is go back to 2005 and listen to the staunch opposition Obama, Reid and the Demos were saying about this issue THEN! The left has tried to spin this as counting coup on who tries to block who but the real issue here is a huge power grab. Before they voted for it they were totally against it. Democrats are falsely spinning this issue like Olympic gold medal figure skaters!

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . when Republicans do get in power, I - as a voter - would urge them not to exact revenge by doing the very same thing back to the democrats . . . ."

It has already been done. There's no going back now.

Democrats have implemented a genuine coup, making the ideas of half of Americans irrelevant in politics. They did so to enable illegally and unconstitutionally stacking the courts with radicals, to assure perpetual liberal political power, notwithstanding its clear minority status in America.

It's very similar to options exercised by the Bolsheviks, National Socialists, Red Chinese, North Korean communists, and Cuban communists, when they declared opposition to be irrelevant and counterrevolutionary.

And, it's immensely sad that history will record the Fort Sumter moment of the second American Civil War as the moment Democrats seized power by exercising the nuclear option -- destroying more than two centuries of concern for the half of the Nation that didn't vote for the policies of the sitting President.

FT
salt lake city, UT

The author of this editorial is wrong. Elections have consquences. Senator Reid's removal of the filibuster was a reflection of the current state of our goverment and our society. Extreme partianship is not going away. The removal of the filibuster for preseditantal appointees will expediate an administrations elected right to govern and let the old boy's club actually debate more important issues.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Re "The Rock" at 6:49AM.

Amen brother!

And when you begin investigating all that subversion, you could convene special congressional hearings, maybe with a catchy name like, "The House Un-American Activities Committee."

You could subpeona movie stars and college presidents and ask them all kinds of questions about their political views and personal lives. You could demand to know who they know, who said what to whom, and when, and where, etc. Make 'em sweat!

Oh think of the swelling patriotic pride as you grilled celebrities and college professors about their political views!

And if they don't cooperate, you could blacklist them! They'll never work again!

Think of the political capital you'll earn by telling school teachers, librarians, food safety inspectors, fire fighters, park rangers and police officers that their retirement funds are being gutted and returned to the taxpayers!

And loyalty oaths! Don't forget those!

Yes, it would guarantee GOP victories forever!

By all means, go for it. Please.

Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

Funny how that goes. It's OK for reid to block every piece of legislation, every budget, that the house has passed and reid has never let it come to the floor of the senate for discussion or a vote.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Notice there is no retort to the facts listed in the first post by scoundrel. "My way or the highway" really? How about my way "every once in a while", after all I'm the President and trying to constitutionally fill vacancies.

In addition this happened in a restrained way (even the article points this out) and it didn't happen until the end of the fifth year of an eight year term.

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

This is the natural escalation of the Democrat blockage of earlier Republican nominees.

However, in the past, Repuiblican Presidents would withdraw controversial nominations, and replace them with more acceptable selections, who would be passed.

Note that much of the current blockage of votes is simply that. However, on the other issues, Harry Reid's destructive partisanship has resulted in the Senate not even calling up for debate, let alone passage, of numerous important bills passed by the House. Such as budgets, appropriations, Obamacare repeal or reform. Reid's actions are essentially a one man filibuster against which there is no defense, other than election of a Republican majority.

Let's be honest, Harry Reid is the real problem in the Senate, not Republican "obstructionism."

But a worse problem is that Obama is nominating truly unqualified and dangerous people to important jobs. They may fit his goal of destroying our country, or reshaping it into a Marxist-socialist state, but are ultimately bad for everyone.

I salute every Republican who has been trying to save our country. I hope that they will not hesitate to steamroller the Democrats when they return to power.

Oatmeal
Woods Cross, UT

@The Rock,

You do realize that several of your proposed actions are unconstitutional... don't you?

Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

It's interesting that the white house will not rule out "White House refuses to rule out nuking filibuster rules for legislation too"

So when did we slip into a monarchy, or is this the point at which there is no return?

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

This issue is a case of Washington inside baseball pure and simple. The business of governing, not playing parliamentary games that are not mentioned in the Constitution to obstruct governing. The filibuster is an antique of history that is only about half as old as the Republic. It is a dusty practice that is long since used up its welcome. Who cares who did what to whom? Why should one Senator have the right to put a hold on a nominee? Why does the majority not rule in the Senate? Why is this a partisan issue? Both parties will benefit or lose when as we all know the majority shifts with the changing of opinions among the electorate. If the Republicans are so upset, I suggest they change the rule back on the first day they again regain the majority...fat chance. Have we become so twisted by gerrymandering and such games that change the fact that majority rule is the stuff of all democratic systems world wide? This is a government of, by, and for the People NOT of, by and for Senators.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments