'Nuclear option' was a bad move

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 29, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    the so-called nuclear option is just business as usual for dirty Harry and the other senate democrats. Harry Reid is not interested in America - only retention of political power in any ways or means necessary and that is why I say the man is a "clear and present danger" to the viability of the United States of America.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    Going nuclear was a such a horrible idea, I'm sure the Repubs will change the rule back as soon as they're in the majority.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    One more step towards Liar in chiefs coronation!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    Re: "No, the burden of proof is on you and any Senate Republican . . . ."

    Let's be clear -- it wasn't Senate Republicans that trashed Constitutional government and fired the first shots of the Second American Civil War.

    In fact, they declined to do so in 2008, at a time when EVERY Democrat leader now praising use of the nuclear option declared undying enmity towards it, and anyone that would even think of using it.

    It is Democrats -- specifically the President and his lapdog, Bro. Reid -- that must take the blame for the inevitable consequences of what they've done. And, for no greater purpose than to preserve venal, corrupt, partisan, political control.

    They'll be treated by American historians as the equals of Jefferson Davis, John B. Floyd [sent American arms to southern forts just prior to Civil War -- Camp Floyd, of Utah War fame, is named after him], and Alexander Stephens [Confederate Cornerstone Speech -- "slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition"].

    How sad to carry that around their necks forever, as their historical legacy.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    I seem to remember a lot of Democrats putting "holds" on Bush judicial appointments and other and not allowing votes. While they may not have been filibusters, they accomplished the same thing. Hilary was particulary adept at putting holds on nominees.

    All the Democrat whining is just that. Whining. I can't wait until King Harry is in the minority party.

    Happy Harry may have just blown a big hole in the collective Democrat foot.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 25, 2013 2:11 p.m.


    YOU are wrong about Taranto.

    President Obama originally nominated Judge Taranto in November 2011. After more than a year in confirmation limbo, the president re-nominated Taranto in January 2013.

  • bricker pleasant grove, ut
    Nov. 25, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    Hold on now, it is simply changing the ability for presidential appointments to be passed by a majority instead of what could be called a super majority. Not really a bomb shell that many are acting like it is. Relax please.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    Knee jerk partisan opinion.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 25, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    To "Truthseeker" that is a nice rant, but you still have not answered the question. Why were they delayed?

    If you looked into some of the stories more than just spouting off what some liberal said, you would find that many of the appointments are held up out of TRADITION. Historically in the senate (regardless of who controls it), they delay voting on lifetime appointments until AFTER the election.

    Your infot on Richard Taranto is wrong. He was nominated January 3, 2013, then received his votes for appointment on March 12, 2013

    Like it or not, so far you have not shown that there is anything other than business as usual going on in Washington.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Why won't Obama present candidates that are acceptable to both parties? Instead he presents candidates that are as extreme, inexperienced, and partisan as he is.

    I am sure he could get candidates through the Senate if he would propose acceptable candidates.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 25, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    Good question. Why were they blocked for so long?

    * On March 11 the Senate confirmed Richard Taranto for the Federal Circuit Court by a vote of 91 to 0, 484 days after the president nominated him.

    On Feb. 25 the Senate confirmed Robert Bacharach by a vote of 93 to 0 to serve on the Tenth Circuit in Oklahoma, after he waited 263 days to get a vote. His home-state senator, GOP Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), recommended him for the post.

    * On Feb. 13, the Senate confirmed William Kayatta for the First Circuit from Maine 88 to12 after he waited 300 days.

    On Feb. 25 the Senate confirmed Robert Bacharach by a vote of 93 to 0 to serve on the Tenth Circuit in Oklahoma, after he waited 263 days to get a vote. His home-state senator, GOP Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), recommended him for the post.

    There's more.

    If these candidates were unqualified, too liberal, or questionable in any way it is represented in the confirmation tally once they finally were voted on.

    We know why. Republicans are simply sore losers and have done everything and anything to oppose Obama, even on noncontroversial appontments.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    Maybe there wouldn't have been as many filibusters during this administration if Democrats hadn't started the new administration all drunk on their Super-Majority power-play and locked out the Republicans, and consistently told them they don't need their votes because they can do whatever they want, and passed huge legislation without even trying to get a single minority vote?

    I don't know. I'm just sayin... there MAY have been better ways to kickoff your new Bi-Partisan administration than locking the Republicans out of the room.


    I have to admit that Republicans have behaved badly during this administration too.

    But what do you expect when Democrats are constantly telling Republicans they don't matter... and they are irrelevant, because we have the votes to pass whatever we want AND to overrule any filibusters they may try?

    Democrat power-play at the beginning of the Obama Administration put Republicans in a corner (where filibuster was their only option, and even that was doomed to failure because Democrats had enough votes to stop that).

    You didn't expect Republicans to take it lying down... did you? They had to protest somehow!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 25, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    To "Scoundrel" and "Happy Valley Heretic" yes that many appointments have been blocked, but the question is why? Were they blocked because the Republicans are just getting revenge? Were they blocked because they have questionable records and histories, and would do damage if they were allowed to be appointed?

    Tell us, and give us some verifiable evidence as to why they are being blocked. Don't just give us your opinion.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    @Irony Guy
    The Republicans may or may not *hate* Obama, but if they are any thing like me, they hate much more his liberal politics and policies. It's what he does that alarms so many Republicans. He's ultra left liberal in his social issues, views on governing, and views on collaboration between parties.

    And yes, there are fanatics on the other side of the aisle.

    I'm not a politician or a political scientist. All I know is that in earlier generations, the process was not so rancorous. Politicians disagreed but still worked together for the common good. That seems no longer the case. A nation divided cannot stand.

    With all the talk of *diversity*, where is there a conversation about *unity*. This is our country. All of ours. The vast majority aren't leaving any time soon. We better find a way to fix it. Working together is my suggestion. What we're doing is tearing us apart. Agreeing to disagree without being disagreeable, compromise, values, unity, . . . peace . . . . is what we need.

  • Jeremiah J. Buena Vista, VA
    Nov. 25, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    I'm with the editorial board in lamenting the disappearance of conventions which prevented the minority from engaging in the kinds of filibuster abuse which have appeared over the past 12 years. I also applaud those Senators who have tried to repair these conventions through "Gang of 14"-type agreements. But in spite of such efforts, abuses have only accumulated, leading the Senate far away from the rights-of-the-minority purpose behind cloture rules, into a tyranny of the minority where Richard Shelby can put holds on executive appointees in order to get pork for his home state, or where Lindsey Graham can hold the Federal Reserve chair appointee in order to appease GOP primary voters with Benghazi-related red meat. Senators who push the rules to their breaking point faced few negative consequences, and some became stars on cable news. The incentives were almost all on the side of an irresponsible use of the powers of the minority, with no end in sight. So I applaud Reid's "nuclear option", and I think the fact that future *Democratic* minorities will be subject to the same restrictions is a positive feature, not a bug.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    This would not even be an issue if it had not been abused so excessively in recent years. Minority power is just as corrupting as majority power when overused in absolute, unwielding and uncompromising ways and it threatens our democratic process. Want real change? Do it the way it was intended - elections. The Constitution allows Congress to make its own rules, but if the Founding Fathers believed in the supreme importance and absolute necessity for the filibuster and the numbers required, they would have included it in the provisions of legislative powers and responsibilities in the Constitution. I am sure they did not even remotely envision what is going on today.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    All you partisan people saying "Republicans brought this on their own heads"... Remember, the law doesn't only apply to Republicans. It's the new law for Democrats as well. Democrats may regret passing it one day. Because I can guarantee you it WILL be used to ram stuff through that THEY don't want as well.

    It will be interesting to hear the Democrats wail (as they did when Republicans proposed the Nuclear-Option when THEY were blocking all Bush's nominees).

    If you could hear Senator Reid's passionate opposition to the Nuclear-Option when Republicans proposed it a few years back when Democrats were in the minority so Republicans could overcome Democrat opposition to Bush's appointees... I think his famous speech back then would be a pretty good estimation of how badly Democrats will hate this law (someday... when it's used to push stuff through without partisan politicians having to work to get their support or even reduce their opposition).

    The minority can just lay down and let the majority run over them now (and Democrats will not always be in the majority).

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 25, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    DN is simply being partisan here. Fully half the nominee blockages since 1948 have happened since Obama took office! The Republicans were blocking votes just because they hate Obama. This childishness has to stop, no matter which party is in the majority.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    Re: "Does anyone seriously doubt for one moment that were the roles reversed . . . the Republicans would have "gone nuclear" far, far sooner . . . ?

    Yeah. We all do. Particularly since the roles WERE reversed just five years ago, and the Republicans did NOT go nuclear.

    EVERY Democrat who hypocritically supports the coup today came out as unequivocally, unalterably opposed to it, at the time. Joe Biden "pray[ed] to God" it would never be imposed on America. Then-Senator Obama expressed similar sentiment, noting that a move such as he just encouraged and approved would "put an end to democratic debate."

    Only liberals are as evil as their current disingenuous accusations.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Nov. 25, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    Sure, there's something to be said for keeping Senate rules unchanged. There's little point in changing things just because one party CAN.

    But, on the other hand, the GOP has taken things to such a degree that Democrats finally concluded that there was little or no downside to doing what they had already threatened for years. The final straw was blocking three judges to the D.C. Court of Appeals even though no one could think of a reason, other than politics, to block them at all. This is another beat down the Republicans brought on their own heads.

    One more thing. You can't miss today's contrast in posts. The facts are mentioned and described calmly by posters who suppot the Democratic action. From the other side, we get wild rants about tyrants, monarchies, Stalin, Hitler and the rest. Invariably, those crying the loudest just don't have the facts.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    "...Sometimes, filibuster rules have empowered less-than-noble causes, as when Southern Democrats stalled civil rights legislation...".

    Southern Democrats?

    There are few if any Southern Democrats today.

    Where did they go?

    Today they form the bedrock base of the ultra-right wing Republican Party.

    Today these folks are simply following the lead of the same people who stalled civil rights legislation.

    They have done/will continue to do everything in their power to stall the Presidency of the first black president in American history.

    The acorn did/does not fall far from the tree.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    This editorial opinion is ridiculous. Any attempt to try to compare Democratic opposition to the Cheney/Bush administration with what is happening now is pure fantasy. The numbers listed in the first comment are all we really need to see. But if we looked at the types of appointments that are being opposed and the stated reasons, we would get an even clearer picture.

    The Republicans have only themselves to blame. Simply seeking to destroy a sitting president, especially a second-term president is not an agenda, nor is it governing. So far, it has been political suicide.

    The DN opinion suggests that what goes around comes around. But the way the nation is trending, it will be a long time before the GOP controls the Senate and the White House.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 25, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    I understand the Democrats position. But I think that they have given themselves enough rope to hang themselves. Some of the judicial nominees are truly scary. If they get into positions and make their outrageous rulings, the Republicans are going to use that as a weapon . . . kind of like they are with the ACA right now.

    My advice to the Republicans is that when the situation changes, be magnaminous. Don't poke it in their eyes. No Tom Delays, no Newt Gingrichs, Cheneys or Bushs. If they do then they will rule forever.

  • ConservativeCommonTater West Valley City, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    drastic situations require drastic measures.

    The Republicans, for the last 14 years have shown little, if any, "compromise" in their actions.

    Per Sen. McConnell, the only job of Republicans is to block everything Obama wants to do. Republicans have now had about 42 losing votes on the ACA (Obamacare) even though the Supremes have declared it the law of the land.

    The anti-filibuster law may come back to bite Democrats, but for the time being it is the only option open.

    The Republicans have been holding the American people hostage for too long.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Strange that we have heard no one who favor the filibuster argue for the return of the "classic" filibuster made famous in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Yes those were the days when a Senator could stand and blather for hours about significant Constitutional issues (read: "Green Eggs and Ham") wasting what precious few hours these prima donnas actually work to govern our Country. Why no support for the real filibuster???

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 25, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    "Until 2009, cloture votes were required mostly for judicial nominations, not executive branch ones. But since Mr. Obama became president, that has changed. Between 2009 and 2011, cloture was invoked twice for judicial nominations and eight times for executive nominations.

    From 1967 to 2012, Senate majority leaders have sought to cut off debate over an executive nominee 55 times, with 23 instances occurring during the Obama presidency, according to the Congressional Research Service. During that same period, cloture was invoked 67 times for judicial nominees, 31 of those during the Obama administration.

    But 16 of Mr. Obama’s executive branch nominees have been subject to cloture votes, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Richard Cordray, nominated to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and John Brennan, head of the CIA.

    Mr. Obama is also the only one of the five most recent presidents whose average and median waiting time for circuit and district court nominees from confirmation to nomination was more than six months."
    (WSJ 11/2013)

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Nov. 25, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    The right to filibuster only makes sense when the minority party implements them judiciously. As Scoundrel proved in the first comment, the Republicans have filibustered more routine appointments in the last 5 years than all previous Senates over the previous 219 years combined. Republicans have seriously and repeatedly abused this right. If you abuse a privilege you lose it; it's that simple.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    Senator Obama claimed he would change Washington politics and bring a new era of bi-partisanship.

    Please name ONE THING President Obama has done to end partisan politics as usual...


    Democrats CLAIM to want bi-partisanship. Name one thing Democrat leaders in Congress have done to foster bi-partisanship...


    Did locking Republicans out of Congressional committee meetings early in the Obama Administration help foster a feeling of bi-partisanship?

    Did passing ObamaCare without trying to get a single Republican vote (just saying.. "why try... we don't need any Republican votes to pass this") show a commitment to wanting bi-partisan support for the laws being passed?

    I don't think so... HOW are Democrats showing they really want bi-partisan support for the laws they are passing?


    You don't do that by cramming legislation or nominations you know they will oppose down the minorities throat... just because you know you can (for now)?

    Keep doing this and you will see what it's like to be back in the minority sooner than you ever imagined. And then the laws you passed to keep the minority in line will be used to keep YOU in line.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Nov. 25, 2013 8:55 a.m.


    I can tell you precisely what the issue is with each and every nominee - they are Obama's pick.

    Yes, there are some that have specific issues/worries, but the chief issue is simply that. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    And that is why we are here.

    There are some who would not agree with the president if he stated that the sky was blue or water was wet.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    IMO This is bad. It was bad back when Republicans were in the majority. And it's equal bad now.

    I opposed it back then for the same reason I oppose it today. Your party is not ALWAYS going to be in the majority.

    You may THINK they will never be in the minority position again, but if history is any indicator of reality... It guarantees no party will stay in the majority forever. So these rules you make to silence the minority today... will for sure be used by another party to suppress YOU in the future.

    Democrats may think all that matters is today (and we are in the majority today so that's all that matters)... but that is a VERY short-sighted way to legislate.

    You should NEVER pass laws that you would not like if you were in the minority (just because you are in the majority today).

    I still think the solution is not the nuclear-option to silence the minority. The solution is to work on legislation until there is some WIN in it for both sides (so they will vote for it willingly... not have it forced down their throat).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 25, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    If a nominated judge is not fit for office, does being appointed to that office negate that fact?

    There is one simple test that would solve the underlying problem and that is to reject any judge who has legislated from the bench. The Constitution does not allow a judge to legislate. The President knows that, but he still has nominated judges who have legislated from the bench. He and they hold the Constitution in contempt when he and they have taken oaths to defend the Constitution and then openly act to defy the restrictions placed upon them by the Constitution.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 25, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    How about we discuss the real issue?

    Can someone tell me what reservations or issues that the GOP had with ANY of Obamas proposed appointees?

    Did the GOP object to the specific people that Obama put forth for confirmation?
    Was their something in these peoples past that cause the GOP to object to them?
    Were they demonstrably too liberal?


    And Mountainman. I agree with your post, but, this is how politics has always worked. Both sides are hypocrites at various times. Are you suggesting that the GOP, and you personally, do not do exactly the same thing?

    Yes, it is pathetic that our politicians "blow with the wind". But, be assured, the wind blows both sides fairly predictably.


  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    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.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    Nov. 25, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    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?

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    @The Rock,

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

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    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!

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:08 a.m.

    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?

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    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.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 6:57 a.m.

    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!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    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?

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Nov. 25, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 6:38 a.m.

    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.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 6:23 a.m.

    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!

  • HappyHeathen Puyallu, Wa.
    Nov. 25, 2013 4:03 a.m.

    “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.