[Unknown Member]

This is funny.. How a Congress with a 79 vote majority can be obstructed by the minority. Thor seems to follow the lies the losers in congress who can’t seem to get things done.. shift the blame fror their failures on to someone else..  These guys sure did Obamacare by shutting out the republicans and paying off the Unions and their thugs by passing this scheme.
 
Sorry dude.. the republicans couldn’t obstruct anything with the numbers they have.. there were democrats involved here too.  It will be interesting to see how these people will be using this method now that they are in the minority.
 
And.. sometimes.. obstructing these free spending corrupt whores in congress is not a bad thing. I wish they obstructed all this stimulous money that has done nothing. I wish they had obstructed the Obama socialistic agenda of nationalizing 4 industries.. If you ask me.. These republicans didn’t obstruct enough.

[jquinones8812_854]

Not true, Thor. In 2003, Republicans considered filibuster reform…and DEMOCRATS blocked it.

I love the hypocrisy, don’t you?

[kayla.meyer_144]

In spite of 2 years of Republican threats of filibuster and 100% Republican lock-step opposition, the Democrats have performed superbly by passing significant legislation. I frankly think the Democrats should have called Republican bluffs on each occasion but who am I to argue with success.

I think part of changing the rules also has to do with secret holds.

[jquinones8812_854]

Yup. Pretty easy, when they had a filibuster proof majority. Duh.

I am sure, if Republicans take the Senate in 2012, Democrats will LINED UP for filibuster reform. Yeah, right.

[raallen]

They will talk about some rules of the Senate being changed, but in the end something watered down will get passed. Liberals like to think they were in the driver’s seat and had a legislative mandate to turn the country left. Yet in reality their 20% representation of the country puts them fairly far from any legitimacy in establishing their agenda-no matter what the rules are. Anyway, the filibuster served as a completely necessary bulwark against the further incursion of socialism from taking root in the time of economic hardship. In our lifetime, there likely will not be senate results like what happened in 2006 and 2008 where every close election broke for the democrat. So this tilt of dem senators will likely not happen again for a good amount of time.

In any case, the real dirty fact of this last Congress is it was the democrats in the Senate that stymied the Pelosi co-opted Obama agenda. I suspect that many more moderate dems would have stepped up even if  Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Liberman hadn’t done so. Just so liberals pushing ‘filibuster reform’ (changing the rules of the Senate) out in the off-topic universe can ruminate about something: Just imagine the day of several democrat senators from the mid-west loosing to republicans in one election, a democrat President with shrinking support loosing at the same time, and a House really tilited to the right. And lets put a date on that- Nov. 6 ,2012. And now there is ‘filibuster reform’. The dems are going to be verrrry upset. It would be a good time to put that Virginia judge blocking HRC on the Supreme Court while Schumer fumes. 

[eyoab2011_711]

“Not true, Thor. In 2003, Republicans considered filibuster reform…and DEMOCRATS blocked it.”

So I guess now there is 100% agreement that reform is needed..should be easy right?

And RVU if Repubs believe what you say about 2012, this should be a no-brainer. But you are right…by fillibustering everything the Repubs transferred incredible power to a couple of Dems like Lincoln, Landrieu and Nelson who decided that it was an opportunity to sell their votes. Without the fillibuster, tehre would have been no Loisiana Purchase or Cornhusker Kickback etc.

[jquinones8812_854]

I actually think there should be reform thor…

…the problem is the minority never agrees with that…whether Repub or Dem. If Dems think there is a chance of them losing the senate in 2012, you will see support on the left melt away for filibuster reform.

To them, it is simply the game.

[kayla.meyer_144]

ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

I actually think there should be reform thor…

…the problem is the minority never agrees with that…whether Repub or Dem. If Dems think there is a chance of them losing the senate in 2012, you will see support on the left melt away for filibuster reform.

To them, it is simply the game.

So each party supports reform only when they are in the majority & oppose it when they are in the minority but only the left sees it simply as a game.

That’s game.

So if Democrats actually bring reform to the floor, it’s what, now it would be a power grab & further game-playing? The real question is whether filibuster rules needs reform & then to take that position regardless of party affiliation.

[eyoab2011_711]

Barely– agree with all the above although I could live without term limits as long as there is an age limit..cannot run for office after the age of 75. Add in must have credentials to serve on any given committee ( a governing CME credit system as it were)

[jquinones8812_854]

Week, Thor…it is ALWAYS a power grab…getting rid of the filibuster, whether you support it or not, is taking protections away from the minority. You and I may support it, but opponents do have a point.

[Unknown Member]

Neither side wants meaningful reform. Both view it as a means to block items while out of power. This has been around for decades. The problem is that it is being used more and more for less and less controversial issues. Take START treaty which was blocked for a while yet passed with >70 votes for. Now there is more use of this just for political gaming vs real desire to stop a particular program or other such thing. Even whacier is a single Senator being able to put a hold on a nomination without the vote of all the rest.

[btomba_77]

Harry Reid considering going to the “nuclear option” to change filibuster rules on executive nominees this week.
 
Should make for some interesting Mitch McConnel quotes this week.
 
 
 
 
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/senate-nuclear-option_n_3592496.html?ref=topbar]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/senate-nuclear-option_n_3592496.html?ref=topbar[/link]
 

Democrats feel equally strongly that a president who has won reelection and the voters who chose him deserve to see his policy and judicial philosophy reflected in federal agencies and judges.
[b]The only way Reid can find to make that happen is by forcing a concession from the GOP with the nuclear threat, or actually carrying out that threat.[/b]
The importance the GOP attaches to preserving a set of Senate rules that allow its senators to debilitate the NLRB and prevent a key court from tilting to the left can be gathered from senators’ impassioned statements Thursday, after Reid announced he was ready to change the rules. Indeed, they pledged that Reid would “rue the day” and that eventually the “shoe would be on the other foot.”
 
Reid and McConnell agreed to take a few days to cool off. The Senate will hold a full, private caucus Monday evening to air out differences. Reid said Thursday that he didn’t expect much to come of it. The result will be clear on Tuesday, when the majority leader calls for cloture votes on several stalled nominees.
 

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: Thor

[link=http://nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-s-returning-democrats-unanimously-favor-filibuster-reform-20101222]http://nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-s-returning-democrats-unanimously-favor-filibuster-reform-20101222[/link]

About time but of course the Repubs prefer obstruction over governing…

If you want real reform, how about a few items to start

1) term limits
2) no lobbying by former politicians for at least 5 years after they leave office
3) limits on campaign finance

of course, the party in power or whoever holds an advantage always shuts down whatever reform effort.

Candidate Obama was touting campaign finance reform and vowed to use public financing…but when the money started pouring in his favor, he shut his trap.  Such hipocrisy.

Here’s my idea of REAL REFORM:  Any politician who is found guilty of corruption gets hanged publicly.

[btomba_77]

[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/politics/democrats-seeing-precedent-press-on-to-curb-filibuster.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/politics/democrats-seeing-precedent-press-on-to-curb-filibuster.html?_r=0[/link]
 
Showdown a comin’ :
 

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada took a defiant and uncompromising stand on Monday ahead of a closed-door meeting of the Senate, saying that pushing through a rules change to end filibusters of executive branch nominations would save the Senate from becoming obsolete.
 
This is a moment in history where circumstances dictate the need for change, Mr. Reid, the majority leader, said in a speech at the liberal Center for American Progress. He suggested that there was only one way for Republicans to avoid the rules change: give Democrats a straight up-or-down vote on all seven of President Obamas nominations that are in question and stop filibustering executive nominations going forward.
I love the Senate, but right now the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed, he said.
All 100 senators are scheduled to cloister at 6 p.m. Monday in the ornate Old Senate Chamber, doors closed, to hash over Democratic plans to change the Senates rules with a simple majority motion as early as Tuesday morning. Mr. Reids position could be a bluff. Conversely, a small group of Democratic and Republican senators might yet emerge with a compromise to thwart his plans.

[eyoab2011_711]

Good for Harry…about time

[raallen]

Quote from dergon

[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/politics/democrats-seeing-precedent-press-on-to-curb-filibuster.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/politics/democrats-seeing-precedent-press-on-to-curb-filibuster.html?_r=0[/link]

Showdown a comin’ :

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada took a defiant and uncompromising stand on Monday ahead of a closed-door meeting of the Senate, saying that pushing through a rules change to end filibusters of executive branch nominations would save the Senate from becoming obsolete.

This is a moment in history where circumstances dictate the need for change, Mr. Reid, the majority leader, said in a speech at the liberal Center for American Progress. He suggested that there was only one way for Republicans to avoid the rules change: give Democrats a straight up-or-down vote on all seven of President Obamas nominations that are in question and stop filibustering executive nominations going forward.
I love the Senate, but right now the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed, he said.
All 100 senators are scheduled to cloister at 6 p.m. Monday in the ornate Old Senate Chamber, doors closed, to hash over Democratic plans to change the Senates rules with a simple majority motion as early as Tuesday morning. Mr. Reids position could be a bluff. Conversely, a small group of Democratic and Republican senators might yet emerge with a compromise to thwart his plans.

Reid and the democrats know now for sure they are going to lose the senate in 2014.  Also, RBGinsberg will likely retire after the next SCOTUS term. That’s why the issue is big right now. It will come around to bite the dems in the arse big time. This prez unpopularity is significant and will show up in all elections coming up.

[btomba_77]

Actually, I actually am [i]close[/i] to agreeing with RVU on something.  I’d call the Senate more a toss-up at this point, but the notion still stands.    But getting executive branch nominees done befoore the 2014 midterms is a priority.
 
 
As per Justice Ginsberg, the current threat Reid is making applies only to executive branch nominations, so SCOTUS would not apply.

[btomba_77]

Looking like “nuclear option” averted for now.
 
[link=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324348504578609651307203338.html]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324348504578609651307203338.html[/link]
 

 A logjam in the Senate over President [link=http://topics.wsj.com/person/O/Barack-Obama/4328]Barack Obama[/link]’s executive-branch nominees began to break Tuesday, as lawmakers voted to advance the long-stalled nomination of [link=http://topics.wsj.com/person/C/Richard–Cordray/6864]Richard Cordray[/link] to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog agency created after the 2008 financial crisis.
The vote was 71-29 to take up the nomination of Mr. Cordray, giving him more than the 60 required to move toward a vote on his confirmation. A final vote was expected later Tuesday, two years after he was first nominated.
The move was the first sign that senators had found a way to resolve a broader dispute over Mr. Obama’s nominees to his cabinet and to executive-branch offices, which had threatened to obstruct most other business in the Senate.
While details were still being worked out, Senate aides said the deal called for Mr. Cordray and four of Mr. Obama’s other nominees to be given confirmation votes Tuesday. They included nominees to the top jobs at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department and the Export-Import Bank.

 
Good work, Harry
 
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

Good work, Harry

 
Looks like he stood his ground while packing a nuclear option, huh?
Perhaps he recently learned that such a strategy works.
 
 

[btomba_77]

Yep. Straight out of the House GOP playbook.  It’s just hardball politics.  Kind of cool to watch.

[btomba_77]

And now Reid moving from executive branch nominees on to judicial appointments.  He threatens nuclear option again: 
 
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/politics/senate-democrats-consider-move-to-curb-filibusters.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/politics/senate-democrats-consider-move-to-curb-filibusters.html?_r=0[/link]
 
Reid Preparing to Move for Limits on Filibuster

 
Exasperated with the refusal of Senate Republicans to confirm many of President Obamas nominees, Mr. Reid has been speaking individually with members of his caucus to gauge whether there is enough support to change filibuster rules.
Given how much deference senators have traditionally shown to the rules and procedures of the institution many of them in place since the 18th century any modifications are a serious undertaking.
But among Democrats there is a strong consensus that Republicans have gone too far in their latest attempt to block White House appointments, by denying Mr. Obama any more judges for what is considered the most important appeals court in the country despite three vacancies.
On Monday, they denied him his third pick in less than a month to the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If Mr. Reid determines he has the support, he could schedule a vote before Friday, an aide who has spoken with him directly said Tuesday.
If the votes are there, we will probably do it this week, the aide said, speaking anonymously to divulge internal plans.
 
There are still many reasons a rules change might not go through, not the least of which is that Senate Democrats have gone down this road before only to pull back at the last minute. In July, Mr. Reid was threatening to end filibusters on nonjudicial appointments, but he relented after Republicans agreed to confirm several nominees they had held up.
 
The stakes seem higher this time for many Democrats. Many of them strongly believe that if Mr. Obama is not able to appoint any judges to the court Republicans have rejected four of the five nominees he has submitted it will retain its conservative bent for decades. It is a crucially important court for any White House because it often decides cases that relate to administration or federal agency policies.
Republicans have proposed permanently removing the three seats that are now vacant, arguing that the president would stack an underworked court with judges to his ideological liking. But since that idea has no chance of becoming law, their backup plan has been to filibuster any nomination to the court that Mr. Obama sends to the Senate.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
If theres a danger in this for Democrats, its that it could backfire when Republicans have control of the Senate and the White House, and can push their nominees through without trouble. Theres a real chance thatshould the GOP take the Senate in 2014Republicans could use this as a precedent for scrapping the filibuster entirely in January 2015.
 
Both are risks worth taking. Yes, theres value in being able to block right-wing nominees and legislation. At the same time, a GOP president [i]also[/i] has the right to staff government as he sees fit, to say nothing of the fact that the filibuster has been a historic burden for liberals, not an advantage. And honestly, if Republicans win the Senate, I have a hard time believing they wont end the filibuster as a matter of course, regardless of what Democrats do. Better for Reid to do this now, while theres still something to gain, than to wait for the other side. 
  
 

[eyoab2011_711]

He should do it because it is the right thing to do.  Time to put a stop to the nonsense.  Given that the Republicans are unlikely to sniff the White House, 2015 is the least of the Dems concern with regard to this process

[btomba_77]

[link=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/harry-reid-filibuster-go-nuclear-100139.html?ml=m_t3_2h]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/harry-reid-filibuster-go-nuclear-100139.html?ml=m_t3_2h[/link]
 
 
I’m Dergon and I approve this message –
 

Democrats, its time to bid farewell to the filibuster as weve known it. Your restraint has gone beyond admirable to foolish. The institution for which you have shown extraordinary respect over the past four years, as Republicans flouted its best traditions, is no more. Republicans have overplayed their hand by disregarding prior agreements and turning the Senate into a graveyardor at least a critical care unitfor obviously qualified presidential nominees. Republican obstruction has left you with nothing to lose by bringing the Senate fully into the 21st century and allowing the majority to rule. Its time to change the rules.
 
In the hands of a Republican minority intent on frustrating President Barack Obamas agenda, the filibuster has grown from a sparingly invoked procedural brake into a tool of open obstruction that Republicans use to slow or stop every judicial or executive branch nominee.
 
…
 
Worried about blowback? Dont be. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) helped expose the Republicans loss of leverage when he threatened that if the Democrats changed the filibuster rule, Republicans would appoint more justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Whoa! Is he suggesting that Republicans [i]wont[/i] appoint more radically conservative justices if Democrats keep the filibuster? That might be a deal worth taking, but it wouldnt be worth the paper it was printed on. If Republicans regain control of the White House, any Supreme Court nominees will very much be in the model of Scalia and Thomas, and their colleagues Roberts and Samuel Alitoif not worse. That means they will disregard any pretense of judicial restraint to eviscerate civil rights laws, restrain congressional authority to enact social legislation, support states over the federal government and big business over labor, oppose the interests of consumers and make sure the executioner stays in business.

In reality, Republicans have nothing left with which to threaten you. Just stop and think about how unimportant the filibuster has been to you. You chose not to use it to stop Thomas and Alito, even though more than enough Democrats to support a filibuster voted against each. You embraced Scalia (by unanimous vote!) and Roberts. When Republican presidents went too far, you mustered the majority vote necessary to stop them without resorting to the filibuster. Thats why we didnt have a Justice Bork, Carswell or Haynsworth, or a Secretary of Defense Tower, or an Associate Attorney General Reynolds. Sure, Miguel Estrada would be on the D.C. Circuit, but that hardly justifies tying your own hands in perpetuity.

To carry through on their threats of retaliation, Republicans have to win both the White House and a majority in the Senate. You have the White House until at least 2016, and the destiny of demography favors you far into the future. Sure, you could blow it, but its yours to lose. You have a Senate majority. Keep it.
 
Moreover, you delude yourselves if you think that Republicans will show restraint in the face of Democratic filibusters. Our politics have changed. By stretching the use of the filibuster to the limit, Republicans have signaled that the gloves are off. Its hard to imagine that keeping rules they can change with a majority will inspire them to put the gloves back on.

And consider the collateral delights. Imagine, for example, the flustered face of Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) when he realizes that he can no longer credibly threaten to filibuster Federal Reserve chair nominee Janet Yellen because hes unhappy about Benghazi. Nominees will move, and individual senators will no longer have the power of the veto.
 

Democrats, the time has come. Put the vice president in the chair, if necessary, and fix the Senate.

 

 
 
 
 

[btomba_77]

And hand now on the button —
 
 
 
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/reid-sets-in-motion-steps-to-limit-use-of-filibuster.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/reid-sets-in-motion-steps-to-limit-use-of-filibuster.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0[/link]
 
Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, set in motion on Thursday a series of procedural steps that, if followed through, would eliminate the use of the filibuster against nominees to cabinet posts and the federal judiciary, a change that would mark the most fundamental shift in the way the Senate functions in more than a generation.
 
The gravity of the situation was reflected in a highly unusual scene on the Senate floor: Nearly all 100 senators were in their seats, rapt as their two leaders debated.
 
Tensions between the two parties have reached a boiling point in the last few weeks as Republicans repeatedly filibustered Mr. Obamas picks to the countrys most important appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Senate has voted on three nominees to the court in the last month. Republicans have blocked them all, saying they would allow the president no more appointments to that court.
 
The filibuster changes Democrats are pushing for, which can be passed with just a 51-vote majority under a procedural move so contentious it is known as the nuclear option, would not affect Supreme Court nominees.

[eyoab2011_711]

Good for Harry…feedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Thor

Good for Harry…feedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose

You’re right Thor!  That was the last thing we had to lose, and old light-in-the-loafer Harry took us another step closer to losing it.  The demo-crites will rue the day they did this, especially with the 2014 elections coming up.  Pay-back is a female of the species canine.

[drmaryamgh]

Too bad they didn’t do this back in the 60’s when the democrats fillibustered the civil rights act of 1964.

[drmaryamgh]

[link=http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/11/21/Reids-Filibuster-Flip-Railed-Against-Arrogant-GOP-Thinks-They-Know-Better-Than-The-Founding-Fathers]http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/11/21/Reids-Filibuster-Flip-Railed-Against-Arrogant-GOP-Thinks-They-Know-Better-Than-The-Founding-Fathers[/link]

[odayjassim1978_476]

Go Harry Go… the nonsense had to stop..Yeah

[drmaryamgh]

Hypocrite Harry

[odayjassim1978_476]

Harry: I’m the new sheriff in town…we will stop obstruction

[drmaryamgh]

But will allow corruption with a wink and a nod to our friends.

[odayjassim1978_476]

stop spreading Fairytales

Quote from radmike

But will allow corruption with a wink and a nod to our friends.

[eyoab2011_711]

Really??Every other time it was solved through negotiation.  Republicans refused to even negotiate this time.  It is the right decision.
 
Notice that conservatives (in name only) don’t aspire to going back to the system they “believe” so strongly in

[odayjassim1978_476]

they never want to negotiate..the hostage taking has to stop…quiet when that guy broke all rules of decorum and got up in congress and shouted you lie

[Unknown Member]

Turns out he was right, tho he shouldn’t have yelled it out like that.

[drmaryamgh]

[link=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/21/Harry-Reid-Hillary-Clinton-Barack-Obama-Joe-Biden-all-opposed-Reid-s-Senate-nuclear-option-eight-years-ago]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/21/Harry-Reid-Hillary-Clinton-Barack-Obama-Joe-Biden-all-opposed-Reid-s-Senate-nuclear-option-eight-years-ago[/link]
Reid, Obama, Biden, and Clinton opposed fillibuster reform when it suited their politics.  Hypocrites and liars.

[btomba_77]

You are correct that both sides have argued on both sides of this issue going back many administrations.
 
It got worse with democrats under Bush, but has gotten [i]exponentially[/i] worse under Obama.
 
More than anything I think this simply acknowledges that polarization has fundamentally changed american politcs for the forseeable future.
 
Democrats (righly) see the repobulicans as using the fillibuster as a mechanism not to oppose appointees on thier qualifications but to halt Obama policy in the courts and executive branch.
 
They also see (rightly) that to make this change preemptively  provides the opportunity to  signficantly alter the leaning of the federal judiciary for a generation to come.
 
When gridlock holds in the legislative branch, the court become even more important.
 
Yes, this will have a downside but if they move aggressively to fill as many open judicial seats as possible ahead of the 2014 midterms and get it done it could be worth it, even it the GOP takes the Senate in 2014.
 
If the GOP doesn’t get to 51 in the Senate then it rolls on to 2016.  And even if they do take it in 2014 the rules changes won’t be as valuable to the minority party. 
 
The GOP would need to take the White House in 2016 and have the Senate in 2016 as well to really capitalize.  That’s a risk Mr. Reid is willing to take.   And I agree with him taking it.

[eyoab2011_711]

If you don’t like what Reid did then take the Senate and change the rules back
In the meantime wah wah
 
Oh BTW how did Repubs used to feel about the fillibuster???
 
[ul][*][b]Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA):[/b] Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. Its the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.[*][b]Tom Coburn (R-OK):[/b] If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years.[*][b]John Cornyn (R-TX):[/b] We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.[*][b]Mike Crapo (R-ID):[/b] Until this Congress, not one of the Presidents nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.[*][b]Lindsey Graham (R-SC):[/b] I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think its unconstitutional[*][b]Chuck Grassley (R-IA):[/b] It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and thats essentially what wed be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.[*][b]Mitch McConnell (R-KY):[/b] The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.[*][b]Jeff Sessions (R- AL):[/b] [The Constitution] says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply shall advise and consent on nominations. I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote.[*][b]Richard Shelby (R-AL):[/b] Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it. [*][b]John Thune (SD):[/b] Filibustering judicial nominees is contrary to our Constitution . It was the Founders intention that the Senate dispose of them with a simple majority vote. [/ul]

[btomba_77]

Yeah Thor, both sides have been on both sides of the issue as needed.
 
It comes down to pure political calculus – Is it worth risking the ill will, losing the (very little amount of ) remaining bipartisanship in the Senate, and the chance of turnabout sometime down the road in order to have a chance to make significant progress on the progressive agenda between now and the next presidential election?
 
The last 5 years have been block block block and there is absolutely no reason to believe a detante was forthcoming.
 
Going “nuclear” was the right move.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

Yeah Thor, both sides have been on both sides of the issue as needed.
It comes down to pure political calculus – Is it worth risking the ill will, losing the (very little amount of ) remaining bipartisanship in the Senate, and the chance of turnabout sometime down the road in order to have a chance to make significant progress on the progressive agenda between now and the next presidential election?

The last 5 years have been block block block and there is absolutely no reason to believe a detante was forthcoming.

Going “nuclear” was the right move.

Many of the procedural laws under which Congress operates depends on the good will and cooperative nature of the members of Congress. But when one rogue group decides to abuse the privilege by mindlessly filibustering every single nominee, there is no question that the rules need to change to account for the fact that there might come a time when Americans elect lunatics whose mission in life is to obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct, without voicing any rational reason whatsoever to do so. 
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Hooray! About time.

[Unknown Member]

Obama is no more liberal than any other Democratic President has been, especially when trying to recover from an economic collapse.

Hmmm, so what else could it be about Obama that is causing so much hate to bubble up in the T-Party?…

[Unknown Member]

Well gee, Luxie, its as obvious as the egg on your face!  Its cuz he’s HALF WHITE!  We were ready for a Black president, and you Commies foist this HALF WHITE guy on us! Next time, give us a REAL black candidate and we’ll be happy!

[Unknown Member]

Quote from CardiacEvent

Well gee, Luxie, its as obvious as the egg on your face!  Its cuz he’s HALF WHITE!  We were ready for a Black president, and you Commies foist this HALF WHITE guy on us! Next time, give us a REAL black candidate and we’ll be happy!

What a fascinatingly sarcastic exposure of the obvious.

[Unknown Member]

Its only obvious to you.

[eyoab2011_711]

Wrong again CE, wrong again

[btomba_77]

Now that the deed is done Harry had damned well best use it to maximum effect from now until Nov. 2014.
 
If the Democratic senate can fill all or nearly all of the currently unfilled lifetime appointments open for the federal bench the democrats can hold a left-leaning tilt for a generation to come.  These people could serve 30 years on the bench.
 
It’s only worth going nuclear if the dems use it to full advnatage while they hold the house.   The Senate in 2014 was roughly a toss up before the ACA roll out.  I think the electoral climate is singificantly worse now for dems than it was 6 weeks ago.  It could change, but I wouldn’t count on holding the senate in 2014.
 
Now, the GOP can’t take maximum advantage of the change in senate rules with Obama holding a veto pen, but a change over in 2014 still would be problematic.
 
So get moving, Harry!  Let’s get this done!
 
 
[link=http://judicialnominations.org/]http://judicialnominations.org/[/link]
 
(( a nice resource)).
 
 

[odayjassim1978_476]

Agree D, time is important…they got to start working …Obama’s term is over in 3 years.
 

Quote from dergon

Now that the deed is done Harry had damned well best use it to maximum effect from now until Nov. 2014.

If the Democratic senate can fill all or nearly all of the currently unfilled lifetime appointments open for the federal bench the democrats can hold a left-leaning tilt for a generation to come.  These people could serve 30 years on the bench.

It’s only worth going nuclear if the dems use it to full advnatage while they hold the house.   The Senate in 2014 was roughly a toss up before the ACA roll out.  I think the electoral climate is singificantly worse now for dems than it was 6 weeks ago.  It could change, but I wouldn’t count on holding the senate in 2014.

Now, the GOP can’t take maximum advantage of the change in senate rules with Obama holding a veto pen, but a change over in 2014 still would be problematic.

So get moving, Harry!  Let’s get this done!

[link=http://judicialnominations.org/]http://judicialnominations.org/[/link]

(( a nice resource)).

[Unknown Member]

So lemme get this straight. You guys think that us stoooopid rednecks in flyover country hate our President because he’s black, is thtat it? You couldn’t be more wrong, but you just go on thinking that. We don’t like the Communistic turn this country has taken, which you obviously do, but I couldn’t give one good goddam what color he is. Obviously that’s the first thing you racist Communists think of though. 

[odayjassim1978_476]

yawn/ always the race card

Quote from CardiacEvent

So lemme get this straight. You guys think that us stoooopid rednecks in flyover country hate our President because he’s black, is thtat it? You couldn’t be more wrong, but you just go on thinking that. We don’t like the Communistic turn this country has taken, which you obviously do, but I couldn’t give one good goddam what color he is. Obviously that’s the first thing you racist Communists think of though. 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Did Slim Pickens look like Harry Reid or does Harry Reid look like Slim Pickens?
 
I’m confused.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from Noah’sArk

yawn/ always the race card

The Cardiac doth protest too much, methinks.

[Unknown Member]

I just love the way you commies play this game. First Luxie makes it clear that he thinks we don’t like the President because of his race. Then when I call him on it [size=”5″][b][i]IM [/i][/b][/size]playin the race card? You guys need some psychiatric help. 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from CardiacEvent

I just love the way you commies play this game. First Luxie makes it clear that he thinks we don’t like the President because of his race. Then when I call him on it [<font][b][i]IM [/i][/b]playin the race card? You guys need some psychiatric help. 

All I said was that since Obama has not demonstrated himself to be any more of a liberal than other liberal presidents during an economic crisis, there must be some other reason the GOP hates him so much more. There’s no debate about it, here’s the proof, let the reader decide:
 
[link]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=404739[/link]
 
[b][i][u]YOU[/u][/i][/b], on the other hand, are clearly the one who brought up [u][b]race[/b][/u].
 
Now man up to it, or get lost.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Now that the Democrats have blown up  200 year old Senate rules for short-term political gain, all restraints are off. Harry Reid finally lost all of his marbles.
 
The crossing of the Rubicon by the Democrats will unleash a wave of hyper-partisanship in the Senate. The US Senate tradition of being a deliberative body with a modicum or restraint will give way to a new generation of my way or the highway rule. The majority party will be free to re-write the rules. In 2014 when the GOP gets both houses, there will be no more heed to listen to John McCain pleading for compromise. Retribution will be predictable. 
 
An empowered GOP will likely stack the courts with conservatives. Liberals will scream like banshees, but no-one will care.
 
I hope Republicans fire all members of the NLRB and replace them with conservatives, fire all appointed state and Federal attorney generals and replace them with conservatives, gut the EPA, change the filibuster rules for legislation and Supreme Court appointees. Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare and follow through on investigations of the IRS, Benghazi and Fast-and-Furious until the truth comes out.
 
This is going to be fun! 

[btomba_77]

Quote from aldadoc

Now that the Democrats have blown up  200 year old Senate rules for short-term political gain, all restraints are off. Harry Reid finally lost all of his marbles.

The crossing of the Rubicon by the Democrats will unleash a wave of hyper-partisanship in the Senate. The US Senate tradition of being a deliberative body with a modicum or restraint will give way to a new generation of my way or the highway rule. The majority party will be free to re-write the rules. In 2014 when the GOP gets both houses, there will be no more heed to listen to John McCain pleading for compromise. Retribution will be predictable. 

An empowered GOP will likely stack the courts with conservatives. Liberals will scream like banshees, but no-one will care.

I hope Republicans fire all members of the NLRB and replace them with conservatives, fire all appointed state and Federal attorney generals and replace them with conservatives, gut the EPA, change the filibuster rules for legislation and Supreme Court appointees. Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare and follow through on investigations of the IRS, Benghazi and Fast-and-Furious until the truth comes out.

This is going to be fun! 

 
Yeah.   I tend to think that this is just another incremental step on the path of the already existing wave of hyperpartisanship but it will certainly get worse now.
 
If the GOP takes the Senate in 2014 (with the ACA roll out I’m modifying my assessment to a “better than fair shot”) their ability to use the rules to full advantage won’t be large.  This is because Obama will still have appointment power until 2016 and, should the rules change on legislative fillibustering, Obama will still hold the veto pen.
 
The GOP will need to both hold the senate in 2016 [i]and win the Presidency[/i] in order to start stacking the courts.  That’s why I’ve advised the Mr. Reid take the next year to fill as many spot as possible leading to Nov. ’14 so that there aren’t too many vacancies remaining after the election occurs.
 
The real election is 2016.  High stakes there.  Americans tend to vote divided government but in those wave elections where one party holds all three houses for a cycle the new game will be “push through your agenda as hard and as fast as you can”.
 
 
 

[Unknown Member]

We are witnessing the making of a.Banana Republic. Quite the coincidence, the same week that Maduro expands his powers in Venezuela, Harry Reid does a similar thing in the US Senate.

Blowing up a 200 year old Parliamentary rule is never a good idea; particularly a rule designed to force consensus. I was against this when the Republicans threatened to do this and I’m still against this.

Things don’t work out as tidy as Dergon would like. Unintended consequences are predictably unpredictable. What if the GOP gets both houses in 2014 and Obama gets impeached over his many lies and deceptions? Where are you then with your court packing scheme?

[Unknown Member]

Quote from aldadoc

Unintended consequences are predictably unpredictable.

…as the Republicans found out the hard way. If anyone is guilty of abusing power, it VERY CLEARLY is the GOP for filibustering its brains out.

Aldadoc, your “ifs” NEVER EVER happen! EVER!
Just stop with your ridiculous paranoia!

[btomba_77]

What if the GOP gets both houses in 2014 and Obama gets impeached over his many lies and deceptions? Where are you then with your court packing scheme?

 
Well.   First — no matter what happens, Reid has from now until Nov. 2014 plus lame duck to get done as many as he can.
 
 
I personally don’t think having Obama impeachment as a likely scenario.  His “lies and decptions” thus far are political in nature and, despite intense efforts by the GOP, not criminal.    I don’t think Boehner would be excited about impeaching over “If you like your plan you can keep it” after a GOP win in 2014,  but who knows what he could be pressured into.  
 
But, if it were to come to pass that the house votes to impeach (unlikely, but possible), and if the Senate voted to remove Obama from office ( highly highly unlikely), then it would simply be President Biden until 2016 making appointments and running the executive branch and vetoing GOP legislation until the next election.
 
But Obama isn’t going to be removed from office.  
 
Nope, in order to turn the tables, the Republicans  simply have to win the White House in 2016 and simultaneously have the Senate at the same time.
 

 
 

[Unknown Member]

I for one, will be astonished if the Dems drop Senate seats any time soon. The changing demographics in the USA are so incompatible with the Republican platform this point that nothing short of a Dem candidate screaming “I hate latinos and blacks!” Can lose any Dem Senate seats.

The current GOP ideology is stuck in the corner of squeezing the gerrymander blood from each district. It’s simply impossible statistically to achieve that on a statewide level to gain Senate seats, let alone nationally for the POTUS election.

[btomba_77]

I don’t know. Middterms are older and whiter than national elections which act as a counter to the longterm demograghic trends. Also, the specific 2014 senate races have a net favorability to the GOP.
 
Of course candidates matter and if the Tea Party triumphs in a lot of the GOP primaries then the democrats have a better chance at keeing the chamber blue.  
 
[image]http://www.auntminnie.com/Forum/” alt=”” /> 
[link=http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/can-republicans-win-the-senate-in-2014/?_r=0]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/can-republicans-win-the-senate-in-2014/?_r=0[/link]
 
 

If Republicans swept all the lean and tossup races, they would gain a net of eight seats from Democrats, giving them a 53-to-47 majority in the 114th Congress. If Democrats swept instead, they would lose just one seat and would hold a 54-to-46 majority. Considering the uncertainty in the landscape, estimates from betting markets that Democrats have [link=http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?searchQuery=senate]about a 63 percent chance of holding their majority[/link] appear to be roughly reasonable.
 
One last factor to consider is that as difficult as the Democratic Senate map looks in 2014, Republicans [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016]could face an equally challenging one in 2016[/link]. In that year, seven Republican-held seats will be up in states won by Mr. Obama in 2012, while no Democrats will face re-election in states won by Mr. Romney.
Thus, as ridiculous as it might seem to look so far ahead, the most important reverberations from the 2014 Senate races might not be felt until 2016 and beyond. Republicans will need to make considerable gains next year to open up the possibility of a Republican-controlled Congress after 2016. If Democrats hold their ground, conversely, it would provide for the outside possibility of their holding a filibuster-proof majority after 2016.
Nate Silver had the handicapping above coming down to a toss up at 50-50.   But that was before the ACA which, if not significantly improved in public opinion come a year from now, will add net benefit to the GOP.  

 
A GOP 51-52 seat Senate is a real possibility. 
 
 

[eyoab2011_711]

There is something amusing about the right squeling like stuck pigs after all the abuse they have heaped on the system.  Funny that while they profess to believe in the fillibuster (which is not part of the Constitution) as a birthright; they also have not said that the first order of business if they ever had power again would be to reinstate the rule

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Lux

I for one, will be astonished if the Dems drop Senate seats any time soon. The changing demographics in the USA are so incompatible with the Republican platform this point that nothing short of a Dem candidate screaming “I hate latinos and blacks!” Can lose any Dem Senate seats.

The current GOP ideology is stuck in the corner of squeezing the gerrymander blood from each district. It’s simply impossible statistically to achieve that on a statewide level to gain Senate seats, let alone nationally for the POTUS election.

Your partially correct, but as usual for the wrong reason. Republicans aren’t racist by and large, although YOU Communists ARE, bacause that is ALL you ever think about for any issue whatsoevr. Don’t care if the candidate IS latino or Black as long as he/she/it is the best candidate. Tell me racist richboy Communist, which candidate of which race got 97% of the votes of the race he choses to idntify with, HMMMMMMMMMMM? So why aint THAT racist? 
 
Where you are right is about the changing of the US. We are at the tipping point where the moochers vote themselves swag paid for by me and cheered on by you guilt-reidden Communists who think youre going to buy your way into Commie Heaven by heaping MY money onto the poor. You don’t get this, your psychopathology won’t LET you get this, but maybe the children reading this God-forsaken bored might understand. So we will indeed turn into the United Socialist States of Amerika, and you guys will be ever so proud of the revolution, your dark hearts bursting with pride at how you screwed those nasty rich selfish republicans.  Until your beloved STATE can’t pay for anything. Until you have lines to buy a pound of butter or a loaf of bread because there isn’t enough. 
 
Get it through your skulls, boys. YOU are the racists. No one else even cares anymore except you lefties still hiding your Communist Manifestos behind some really old news.

[btomba_77]

Quote from CardiacEvent

Where you are right is about the changing of the US. We are at the tipping point where the moochers vote themselves swag paid for by me and cheered on by you guilt-reidden Communists who think youre going to buy your way into Commie Heaven by heaping MY money onto the poor. 

That’s right. That’s the kind of apocalyptic political messging that people find so uplifting.   That’s a real winner of a message,  “The country has failed and the GOP just can’t win becuase there aren’t enough real Americans to support us.”
 
 
This is part and parcel of Tea Party thinking.   We’re either at the edge of a cliff to socialism or have already crossed. There is no hope that America will be great again.  It’s all over. Turn out the light. Conservatism has lost.
 
 
I like it.  Give up. Thanks 🙂
 
 
 
 
(( actually, I think a lot of this will sort itself as the GOP finds a new equilibrium over time.  Either the Tea Party fades from influence as moderation takes hold or, the Party splinter, leaving the Tea Party as a real third party.  This then allows the remaining establishment GOP to move middle, picking up fiscal conservatives,  white working class, and enough conservative minority voters to make a viable governing coalition.  How long this process takes and which happens ….. I don’t profess to know.  ))
 
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

The Right can’t govern. As Moynihan said, “If you are contemptuous of government, you get a contemptuous government.” The Republican formula is for a contemptuous government, not a government that works. conservatives can’t win because failure IS the conservative ideal. It’s all in their rhetoric.
 
[link=http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-the-tea-party-cant-govern/]http://www.theamericancon…tea-party-cant-govern/[/link]
 

But the Tea Party is wrong: this is not extremism in defense of liberty, its extremism in defense of failurethe failure of conservatism as it has been defined since the 1970s to become a philosophy of government.
The Tea Partys critics in the conservative establishment[i]National Review[/i]s Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru, for exampleare also wrong. They insist that if only conservatives support the rightwardmost viable candidate, with an emphasis on viable, they may elect another Reagan. This, of course, is what Republican voters did every time between 1988 and 2012, when they nominated two Bushes, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
But the vices of the Tea Party are just as real, and Senator Cruz exemplifies them. His foreign policy is characterized by reflexive, if partisan, nationalismbefore opposing Obamas plan to bomb Syria, Cruz had in fact called for a clear, practical plan to go in. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right. The Texas senators domestic policies, meanwhile, are the same ones the right has championed since the 1970s. Indeed, Cruz represents a brand of conservatism that belongs to that era.
[b]In terms of creating a new kind of state to replace Franklin Roosevelts social-insurance state, Reagan and his supporters were bereft of vision. The Republican Congress of 1994 ran into the same problem. The negative vision was not enough even on its terms because the only way to truly transform or get rid of existing institutions is to propose new ones. Absent that, a negative agenda quickly runs afoul of the needs and demands of the publicand without an alternative to propose, the revolutionaries revert to the ways of the [i]ancien regime[/i].[/b]
 

 
 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from CardiacEvent

Your partially correct, but as usual for the wrong reason. Republicans aren’t racist by and large, although YOU Communists ARE, bacause that is ALL you ever think about for any issue whatsoevr. Don’t care if the candidate IS latino or Black as long as he/she/it is the best candidate. Tell me racist richboy Communist, which candidate of which race got 97% of the votes of the race he choses to idntify with, HMMMMMMMMMMM? So why aint THAT racist? 

Very funny. Now let’s look at the ethnicity, gender, and voting record of both chambers of Congress, and behold, your ivory tower hyperbole instantly vaporizes.

[Unknown Member]

I’m no big fan of how the GOP has been behavin either. I would yell for a third party but all that would do is take away what few votes the GOP can get these days. Yeah, they have failed in many ways, true dat. Problem is that their message is fragmented, with RINOS on one end, and Cruz on the other (personally I’m liking Cruz more and more…at least he follows through on what he says witch is more that I can say for some fo the leadership.) You Communists on the other hand have a much better level of Comeraderie (get it? Comrade!!!) since you all mainly want wealth redistribution for whatever reason, be it that you want to give away other people’s $$$ or to GET other people’s $$$. Or just power. And you guys are definitely doin a better job of getting that message out ther.  
 
As for the racist thing, you just keep thinkin that. It isn’t true, hasn’t been tru for the majority of conservatives in a very long time. Isn’t there a black REpublican US senator? And though he waas booted out by a concerted Communist campaign, don’t forget Col. Alan West was a very conservative black rep from Florida. Now since you are a racist, youll be calling them Uncle Toms or OREOS or some other witty epithat, so you can keep projecting your own personal vicious KKK-level racism onto conservatives. But that aint correct and deep down in your heart you know it. Easier to yell RACIST than to admit your own corrupt coommunist philosophy is bankrupt.  Besides, you Commies keep harping about how the PEOPLE elect the Congress, so whatever stupid think the Congress does, like vote in the ACA, is simpley the WILL of the PEOPLE, so suck it up. So I guess the Composition of the Congress is simply the WILL of the People too, so why are you whining about it.
 
And to repeat the question you won’t answer….Please tell me, racist richboy Communist, which candidate of which race got 97% of the votes in a national election of the race HE choses to idntify with, HMMMMMMMMMMM? So why aint THAT racist?  Please enlighten me. Without Communist BS if you please.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from CardiacEvent

And to repeat the question you won’t answer….Please tell me, racist richboy Communist, which candidate of which race got 97% of the votes in a national election of the race HE choses to idntify with, HMMMMMMMMMMM? So why aint THAT racist?  Please enlighten me. Without Communist BS if you please.

And you keep repeating the wrong question. I only criticize racists when their ideology is oppressive against a race. I don’t see how 97% of blacks voting for Obama represents an oppressive action against a race. For example, does it present a hardship against whites or Asians? I can see how it might present a hardship against the wealthy, but that’s because of the social programs that the wealthy claim favor the poor, sick, and elderly. It’s not specifically about race as it is socioeconomic.

For example, the vast majority of poor in Tennessee are white: [link=http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/06/22/tennessee-the-color-of-crime/]http://www.occidentaldiss…ee-the-color-of-crime/[/link]

Likewise for Kentucky: [link=http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/07/08/kentucky-the-color-of-crime/]http://www.occidentaldiss…ky-the-color-of-crime/[/link]

In fact, there are almost twice as many whites living in poverty than blacks in the USA, and 70% of the USA workforce living in poverty is white, so I don’t understand your “97%” problem.

In fact, I’ve read that between 92% and 96% of voting black chose Obama in 2012, not 97%. I can’t find a single source that claimed it was as high as 97%, so it’s very telling that you STILL chose to inflate event THAT. Your racist complaint has no traction at all.

It’s pretty clear who the racist is.

[Unknown Member]

Yup. You be the racist. Wanna quibble over 96% vs 97%? Are you just stooooopid or crazy? pick one.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from CardiacEvent

Yup. You be the racist. Wanna quibble over 96% vs 97%? Are you just stooooopid or crazy? pick one.

Neither, just perceptive.
 
Keep talking. I’m sure you haven’t run out of nails yet.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

The recently changed senate rule was 40 yrs old, not 200. Any child can find dozens of quotes from both parties on both sides of the question when it fits their political agenda, thus it is obviously a political gambit. That said, the republican abuse of the filibuster had a predictable and probably necessary consequence. If the kids can’t be responsible, new rules arise in my house too.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from uncleduke

The recently changed senate rule was 40 yrs old, not 200. Any child can find dozens of quotes from both parties on both sides of the question when it fits their political agenda, thus it is obviously a political gambit. That said, the republican abuse of the filibuster had a predictable and probably necessary consequence. If the kids can’t be responsible, new rules arise in my house too.

Yeah, aldadoc seems to think that just because a law is “200” years old, it somehow has earned its way into being sacred and immutable. That sounds eerily like Ben Carson’s “don’t mess with long-standing traditional institutions”. Hah, like slavery, Ben?
 
I guess aldadoc is not black or female.
 
 

[btomba_77]

Here comes the push:
[link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/09/senate_dems_push_obama_nominees_120895.html]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/09/senate_dems_push_obama_nominees_120895.html[/link]
 

 
On Monday, the Senate will vote to confirm Patricia Millett to become a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Over the next two weeks, Reid plans to push five more major nominees through the Senate.
They include Janet Yellen to lead the Federal Reserve, Jeh Johnson to head the Department of Homeland Security and Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency. There are also two more Obama picks for the remaining vacancies on the D.C. court – attorney Cornelia “Nina” Pillard and U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins.
There is little doubt all five will be approved. But time-consuming GOP delays are possible, especially against Watt. Some Republicans say he is not qualified to run an agency that oversees federally backed home lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Under Senate rules, once a filibuster is defeated, senators can debate nominations for circuit court judges and Cabinet-level appointees for 30 hours before a vote on final confirmation. For a lesser post like Watt’s, the maximum is eight hours.

 
 
 

[btomba_77]

[b][link=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/05/harry-reids-court-packing-scheme-pays-off-in-halbig-case/]Harry Reids Court-Packing Scheme Pays Off In Halbig Case[/link][/b]
 

This article is quite critical of the Reid decision, written from an ACA opponent’s perspective., but the title hits it right.
 
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/how-going-nuclear-unclogged-the-senate-110238.html]http://www.politico.com/s…the-senate-110238.html[/link]
 
 
___
 
I like this one –
 
[b]
[h1]How going nuclear unclogged the Senate[/b][/h1]  

 
The Senate barely does anything these days except approve judges that could shape the law for a generation.
Since Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) changed Senate rules in November to ease the approval of most of President Barack Obamas nominees, Democrats have churned through confirmations of dozens of new judges giving them lifetime appointments that will extend the administrations influence for years to come. Over a roughly equivalent period during the 113th Congress, the Senate confirmed 36 district and circuit court judges before the rules change and 68 after, according to Senate [link=https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/nom_confc.htm]statistics[/link].
 
Republicans have fought Democrats at every step, using their remaining procedural tools to stymie quick approval of judges and many executive branch nominees whose sway over regulations are magnified by todays congressional stalemate. But the days of epic confirmation fights are over now because all nominees save for those to the Supreme Court need only a bare majority for approval after Democrats used the unilateral nuclear option to change the rules.

 
Now, Obama is catching up to the judicial confirmation records of his immediate predecessors and recasting the balance of the courts. Far more important than the minuscule number of major new laws this Congress, Democrats say, will be the installation of liberal-leaning justices up and down the bench.
 
The rules change has made a huge difference, said Marge Baker, a vice president at People for the American Way. The legacy of this Congress has been the impact that the president and the Senate have made with judicial vacancies.
 
Asked for a retrospective reaction to the rules change of nine months ago, Americans United for Change President Brad Woodhouse answered: If the question is whether I would want to see it done again: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
 
We have cleared a backlog of judges and addressed judicial emergencies. I think thats important as a Democrat, as someone that wants to see more judges appointed by this president, he said.

  

 
Good job, Harry!
 
 
 

[btomba_77]

A bit of the “nuclear option” and a bit of help from Ted Cruz helping Harry Reid get through a dozen more lifetime judicial nominees with lifetime appointments in the lame duck session.
 
[link=http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20141215-republicans-blame-ted-cruz-for-string-of-year-end-obama-confirmations.ece]http://www.dallasnews.com…bama-confirmations.ece[/link]
 

[b]Republicans blame Ted Cruz for string of year-end Obama confirmations[/b][/h1]  

Unhappy Republicans say Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has given President Barack Obama a present this holiday season a gift certificate good for confirmation of 12 judicial appointments, not long after the voters had delivered the Democrats a lump of coal in midterm elections.
 
Among them are nominees that Republicans have sought to block for two relatively high-profile posts. They are Vivek Murthy to become surgeon general and Sarah Saldaña to head Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that will oversee the new administration policy on immigration that Cruz wants to defund.
 
At the root of the dispute lay a combination of the Senate’s all-but-indecipherable rules, Cruz’s attempt to use their murky corners to his advantage, and a bipartisan desire of many lawmakers to finish work for the year and return home for the holidays.
 
Among them are nominees that Republicans have sought to block for two relatively high-profile posts. They are Vivek Murthy to become surgeon general and Sarah Saldaña to head Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that will oversee the new administration policy on immigration that Cruz wants to defund.
 
At the root of the dispute lay a combination of the Senate’s all-but-indecipherable rules, Cruz’s attempt to use their murky corners to his advantage, and a bipartisan desire of many lawmakers to finish work for the year and return home for the holidays.
 
Had Cruz not made his move when he did, according to officials in both parties, Reid would have had to wait until Monday night more than 48 hours later. Disgruntled Republicans said they felt confident that Reid’s rank and file would not have been willing to remain in Washington in that case, and only four or five nominees would be confirmed instead of 23.
 

 
 
 

[btomba_77]

[url]http://thehill.com/homenews/house/232635-house-conservatives-push-mcconnell-to-gut-filibuster[/url]

House Conservatives pressure McConnell to change filibuster rules over the DHS funding (Immigration Executive Orders) issue.

McConnell has previously pledged to revert to “regular order” if the GOP took the Senate.  I don’t think he’ll be willing to blow it up even further.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

[link=http://thehill.com/homenews/house/232635-house-conservatives-push-mcconnell-to-gut-filibuster]http://thehill.com/homenews/house/232635-house-conservatives-push-mcconnell-to-gut-filibuster[/link]

House Conservatives pressure McConnell to change filibuster rules over the DHS funding (Immigration Executive Orders) issue.

McConnell has previously pledged to revert to “regular order” if the GOP took the Senate.  I don’t think he’ll be willing to blow it up even further.

 
Harry Reid sure did!
Payback is a beatch. Two can play the equivalency game. Et tu, Brutus.

[btomba_77]

[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/obama-end-routine-filibuster-115019.html]http://www.politico.com/s…filibuster-115019.html[/link]
 
Obama is calling for the end of the “routine use of the filibuster” in the Senate.

[odayjassim1978_476]

Amen L, we are Americans and I find it offensive an disgusting someone would label us with the C word on this DAY given the historical sig

Quote from Lux

Quote from CardiacEvent

I just love the way you commies play this game. First Luxie makes it clear that he thinks we don’t like the President because of his race. Then when I call him on it [<font][b][i]IM [/i][/b]playin the race card? You guys need some psychiatric help. 

All I said was that since Obama has not demonstrated himself to be any more of a liberal than other liberal presidents during an economic crisis, there must be some other reason the GOP hates him so much more. There’s no debate about it, here’s the proof, let the reader decide:

[link=http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=404739]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=404739[/link]

[b][i][u]YOU[/u][/i][/b], on the other hand, are clearly the one who brought up [u][b]race[/b][/u].

Now man up to it, or get lost.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Noah’sArk

they never want to negotiate..the hostage taking has to stop…quiet when that guy broke all rules of decorum and got up in congress and shouted you lie

Arkboy, ya’ gotta’ call ’em like you see ’em.  Know when the obummer is telling a lie?  Old Lux gets 3 inches added to his proboscis. That is one really long nosed demo-crite.

[btomba_77]

[url=http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/256631-senate-gop-opens-door-to-weakening-the-filibuster]Senate Republicans open door to weakening the filibuster[/url]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is opening the door to changing the filibuster in response to growing pressure from Republicans angered that Democrats have blocked legislation from reaching the White House.

McConnell has appointed a special task force to explore changes to the filibuster rule and other procedural hurdles including whether to eliminate filibusters on motions to proceed to legislation. Thats a tactic the minority often uses to shut down a bill before amendments can be considered.

McConnell, a Senate traditionalist, doesnt want to do away with the filibuster. He and other Republicans fear a decision to gut the filibuster further would boomerang on the party especially if Democrats retake the Senate in next years elections.  But McConnell and his allies have taken note of the growing pressure, especially after Republicans were unable to block funding for Planned Parenthood or to stop President Obamas nuclear deal with Iran.
 

[btomba_77]

[url=http://www.thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/302513-reid-dems-could-change-rules-for-supreme-court-nominees]Reid: ‘I have set the Senate’ for nuclear option[/url]

The outgoing Democratic leader told Talking Points Memo that he’s paved the way for what would be a historic change of the Senate’s rules, allowing Supreme Court nominees to bypass a 60-vote procedural requirement and be approved by a simple majority. “I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, were going to be able to get judges done with a majority,” he said.
 
“Its clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, Ive told ’em how and Ive done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. Itll have to be done again.” 
 
 Reid’s comments come as Senate Republicans have refused to give Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing or a vote for more than eight months. They argue that the vacancy from Justice Antonin Scalia’s death should be filled by the president’s successor.   Reid, who has previously floated changing the rules in 2017, added to TPM that if Republicans “mess with the Supreme Court, it’ll be changed just like that in my opinion. So Ive set that up. I feel very comfortable with that.

[btomba_77]

[b]Reid Says Biden Should End Filibuster Quickly[/b][/h1]  
Former Senate leader Harry Reid says if Democrats win the presidency and the Senate, Joe Biden should take no more than three weeks to test bipartisanship before ending the filibuster so Democrats can overcome what they call Republican obstruction and pass bills, the [link=https://news.yahoo.com/reid-says-biden-end-senate-130634737.html]AP[/link] reports.
 
Said Reid: Biden who wants always to get along with people I understand that. We should give the Republicans a little bit of time, to see if theyre going to work with him. But the times going to come when hes going to have to move in and get rid of the filibuster.

 

[ruszja]

Quote from dergon

[b]Reid Says Biden Should End Filibuster Quickly[/b][/h1]  
Former Senate leader Harry Reid says if Democrats win the presidency and the Senate, Joe Biden should take no more than three weeks to test bipartisanship before ending the filibuster so Democrats can overcome what they call Republican obstruction and pass bills, the [link=https://news.yahoo.com/reid-says-biden-end-senate-130634737.html]AP[/link] reports.

Said Reid: Biden who wants always to get along with people I understand that. We should give the Republicans a little bit of time, to see if theyre going to work with him. But the times going to come when hes going to have to move in and get rid of the filibuster.

Mr Reid, your opinion in this matter is duly noted.
However, it is your decision to end the filibuster on judicial appointments that allowed the partisan confirmation of justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett, so we’ll take it for what it’s worth.

[clickpenguin_460]

Senate seems more and more likely to be a 50/50 split.  I doubt they can get Manchin to go along with changing the filibuster, adding DC, etc.  2022 is a tough Senate map for Republicans though so who knows.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Reid lowered 60 vote requirement for appointing many positions but not for Supreme Court appointees. That was done by McConnell in 2017. Reid changed the 60 vote requirement because Republicans voted in a bloc that allowed no judges to be appointed regardless.

Senate Republicans attempted to filibuster multiple Obama nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, his pick for Defense secretary, and his choices to lead the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In other words, Obama was able to appoint no one due to Republican refusal to consider anyone.

[btomba_77]

538 still has senate median between 51-52 D …
 
tough lift either way.

[ruszja]

Quote from Frumious

Reid lowered 60 vote requirement for appointing many positions but not for Supreme Court appointees. That was done by McConnell in 2017. Reid changed the 60 vote requirement because Republicans voted in a bloc that allowed no judges to be appointed regardless.

 
Reids change applied to all judiciary appointees. It was believed that there was some kind of gentlemans agreement that this change would not be used to cram through a supreme court appointment. Well, it appears that there are no gentlemen left in the senate.
 
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett are Reids doing.

[clickpenguin_460]

Republicans wouldn’t have done that if Reid hadn’t broken that barrier in the first place.
 
Also, what would you all say if Republicans win the Senate and House and Trump wins the White House and Republicans went ahead and eliminated the filibuster. You’d be all for it right?  
 
You guys basically support eliminating the filibuster when either party next controls all three?

[kayla.meyer_144]

Alternate history scenarios are fun…

[btomba_77]

You can’t chicken-egg the responsibility for the partisan escalation in the senate.    For any event cited where “Democrats shot first” someone can go back a few years and find a Republican antecedent event … and vice versa.
 
________________________
 
 
As for my support, it depends on what the Dems do with the filibuster change.
 
If they only plan to pass legislation that can be nixed the next time the GOP has all three chambers then it’s probably not worth the political blowback.
 
If they do something like PR and DC statehood, then yes, I’d support it.
 
Let the House pass HR 1 (the political reform bill), re-instatement of a $1 individual mandate to moot the ACA cases, and a repeal of the Trump tax plan.
 
If McConnell blocks cloture on any of those and doesn’t allow a floor vote then I say go for it … and push everything you can up until the 2022 midterms.
 
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

Over the long haul I believe things will turn progressive any way. Younger people tend to be more progressive. As the Mitch McConnells die anyway

[btomba_77]

Maybe. Many democracies have shown backsliding toward right wing minority rule autocracies

The fact that a sizable majority of the populace favors more progressive policies in no way assured that those policies will be enacted.

[ruszja]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

Over the long haul I believe things will turn progressive any way. Younger people tend to be more progressive. As the Mitch McConnells die anyway

 
At some point the US will be like europe where in many countries your only option during an election are different shades of collectivists. 

[Unknown Member]

At some point people need to realize that fossil fuels are finite and by transitioning to renewables we can actually create new industries and jobs in the process of having a viable future for other generations

Hopefully

[Unknown Member]

And hopefully

Science matters

Education is important

Conspiracy makes us weaker

[clickpenguin_460]

Unbiased education of facts and not opinions is important.

Unbiased science that allows all viewpoints and testing matters.

Conspiracy theories are not helpful.

[Unknown Member]

Yeah

Pumping hydroxychloroquine because a lawyer does a study and presents on Laura Ingraham show is not exactly science

And denying the fact that it doesnt work for 4 frickin months because you dont want to be wrong is not science

Nor is taking epidemiology and public health advice from a neuroradiologist because he fits your political agenda

Would you like more?

[clickpenguin_460]

If those are directed toward me, I don’t/didn’t do either of those things.
 
Also, I’m sure you have never followed advice that was bad in retrospect or ever made false assumptions/statements in your life huh?
 
We can go back on topic now.
 
I could get on board with 55 votes for a filibuster change.  What about you all? 

[clickpenguin_460]

Quote from dergon

As for my support, it depends on what the Dems do with the filibuster change.

If they only plan to pass legislation that can be nixed the next time the GOP has all three chambers then it’s probably not worth the political blowback.

If they do something like PR and DC statehood, then yes, I’d support it.

 
 
You’ve said the key to the whole thing.  Eliminating the filibuster will either lead to 1. flip-flopping of policies every time a new party is in charge or 2. an increase in “permanent type” legislation where both parties will now try to think of the best way to deeply ingrain something.
 
Alabama into 4 republican states?  Why not?  Take out chicago from IL and split the rest into 3 republican states?  Why not?  You see the issue.

[btomba_77]

State splitting is a much heavier constitutional lift than admitting a state to the union.    But point taken.
 
Yes… it is very likely we see more big swings in policy, both domestic and foreign.
 
Is it good for the US? No.  Is it better than letting Republican policy stand over the long term? Yes.

[clickpenguin_460]

That’s the thing though.  You just don’t like it because it’s not your party.  What’s wrong with “Republican policy” being so unpopular in 10 years that Congress changes the laws without the need for changing the filibuster?
 
Also, it doesn’t have to be 60 for the threshold.  They could change it to 55, for example. 
 
My concern is that there will be several “wave” sentiment elections for both parties that sweep in single party rule for 2 years and that will lead to crazy laws if you only need 51.  These “waves” are known for people just being mad at the ruling party and not agreeing with the opposition party’s plans necessarily.