The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Nuclear Option Invoked https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10586 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | TheRiov [ Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | Nuclear Option Invoked |
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t1 Updated 11/21/2013 at 12:39 p.m. ET Washington (CNN) – The Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday voted to invoke the so-called nuclear option out of frustration over Republicans who have been blocking President Barack Obama's nominees. The controversial move is a rules change that could make a partisan environment even more divisive because it takes away a sacrosanct right for any party in the Senate minority–the right to filibuster. Explainer: What's the nuclear option? Under the old rules it took 60 votes to break a filibuster. The change now allows most filibusters of Obama nominees to be stopped with 51 votes–a simple Senate majority. The rules change only applies to executive and judicial nominees, not Supreme Court nominees. Typically 67 votes are required to change Senate rules, but under the nuclear option, Democrats - who control the chamber with a 55-45 majority - changed those rules with a simple majority vote. "It's time to get the Senate working again," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor. "Not for the good of the current Democratic majority or some future Republican majority, but for the good of the United States of America. It's time to change. It's time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete. The move came about after Republicans blocked three judicial nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, known as the highest court in the land after the Supreme Court. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Reid "promised over and over again that he wouldn't break the rules of the Senate to change the Senate." "When Democrats were in the minority they argued strenuously for the very thing they now say we will have to do without, namely the right to extend a debate on lifetime appointments. In other words they believe that one set of rules should apply to them and another set to everybody else," he added. Until now, Reid hadn't necessarily had support from enough of his own Democratic caucus to pass a rules change. Some Democratic senators were reluctant to change the rules–because of reverence for the institution and, more importantly, because they know Democrats will not always be in the majority. The beauty of the way the Senate works, as opposed to the House, is that the minority has more power. The filibuster, a 60 vote hurdle, was one of the biggest weapons in the minority's arsenal. But Senate veterans like Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California who had been opposed to the nuclear option - changing Senate rules - recently changed their minds. Feinstein and others, like fellow Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said things are so broken in Washington that the nuclear option was the only way to fix it. Many Republicans argued Democrats were just trying to manufacture a crisis in order to create a distraction from the Obamacare rollout debacle. "Sounds to me like Harry Reid is trying to change the subject and if I were taking all the incoming fire that he is taking over Obamacare I'd try to change the subject too," House Speaker John Boehner said in his weekly press conference. "This changes everything, this changes everything," Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, told reporters on Capitol Hill. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, told reporters the nuclear option "puts on a chill on the entire United States Senate." "I have reached to them. I spent an hour in Harry Reid's office. Come on. I reached out until my arms ache," McCain added. "They are governed by these hard over, newer members of Democratic senators who have never been a minority, who are primarily driving this issue and they succeeded and they will pay a very, very heavy price for it." In 2005, the then majority Republicans threatened the nuclear option to prevent Democratic filibusters of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. The confrontation was averted thanks to an agreement by a bipartisan group of 14 senators. |
Author: | Khross [ Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:49 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nuclear Option Invoked |
The Democrats invoked the Nuclear Option to change a rule (Senate Rule 22) that the Democrats put in place. That's fantastic ... The American Demagogue Party at its finest. |
Author: | Talya [ Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
You know, this will come back to bite them. The senate changes hands every couple elections. What goes around, comes around. It's not like both parties don't use the same tactics. |
Author: | TheRiov [ Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I can't find where they're getting the statistic, so I can't speak to its veracity, but the last infographic saw, I stated that 82 Obama nominations have been filibustered, compared with a total of 86 for all previous presidents combined. If that's the case, I'd say that qualifies as obstructionist. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Or it qualifies as Obama nominating some of the worst nominees ever. Sonia Sotomayor, for example. |
Author: | Taskiss [ Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
TheRiov wrote: I can't find where they're getting the statistic, so I can't speak to its veracity, but the last infographic saw, I stated that 82 Obama nominations have been filibustered, compared with a total of 86 for all previous presidents combined. If that's the case, I'd say that qualifies as obstructionist. It's only looked at as being obstructionist when you disagree with what they're doing. If you agree, they're being principled. Exactly how does a minority assert influence otherwise? Compromise? Answer this - can I kick your dog? When you can figure out how to compromise with someone that wants something you totally object to, get back with me. |
Author: | darksiege [ Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:11 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Taskiss wrote: Answer this - can I kick your dog? When you can figure out how to compromise with someone that wants something you totally object to, get back with me. how about if I let you kick THIS dog and you can pretend it is mine? Easy Peasy |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:20 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Nuclear Option Invoked |
Talya wrote: You know, this will come back to bite them. The senate changes hands every couple elections. What goes around, comes around. It's not like both parties don't use the same tactics. which is why I, like Harry Reid, was dead against it in 2005It wad one of the few times I agreed with Democrats I guess its good to know it wasnt on principal. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:52 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Yup, Rori, I was in line with Senators Reid, Obama, Biden and Clinton back in the day (even a blind squirrel...). Apparently they aren't as concerned with the "effect of the nuclear option" now: Spoiler: I guess all that poignant speechifying was just hot air. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:50 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Politicians have no moral backbone...news at like 800 years ago. |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:51 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I'm sure there are Republicans who will howl who were for it then as well. At least they can say "Well we didn't DO it" |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
TheRiov wrote: I can't find where they're getting the statistic, so I can't speak to its veracity, but the last infographic saw, I stated that 82 Obama nominations have been filibustered, compared with a total of 86 for all previous presidents combined. If that's the case, I'd say that qualifies as obstructionist. It's obstructionist when 99+ percent of the Obama appointees have been confirmed. I guess in some people's world, it's 100 percent or OBSTRUCTIONIST! |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: TheRiov wrote: I can't find where they're getting the statistic, so I can't speak to its veracity, but the last infographic saw, I stated that 82 Obama nominations have been filibustered, compared with a total of 86 for all previous presidents combined. If that's the case, I'd say that qualifies as obstructionist. It's obstructionist when 99+ percent of the Obama appointees have been confirmed. I guess in some people's world, it's 100 percent or OBSTRUCTIONIST! This relates to judicial appointees, I believe. Not sure where you got your stats, you may be considering all nominees for all positions, but just looking at the judicial appointments, there's a site that tracks this. http://judicialnominations.org/statistics |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: TheRiov wrote: I can't find where they're getting the statistic, so I can't speak to its veracity, but the last infographic saw, I stated that 82 Obama nominations have been filibustered, compared with a total of 86 for all previous presidents combined. If that's the case, I'd say that qualifies as obstructionist. It's obstructionist when 99+ percent of the Obama appointees have been confirmed. I guess in some people's world, it's 100 percent or OBSTRUCTIONIST! Pretty much. Remember, when the other party controls the Presidency and 1 or 2 parties of congress they're entitled to get their own way.. as long as that other party is the Democrats. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Vindicarre wrote: TheRiov wrote: I can't find where they're getting the statistic, so I can't speak to its veracity, but the last infographic saw, I stated that 82 Obama nominations have been filibustered, compared with a total of 86 for all previous presidents combined. If that's the case, I'd say that qualifies as obstructionist. It's obstructionist when 99+ percent of the Obama appointees have been confirmed. I guess in some people's world, it's 100 percent or OBSTRUCTIONIST! This relates to judicial appointees, I believe. Not sure where you got your stats, you may be considering all nominees for all positions, but just looking at the judicial appointments, there's a site that tracks this. http://judicialnominations.org/statistics I got my information here: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominat ... dicial.cfm http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/201 ... ntees.html Quote: "These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote. But Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote," he said. To which McConnell noted that the Senate has confirmed 215 of Obama's picks to the courts since he became president, and rejected two. "That's a confirmation rate of 99 percent," he said pointedly. The USA Today article includes the link to the nominations and confirmations that I referenced to see how much smoke the politicians were blowing: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... s/3670423/ Turns out what McConnell said was true. I'd be suspect of the bias that the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy brings to the table I'd rather look at the Senate Judiciary Committees own lists on their website. Turns out my suspicions were validated. I don't know where the ACS got their numbers, or what numbers they're using but they don't jive with the SJC or Wiki. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |