Nuclear option? Go ahead, Reid. Make our day.

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MastaG8r, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. dangolegators
    Online

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +887
    We should find out in the next day or so. I doubt the repubs are going to give in on the 7 nominations, so I'm guessing Reid will hold a vote on the filibuster rules. In other words, I'm guessing you're wrong. You're wrong a lot here. Remember your whole Romney rope-a-dope theory? Pretty dumb, and very wrong.
  2. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    The constitution has built in checks and balances. The filibuster and holds aren't among them.
  3. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Me and masta are praying for the nuclear option. It's gonna' make both our days, right masta?
  4. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Dang!! Masta must be as angry as me that McConnell bent over, thus avoiding Reid making both our days. I'd prefer an end to the filibuster except when talking for all times, but maybe next year.

    "Senate leaders struck a tentative deal in the 11th hour to confirm seven presidential nominees to executive positions without the use of the nuclear option.

    In short, Republicans would confirm nominees to all seven positions, a big concession for the GOP. But in a concession for Democrats, they would replace two recess-appointed nominees to the National Labor Relations Board — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, pictured below — with new nominees under the following condition: Republicans pledge to confirm any two replacements by President Obama to the board by Aug. 27.

    The deal, outlined by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) office, also ensures that Reid retains his right to revert to the nuclear option in the future to change filibuster rules by a simple majority vote."​
  5. oragator1
    Offline

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,182
    Likes Received:
    531
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,248
    With a good chance of the pubs taking a very narrow senate majority in a year (and yes as of now even Nate Silver agrees) no way Reid would have done this. There was always going to be a deal.
    But the rule needs to be changed, when it gets down to the point where even mid level guys being filibustered it really is nothing more than obstructionism. And yes the dems will do the same thing in 2 years if they lose the chamber, hiding behind "they did it too".
  6. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +106
    All that global warming has him feeling a bit woozy.
  7. dangolegators
    Online

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +887
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the parameters of this change would have involved only executive appointments. Obama will still be president in 2 years, so changing the filibuster rules would have no impact for at least 2 more years if the senate went to the repubs in 2014. You could make the case that the repubs, given control of the senate, would broaden the restrictions on filibusters to include any and all legislation. Given recent history, that would not be surprising. But the change as is would have only had an impact when the presidency and the senate both belong to the same party.
  8. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    As I predicted...Reid didn't follow through on his threat. Again.

    He could've said screw you Repubs and your compromise on this current batch of 7 nominees -- you're just going to play the same filibuster games again when some more nominations come up. I'm going to change the rules and end this appointment-blocking by the minority party once and for all!

    But that would've taken juevos grandes whereas Reid only has frijoles pequeños.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    Yeah, of course you'd like to see the filibuster end "except when talking for all times." Like, the next time there's a GOP president. LOL

    I don't know where you got that quote on the deal they worked out, but I doubt that the GOP agreed to confirm "any two replacements" to the NLRB without having any idea who they are first. Surely 0bama could not resist taking advantage of such carte blanche and would nominate a couple of card-carrying socialists, if not communists.
  10. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,255
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +404
    I tend to agree that this is unfortunate too, keeping the Senate as the least democratic of political bodies. However, I think both parties know that, despite their grandstanding, they both have an interest in the rule of 60. Senators, particularly powerful ones, sit for a long time. Indeed, power is determined by senoirity. And the longer you're there, the more likely you'll go from the majority to the minority and vice versa. Taking away the minority opposition's weapon today could be taking away your own weapon tomorrow.

    Pretty sad real democracy in the Senate is sacrificed to a procedural weapon, but both parties have invested much in that weapon and it likely won't go away any time soon, no matter how much they say.
  11. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,059
    Likes Received:
    2,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,043
    You guys still can't win so you're hoping to change the rules in your favor...

    How childish is that? The children of the left are unbearably sad.
  12. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,059
    Likes Received:
    2,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,043
    :laugh::laugh:

    Repped for your multilingual post.
  13. oragator1
    Offline

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,182
    Likes Received:
    531
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,248
    The precedent is what would scare Reid were they to lose. Pubs could easily change another rule and Reid wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
  14. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    He didn't have to - McConnell caved. That's why you threaten someone instead of just doing it. Though I'm with you in wishing he had eliminated the filibuster except for talking for all times.
  15. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    How about we take each other at our word when we make an argument. You don't me and I don't know you, but if we constantly pretend we do, and better than each other know ourselves we will have pretty uninteresting and solipsistic debates. I'll accept that you think we should maintain the current senate rules no matter who is is office and you reciprocate by accepting I want to change them for all time, just as I have said. After all - and I don't expect you to know this - I have been making this argument with passion for several years on TH. Then we can get down to debating the actual merits of our respective ideas rather than the straw men thrown in the path.

    Here's hoping McConnell finds his balls and Harry goes all the way next time! As the OP, you with me?
  16. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Agree with that but note that since Republicans lost the senate in 2006 they have taken this obstructionism to totally new levels. I'm getting tired of posting the charts showing this, but it's a fact and one for which they deserve the scorn of the country.
  17. OklahomaGator
    Online

    OklahomaGator Jedi Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    36,619
    Likes Received:
    1,746
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +3,461
    A better change in the Senate rules would be to have the 60 vote rule for Cabinet positions, Supreme Court nominees, and some of the higher federal judge positions, while the rest would be just simple majority votes. Simply, a higher standard for the higher positions would be the guideline.
  18. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,255
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +404
    The rule is 51 (or 50, plus the VP) for all those positions. 60 is merely to "end debate." Plus, I am at a loss to see why a federal district judge (a "lower" federal judge), who is appointed for life except for impeachment and conviction, should have a lower vote standard for Advice and Consent than a cabinet position, which serves only at the President's pleasure. Also, since you are referring to "some of the higher federal judge positions," does that mean only some Circuit judges should have the 60 vote standard for Advice and Consent? Are some circuits more important than others? I imagine to the people who live in those less important circuits would beg to differ.
  19. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,492
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,065
  20. icequeen
    Offline

    icequeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,516
    Likes Received:
    2,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Ratings Received:
    +4,141
    A timely one at that

Share This Page