Dems To Invoke "Nuclear" Option

[BLAZER PROPHET]

To me, unless a judicial candidate is wholly unqualified, there should be an up or down vote. There is some subjectivity there, but if general qualifications are met, then let the Senate vote. Be they left or right, to the victor goes the spoils and that includes deciding who sits on the courts.


Senate Democrats poised to deploy “nuke option”: It’s true in physics and in politics: For every action, there’s an opposite and equal reaction. And so after Senate Republican filibustered President Obama’s nominees to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- not on concerns about ideology or qualifications, but over the president’s ability to appoint ANYONE to these vacancies -- Senate Democrats are poised to change the rules via the so-called “nuclear option.” And while this may seem like a threat you’ve heard before, this time it seems as if there isn’t any deal that will derail this likely action. Senate Democratic aides confirm to First Read that they’re expected to vote today to change the rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for all executive appointments, except to the U.S. Supreme Court. Such a move requires just a 51-vote majority, so Democrats could lose four of their colleagues and still win the vote. Senate Republicans counter that if Democrats go through with this change, they’ll reciprocate the next time they control the White House and the Senate -- including for Supreme Court picks. “If [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said yesterday, per the Washington Post. But Harry Reid believes he does have 51 votes, especially since he convinced Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to climb on board this nuke-option train. She had been an influential holdout in the past.

 

[julius]

I love how the "nuclear option" is enforcing the fact that 51 is actually a majority.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...f_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees

The senate writes it's own rules. It doesn't require 60 votes to pass a nominee, just to vote to vote on the nominee.

It takes 2/3 of congress to override a veto. Or to pass a constitutional amendment.

51 votes being a majority means squat.

The Dems can go do this. The next list of blocked republican nominees will be ZERO.

 

[donkiez]

and the political grid lock and scorched earth politciing continues. unfortunately this is the only way to get anything acomplished in todays toxic political environment but it just compounds the problem.

 

[maxiep]

The Democrats won't do it. They know Obamacare is going to put them into the minority and they'll lose the last lever they have. All they have to do is envision this person as a Supreme Court Justice and they'll back down:

 

[donkiez]

nuke option envoked according to twitter.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

nuke option envoked according to twitter.

Welcome to the new way of Senate politics.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Welcome to the new way of Senate politics.

I have to laugh. When the GOP takes control of the Senate at some date in the future, the tears will flow like rain..it is going to be hard to place the blame at the feet of republicans

 

[donkiez]

Welcome to the new way of Senate politics.

Where spite is the new political currency.

 

[mobes23]

I have to laugh. When the GOP takes control of the Senate at some date in the future, the tears will flow like rain..it is going to be hard to place the blame at the feet of republicans

You're right only if the dems blanket reject all candidates as the reps have been doing. I agree with BP that negative votes should only happen if a candidate truly isn't qualified. A difference of idealogy shouldn't be the reason for a no vote.

 

[Further]

Come on minorities, keep having large democrat families so the Repubs never get to take over again.

 

[Denny Crane]

You're right only if the dems blanket reject all candidates as the reps have been doing. I agree with BP that negative votes should only happen if a candidate truly isn't qualified. A difference of idealogy shouldn't be the reason for a no vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...f_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees

Soon after the inauguration of Bush as president in January 2001, many liberal academics became worried that he would begin packing the federal judiciary with conservative jurists. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote an article in the February 2001 edition of the liberal magazine The American Prospect that encouraged the use of the filibuster to stop Bush from placing any nominee on the Supreme Court during his first term.[3] In addition, law professors Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago) and Laurence Tribe (Harvard), along with Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, counseled Senate Democrats in April 2001 "to scrutinize judicial nominees more closely than ever." Specifically, they said, "there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite." [4]

On May 9, 2001, President Bush announced his first eleven court of appeals nominees in a special White House ceremony.[5] This initial group of nominees included Roger Gregory, a Clinton recess-appointed judge to the Fourth Circuit, as a peace offering to Senate Democrats. There was, however, immediate concern expressed by Senate Democrats and liberal groups like the Alliance for Justice.[6][7] Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said that the White House was "trying to create the most ideological bench in the history of the nation."[8]

As a result, from June 2001 to January 2003, when the Senate in the 107th Congress was controlled by the Democrats, many conservative appellate nominees were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never given hearings or committee votes.[9]

---

"if" ?

 

[MarAzul]

To me, unless a judicial candidate is wholly unqualified, there should be an up or down vote. There is some subjectivity there, but if general qualifications are met, then let the Senate vote. Be they left or right, to the victor goes the spoils and that includes deciding who sits on the courts.


Senate Democrats poised to deploy “nuke option”: It’s true in physics and in politics: For every action, there’s an opposite and equal reaction. And so after Senate Republican filibustered President Obama’s nominees to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- not on concerns about ideology or qualifications, but over the president’s ability to appoint ANYONE to these vacancies -- Senate Democrats are poised to change the rules via the so-called “nuclear option.” And while this may seem like a threat you’ve heard before, this time it seems as if there isn’t any deal that will derail this likely action. Senate Democratic aides confirm to First Read that they’re expected to vote today to change the rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for all executive appointments, except to the U.S. Supreme Court. Such a move requires just a 51-vote majority, so Democrats could lose four of their colleagues and still win the vote. Senate Republicans counter that if Democrats go through with this change, they’ll reciprocate the next time they control the White House and the Senate -- including for Supreme Court picks. “If [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said yesterday, per the Washington Post. But Harry Reid believes he does have 51 votes, especially since he convinced Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to climb on board this nuke-option train. She had been an influential holdout in the past.

Naw, this is getting out of hand. Appointing people to the court that will just ignore the Constitution is out of bounds and that is where we are today.
Even the people that you would think will up hold the Constitution have difficulty in doing so against the wishes of Popular leaders or the willy nilly public when they take a fancy to the bill of the day tauted to correct a
perceived injustice. Example ruling the Individual mandate is lawful because it is a TAX not a fine, but then it isn't a prohibited direct tax. WTF?? It is as direct as you can get, it is meant to punish and individual.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's called the nuclear option for a reason.

Mutually Assured Destruction.

They're truly mad.

 

[MarAzul]

The Democrats won't do it. They know Obamacare is going to put them into the minority and they'll lose the last lever they have. All they have to do is envision this person as a Supreme Court Justice and they'll back down:

He is the man we needed when they ruled on this fiasco call ObamaCare.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Where spite is the new political currency.

How true.

We just continue to slip into the abyss of partisan politics.

I wonder when it will all end.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

This is scary. We know that oboma believes that the constitution is a living thing and subject to change..

now we have a quote from Reid “The Senate is a living thing, and to survive it must change, as it has over the history of this great country,” Reid said.

Stack the deck in the courts..create unilateral politics to enforce agenda..hello 1930s Germany

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[jlprk]

21 minutes after the hour:

The Democrats won't do it. They know Obamacare is going to put them into the minority and they'll lose the last lever they have. All they have to do is envision this person as a Supreme Court Justice and they'll back down:

40 minutes after the hour:

nuke option envoked according to twitter.

Maxiep, you should construct a world view that lasts longer than 19 minutes before going down in flames.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Democrats are reckless Nazis

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

 

[barfo]

I understand that tonight law-abiding citizens are being rounded up and herded into "democrat" camps for reeducation or culling by death panels. It has begun. Be very afraid.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The way I hear it, one scenario is ObamaCare takes down enough Democrats that they lose the Senate. Then a Republican wins the presidency and nominates as conservative a guy they want to replace Ginsberg. And they'll do the nuclear option thing to bypass the minority's wishes.

Maybe it won't come to pass, but it is the price paid.

 

[jlprk]

The nuclear option is the price Republicans are paying for abusing the "majority rules" system with their gridlock.

 

[Further]

judicial vacancies had been waiting with qualified appointees waiting for years. But the Republicans refused to let any of the 90+ vacancies be filled regardless of candidate. That's totally abusing their power. Sure, it was in their right to abuse their power. So, this left the Democrats with only one course of action, to use their power to get appointees voted in. Sucks to be a Republican but this was totally and completely their fault. They fucked up, they poked and poked and poked till getting popped in the mouth. Boo fucking hoo, it's a good day to not be a Republican.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...f_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees

The senate writes it's own rules. It doesn't require 60 votes to pass a nominee, just to vote to vote on the nominee.

It takes 2/3 of congress to override a veto. Or to pass a constitutional amendment.

51 votes being a majority means squat.

The Dems can go do this. The next list of blocked republican nominees will be ZERO.

Lol, further.

 

[Stevenson]

The Constitution creates a system of checks and balances. The three branches of government - legislative, executive, and judical - are designed to check one another.

But nowhere in the document does it say, nor was it designed, to have a minority in one party in one body of one branch act as a check or balance. The Senate is a body where majority was intended to rule, unless otherwise stated in the Constitution (for instance, to pass a treaty - 2/3 of the Senate is needed.) For those of you who love the Constitution, you should be happy that the abused, super majority, 60 vote rule, has been eliminated.

And it is fair enough that when the Republicans take control of the Senate, or the Presidency, that their nominees get an up or down vote as well.

This is a democracy. It is majority rule. Minority interests are protected, but never was it intended that they prevail.

Hurray for sanity.

 

[Denny Crane]

The Constitution creates a system of checks and balances. The three branches of government - legislative, executive, and judical - are designed to check one another.

But nowhere in the document does it say, nor was it designed, to have a minority in one party in one body of one branch act as a check or balance. The Senate is a body where majority was intended to rule, unless otherwise stated in the Constitution (for instance, to pass a treaty - 2/3 of the Senate is needed.) For those of you who love the Constitution, you should be happy that the abused, super majority, 60 vote rule, has been eliminated.

And it is fair enough that when the Republicans take control of the Senate, or the Presidency, that their nominees get an up or down vote as well.

This is a democracy. It is majority rule. Minority interests are protected, but never was it intended that they prevail.

Hurray for sanity.

Constitution has supermajority clauses. Like to override a veto or amend the constitution. So much for the majority rules thing.

The constitution says congress writes its own rules. For as long as I can remember, and that's 5 decades, the rule has been 60 and before that 2/3 majority.

So this is very much against tradition.

But go for it. What comes around goes around, and you will be very upset when it does.

 

[maxiep]

Wow, was I wrong. The Democrats are more desperate than I thought.

No longer is the Senate the cooling dish of American politics.

We have now become a parliamentary system.

 

[jlprk]

But go for it. What comes around goes around, and you will be very upset when it does.

You've made your Big Bad Wolf threat about 5 times in this thread. But everyone knows it's empty because Republicans block 20 times as many appointees as Democrats do. Also, your threatening assumes a Republican President simultaneous with a Republican Congress, which is very rare.

 

[Denny Crane]

You've made your Big Bad Wolf threat about 5 times in this thread. But everyone knows it's empty because Republicans block 20 times as many appointees as Democrats do. Also, your threatening assumes a Republican President simultaneous with a Republican Congress, which is very rare.