Dems To Invoke "Nuclear" Option

[jlprk]

I'll guess. You must be claiming Alzheimer's as your excuse. Or is it that you get yourself inaugurated as Governor at midnight because astrology says it's the best time.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, I'm mesmerized by your fantastic (as in fantasy) version of things.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I thought he was suggesting we sell weapons to armed militia groups south of the border... oh wait

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ar_option_and_the_fallout_to_come_120755.html

The second aspect of this that Republicans find hard to swallow—as they should—is the Democrats’ hypocrisy. Perhaps hypocrisy is too mild a word. When George W. Bush was president and Democrats were in the Senate minority, they did everything they could to sabotage his judicial appointments.

They used stalling tactics, the filibuster, and outright character assassination. Obama took great pride in appointing a Hispanic to the Supreme Court, but Bush wanted to do it first. He couldn’t even get the brilliant Miguel Estrada appointed to the D.C. Court of Appeals—the same panel that Democrats have now gone nuclear over.

Comparing the quotes of Democrats then to Democrats now—and we’re talking about the same people—is a case study in situational ethics. In 2005, when Republicans invoked the very same idea he has now rammed through the Senate, Harry Reid said the filibuster “serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”

He wasn’t the only one. Here’s then-Sen. Obama back then: “[A] change in the Senate rules would change the character of the Senate forever. … You would have, simply, majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the Founders intended.”

And here is Sen. Chuck Schumer: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a Constitutional crisis. The checks and balances, which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated, by the nuclear option. … It is amazing, almost a temper tantrum.”

The two most prophetic Democratic senators were Dianne Feinstein of California and a certain small-state senator with national ambitions named Joe Biden.

“The nuclear option, if successful, will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority,” said Feinstein. “It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments. And then legislation.”

“I say to my friends on the Republican side,” added Biden: “You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. And I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

 

[jlprk]

No, I'm mesmerized by your fantastic (as in fantasy) version of things.

No details to write? Of course not. Speaking of fantasy, I could read your copy-and-pastes from the conservative RealClearPolitics all day. Not writing half of your posts must save you a lot of time.

 

[Denny Crane]

No details to write? Of course not. Speaking of fantasy, I could read your copy-and-pastes from the conservative RealClearPolitics all day. Not writing half of your posts must save you a lot of time.

Republicans block 20x as many appointees. You wrote that. It's utter bullshit.

Both parties have done it. The Democrats put on some of the most hateful witch hunts I've witnessed in my lifetime. Tower, Bork, Thomas.

 

[bluefrog]

82 presidential nominees have been blocked under President Barack Obama, 86 blocked under all other presidents

First, some background. Senators can filibuster, or delay, action either by talking as long as they can on the floor, or by making an objection to party leaders. Such a blockage can be overcome by passing a "cloture" motion with a supermajority of votes. Currently, 60 votes are needed to pass a cloture motion and proceed to a final vote on the matter at hand. (Before 1975, it was 67.)

... a Congressional Research Service memo, said, "In brief, out of the 168 cloture motions ever filed (or reconsidered) on nominations, 82 (49 percent) were cloture motions on nominations made since 2009."

This means that the numbers in the graphic -- 82 presidential nominees blocked under Obama and 86 nominees blocked previously -- were described incorrectly. The figures actually represent the number of cloture attempts that had been made, not the people who were nominated .

This matters because some of the nominations resulted in multiple cloture efforts. By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://news.yahoo.com/are-republica...nees-at-‘unprecedented--levels-001414638.html

Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction, according to the Wall Street Journal. But when it comes to judicial nominees – the process that sparked Senate Democrats to approve the nuclear option on Thursday – he’s really just suffering from a historically negative trend going back more than two decades.

According to congressional data, former President George W. Bush actually had a lower percentage of circuit court nominees approved during his time in office than Obama.

And when it comes to the amount of time it takes for circuit court nominees to get approved, Bush and Obama are actually in surprisingly close company, with Bush faring slightly worse. (See chart)

Obstruction of judicial nominees first became a regular practice during President Clinton’s time in office, and the amount of time it takes for a nominee to be approved skyrocketed during George W. Bush’s presidency.

According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, President Obama had 71.4% of his circuit court nominees approved during his first term, which is slightly better than George W. Bush’s 67.3% level of success during his first term.

President Obama also didn't fare the worst when it comes to district court nominees. During his first term, 82.7% of Obama’s district court nominees were approved, George H.W. Bush had 76.9% of his nominees approved.

(20x my ass)

 

[Denny Crane]

Since the above article mentions the WSJ:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/21/do-obama-nominees-face-stiffer-senate-opposition/

The Congressional Research Service released a report in May analyzing the fate of Mr. Obama’s first-term judicial nominees compared to the fates of those nominated by other presidents. A look at the confirmation rates for district court nominees picked by the past four presidents shows a mixed bag: For Mr. Obama, the Senate approved 143 of his 173 nominees; for President George W. Bush, 170 of 179 nominees; for President Bill Clinton, 170 of 198 nominees; and for President George H.W. Bush, 150 of 195 nominees.

 

[maxiep]

The role of the Senate is to advise and consent. What isn't being taken into account here is that the nominees from President Obama may be much further to the fringe than those under Presidents George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton. His reputation at the U of C Law School was of someone who was on the left fringe of a largely left-leaning faculty. His judicial appointments show exactly that outlook. Whether or not someone shouldn't be confirmed simply because they're too radical is another issue.

 

[bluefrog]

The role of the Senate is to advise and consent. What isn't being taken into account here is that the nominees from President Obama may be much further to the fringe than those under Presidents George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton. His reputation at the U of C Law School was of someone who was on the left fringe of a largely left-leaning faculty. His judicial appointments show exactly that outlook. Whether or not someone shouldn't be confirmed simply because they're too radical is another issue.

The nominees should still get their up-or-down vote though. Tower, Bork, Thomas all got their vote (the new rule doesn't apply to Supreme court appointees though...)

 

[Denny Crane]

The nominees should still get their up-or-down vote though. Tower, Bork, Thomas all got their vote (the new rule doesn't apply to Supreme court appointees though...)

There was a democratic majority in the senate. Why would they filibuster?

 

[Stevenson]

Elections have consequences.

You don't like who the Dem President nominated? Then win next time.

 

[Denny Crane]

Elections have consequences.

You don't like who the Dem President nominated? Then win next time.

We don't have a monarchy.

I mean, the president doesn't have the powers of a king.

May as well scrap the constitution and let him do whatever he wants, period.

 

[e_blazer]

Elections have consequences.

You don't like who the Dem President nominated? Then win next time.

It's amazing to me that Obama and his supporters love to say this line, yet get their knickers in a bunch when Tea Party congressmen don't go along with their agendas. Those elections don't have consequences as well, or is this line only applicable to presidential elections?

 

[Stevenson]

What constitution are you talking about Denny? Please show me where in the constitution it says judicial nominees need 60 votes.

Of course it doesn't.

The super majority for regular Senate business is an abuse, by both parties, that is very recent, since the 80s or so. But somehow, everything is so upside down now politically that when we have majority rule, a vote of 51 out of 100, that makes the president a monarch.

We have entered crazyland.

 

[Denny Crane]

What constitution are you talking about Denny? Please show me where in the constitution it says judicial nominees need 60 votes.

Of course it doesn't.

The super majority for regular Senate business is an abuse, by both parties, that is very recent, since the 80s or so. But somehow, everything is so upside down now politically that when we have majority rule, a vote of 51 out of 100, that makes the president a monarch.

We have entered crazyland.

It says congress writes its own rules.

Article I, Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

It doesn't at all say "advice and consent means a simple majority vote." Or majority vote required for anything.

EDIT:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Cloture_Rule.htm

Cloture has been around since at least 1884. You were only off by a century.

It's obviously a radical change in the rules that had existed for ~130 years.

 

[barfo]

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.

If it doesn't come to pass, the price doesn't have to be paid.

I think a point that hasn't been made here is that the senate democrats wouldn't have done this if they thought they were about to lose the senate. Of course, they could be wrong about it - but it appears they are betting that there won't be a republican senate anytime in the near future.

It's not a bad bet at the moment - 2014 looks like a tough nut for the R's, and even if they win it in 2014, they'll likely lose it back in 2016 because so many of the current R's are up for reelection then.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

If it doesn't come to pass, the price doesn't have to be paid.

I think a point that hasn't been made here is that the senate democrats wouldn't have done this if they thought they were about to lose the senate. Of course, they could be wrong about it - but it appears they are betting that there won't be a republican senate anytime in the near future.

It's not a bad bet at the moment - 2014 looks like a tough nut for the R's, and even if they win it in 2014, they'll likely lose it back in 2016 because so many of the current R's are up for reelection then.

barfo

Or...

They think they are losing the senate, so they better do their worst while they can.