Senate Goes "Nuclear" Over GOP Obstruction of Appointees

PkrBum wrote:The senate was never meant to work in this way... it's a horrible precedent. The process is contentious out of design.

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The senate was never meant to work in this way... it's a horrible precedent. The process is contentious out of design.

BS. 


Congress hasn't been working at all ....


... by Republican design. 


It's too bad it had to come to this. 

PkrBum wrote:
Read senate first of all.

I wrote "Congress" on purpose.

The House is a circus.

The senate was a countermeasure. Second what exactly is  congress not doing?

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:
Read senate first of all.

I wrote "Congress" on purpose.

The House is a circus.

The senate was a countermeasure. Second what exactly is  congress not doing?

How 'bout starting with good faith votes on executive nominees. 


Let's start with something simple. 

knothead wrote:This is not something to be celebrated . . . of course the Republicans have opposed Obama's policies and have used the standing rules of the Senate to carry out that obstruction.  As much as I disagree with that opposition, changing the rules to allow simple majority rule opens the door to tyranny of the majority to use Jefferson's words.  PD is correct that there will come a day when the shoe is on the other foot and this also fuels an already bitter divide between the competing political forces . . . I think it was unwise.

Chrissy wrote:

knothead wrote:This is not something to be celebrated . . . of course the Republicans have opposed Obama's policies and have used the standing rules of the Senate to carry out that obstruction.  As much as I disagree with that opposition, changing the rules to allow simple majority rule opens the door to tyranny of the majority to use Jefferson's words.  PD is correct that there will come a day when the shoe is on the other foot and this also fuels an already bitter divide between the competing political forces . . . I think it was unwise.

Dear knothead.

WE HAVE TYRANNY!

PkrBum wrote:The senate was never meant to work in this way... it's a horrible precedent. The process is contentious out of design.

surfnrg wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The senate was never meant to work in this way... it's a horrible precedent. The process is contentious out of design.

From what i understood this was a procedure that had developed over the last 90 years maybe? But not a "rule" qua rule in the rules of the Senate?

Therefore was this not s shift of procedure? Even so, it has to be changed
As of late filibustering was out of control. I think most people want results,

It simply went to a majority vote on many appointees etc. I mean wtf could b simpler even in ancient Greece they just counted the f---- stones right?

Sal wrote:Elections have consequences.

The nihilists in the Congress now have an opportunity to mull over that concept for a while.

VectorMan wrote:TOP DEMOCRATS HATED THE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION’ BEFORE THEY WERE FOR IT

The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to invoke the so-called “nuclear option,” making it possible for Congress to confirm most judicial and executive nominees with just 51 votes (as opposed to the previous 61).

“(T)he vote today…is an indication that a majority of senators believe, as I believe, that enough is enough,” President Barack Obama said after the vote. “The American people’s business is far too important to keep falling prey day after day to Washington politics. I’m a former senator.”

“So is my vice president. We both value any Senate’s duty to advise and consent. It’s important and we take that very seriously,” he added.

But here’s something interesting (and perhaps not all that surprising): Top Democrats were at one point fiercely opposed to the “nuclear option.”

Fiercely.

“The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government,” Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in 2005 in reference to Republican efforts to invoke the “nuclear option” to expedite the nomination of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

Then-Sen. Barack Obama added in 2005: “I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness … I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy.

“The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster – if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate – then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse,” the senator from Illinois added.



And let’s not forget Joe Biden.

“You cannot change the Senate rules by a pure majority vote,” then-Sen. Biden said in 2005.

“Watch the vice president ignore – he’s not required to look to an unelected officer — but that has been the practice for 218 years,” Biden said, referring to Vice President Dick Cheney. “He will make the ruling, which is a lie. A lie about the rule.”

“This is what’s really going on here, the majority doesn’t want to hear what others have to say even if it’s the truth,” Biden continued. “The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play.”

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

PkrBum wrote:

surfnrg wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The senate was never meant to work in this way... it's a horrible precedent. The process is contentious out of design.

From what i understood this was a procedure that had developed over the last 90 years maybe? But not a "rule" qua rule in the rules of the Senate?

Therefore was this not s shift of procedure? Even so, it has to be changed
As of late filibustering was out of control. I think most people want results,

It simply went to a majority vote on many appointees etc. I mean wtf could b simpler even in ancient Greece they just counted the f---- stones right?

You will see more and more radical decisions by majority... not from just one party or the other. The senate is nothing like it was designed. We really see is less representation of the states... and next to no representation of the people. But I've quit caring.

knothead wrote:This is not something to be celebrated . . . of course the Republicans have opposed Obama's policies and have used the standing rules of the Senate to carry out that obstruction.  As much as I disagree with that opposition, changing the rules to allow simple majority rule opens the door to tyranny of the majority to use Jefferson's words.  PD is correct that there will come a day when the shoe is on the other foot and this also fuels an already bitter divide between the competing political forces . . . I think it was unwise.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:When the GOP takes the Senate in 2014, the same tactics will be used to overturn Obamacare...