'Nuclear' Option triggered today in Senate

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
This is pretty big news. Having seen both Democrats and Republicans in power and out of power in the Senate it seems both sides complain about the rules holding them back when they are in power and like them when they are out of power. This really will change how the Senate operates now going forward.


Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...65cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_print.html
 
Yup. Bout time. Now maybe they'll get something done. At least in terms of Judicial appointments.

The filibuster down through history has been abused by special interest, usually distinct minorities of powerful and monied interest to the detriment of that nations government and the people affected.

You won't be seeing me crying about and if the GOP does turn the table and use it against Dems? So what?
 
Last edited:
Oh the gnashing of teeth that will occur if the Dems lose the Senate. Libs on this site will scream "no fair" at the top of their lungs. Desh comes to mind first.
 
Socrtease said:
Oh the gnashing of teeth that will occur if the Dems lose the Senate. Libs on this site will scream "no fair" at the top of their lungs. Desh comes to mind first.
Click to expand...

Haha, of course Desh will complain about it.

I found this quote from Harry Reid in 2005 when Republicans were considering the nuclear option:

“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,” Reid said at the time.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/harry-reid-railed-against-nuclear-option-in-2005-he-embraces-in-2013/


Republicans were for it when they were in power and the Democrats against it. Now the tables have turned just as they will turn again at some point in the future. Very transparent.
 
Socrtease said:
Oh the gnashing of teeth that will occur if the Dems lose the Senate. Libs on this site will scream "no fair" at the top of their lungs. Desh comes to mind first.
Click to expand...
Don't care. It will force the Senators do do their freaken jobs.

Far to often this nations business has been stopped by a handfull of senators that only represent a small fraction of the nations population. Most often to the detriment of most of the people and to the benefit on a hanful. It's about time something has been done about it.
 
cawacko said:
Haha, of course Desh will complain about it.

I found this quote from Harry Reid in 2005 when Republicans were considering the nuclear option:

“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,” Reid said at the time.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/harry-reid-railed-against-nuclear-option-in-2005-he-embraces-in-2013/


Republicans were for it when they were in power and the Democrats against it. Now the tables have turned just as they will turn again at some point in the future. Very transparent.
Click to expand...
Apples/Hondas

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-usa-senate-nominees-idUSBRE9AK0V920131121
 
cawacko said:
So because Republicans were for it does that make it a good move today by Reid?
Click to expand...

Apparently so.

r
 
cawacko said:
Why not support it back when it was proposed in '05 then?
Click to expand...

This is what I found.

"The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
 
christiefan915 said:
This is what I found.

"The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Click to expand...

It was more a rhetorical question as he didn't want to do it in '05 because the Democrats were in the minority. The same reasons Republicans don't want it done today because they are in the minority. Just as Reid wants it done today because they are in the majority. Same reason the Republicans wanted to do it in '05 because they were in the majority. It's transparent partisan politics.
 
cawacko said:
It was more a rhetorical question as he didn't want to do it in '05 because the Democrats were in the minority. The same reasons Republicans don't want it done today because they are in the minority. Just as Reid wants it done today because they are in the majority. Same reason the Republicans wanted to do it in '05 because they were in the majority. It's transparent partisan politics.
Click to expand...
yup. Ask me if I care?
 
cawacko said:
It was more a rhetorical question as he didn't want to do it in '05 because the Democrats were in the minority. The same reasons Republicans don't want it done today because they are in the minority. Just as Reid wants it done today because they are in the majority. Same reason the Republicans wanted to do it in '05 because they were in the majority. It's transparent partisan politics.
Click to expand...

It looks like Dems and repubs came together to oppose the option during the eight years when bush had only seven of his nominees filibustered. Look at the numbers today for Obama's five years in office. It's disgraceful that repubs won't let him fill those positions with people he has a perfect right to pick.
 
if this gives presidential appointments the opportunity for a simple up or down vote, I think that is great... and there is a whole lot of film footage which shows Mitch McConnell used to think that way too. Supreme Court justices? That's a different issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top