Going nuclear

I hope someone creates a list of those Democrats who complained about the Republicans even thinking of doing this when they were in charge. I'm pretty sure the list starts with Harry Reid.
 
This is what dems said about the change when reps were in charge:

Sen. Barack Obama (D - ILL) 4/25/05

“He hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever.”

“…and what I worry about is that you would essentially have two chambers. The House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side and that’s just not what the founders intended.”


Sen. Joseph Biden (D - DE) 5/23/05

“This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.”

“…I say to my friends on the Republican side, 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.”


Sen. Harry Reid (D - NV) 5/18/05

“Mr. President, the right to extend the debate is never more important, when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, a filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.

“…but no we are not going to follow the Senate rules— no…because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration.”
 
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D - NY) 5/18/05

“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. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51 percent of the vote, you don’t get your way 100 percent of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.”

…And they want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, misread the Constitution, so that they will get their way.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D - NY) 5/23/05

“So this president has come to the majority in the Senate and basically said, ‘Change the rules. Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t many voices on the other side of the aisle that after the way previous generations of Senators have acted and said, ‘Mr. President, we’re with you. We support you, but that’s a bridge too far. We can’t go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President”


Sen Max Baucaus (D-MT) 5/19/05

“This is the way democracy ends—not with a bomb, but with a gavel.”
 
This is a mistake, but then so is the monolithic refusal to allow consideration of judicial nominees particularly on the DC Circuit. The last time this was threatened (and it was by the Republicans), the Democrats relented.

I see no such reasonable accommodation this time.

Should one party or the other be allowed to filibuster a judicial nominee who would otherwise receive at least 51 votes?

Here is some history on this issue.

The Link
 
Paso, the Democrats didn't relent last time. As your link points out the gang of 14 came together and resolved the issue within the rules of the senate. You are telling me that someone like John McCain is now so unreasonable that a similar deal couldn't have been struck?

The quotes above show the complete hypocrisy of those who were against it when they were in the minority and now are for it. Be for or against it, but stay that way no matter who is in power.
 
Did you actually read my link?

rolleyes.gif


The gang of 14 was bi-partisan.

Where are they now?

I think it is a mistake by both sides and a compromise should be in order where some or all of the nominees are considered. This was precipitated by three filibusters over nominees to the DC Circuit. It is moronic to pretend one side is blameless or less (or more) hypocritical. Unfortunately, this is the natural result of the hyper-partisanship since Obama's election.
 
Obama's fault?

I do not think so. I was going to add that where I place the blame for this would be different than most on this forum, but decided this would be understood.

Mitch McConnel said about all you need to say about hyper-partisanship.
 
This pretty well sums up the mistake that was made today by Dems
"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.

I urge my colleagues not to go through with changing these rules . . . 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 believe they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy.

What (Americans) don’t expect is for one Party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game, so that they can make all the decision while the other Party is told to sit down and keep quiet."

Can anyone disagree with those words?
 
I do.

The filibuster is not democratic at all. It is, in fact, anti-democratic allowing a minority to frustrate the will of the elected majority. While I do not agree with its modification (and no doubt eventual elimination), it is not democratic at all and to claim otherwise is just wrong.

I also have to comment on how the filibuster was presently being used. The Republicans are not allowing a vote on any judicial nominees (and plenty of others). This is wrong. Period. This had to end. There was no compromise or offer or anything. It was just pure obstructionism and spite.

It is partisan and foolish to not see that there are two sides to this dispute. I wish the gang of 14 could fix it, but that sadly was not the case.

I wonder why there could not be a compromise over this impasse this time?
 
Paso,

We're in 100 percent agreement here. Both parties are so blatantly hypocritical on the filibuster that I don't see how either side expects to be taken seriously on the issue.

I also don't think they should dump it altogether, because the Senate should generally govern by building consensus, but that takes compromise. I'm surprised that nothing could be worked out this time. It seems that a gang of 14 deal should have been able to avoid this,

I think they set a bad precedent by changing the rules. If judicial nominees are off limits for filibuster, why not other issues? Eventually, we'll see it eroded more and more until the Senate operates like the House. That'll ultimately harm both sides.
 
There is no doubt each side can shoulder some blame on many issues BUT not for today's changing the rules that had been in place for over 200 years. Only one side changed the rules

What (Americans) don’t expect is for one Party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game, so that they can make all the decision while the other Party is told to sit down and keep quiet.
 
200 years of precedent have been broken. There is no going back so enjoy the new rules while you can. From my vantage point, both parties have equally filibustered and threatened to change the rules for filibustering so there is no moral high ground, only hypocrisy. However, only one party has actually taken the nuclear option and when it is later used against them there will be no sympathy. But let me be clear, we all lose so there will be no gloating from me either.
 
Look, the august rules of the Senate, giving extraordinry power to individual members, was appropriate in a Senate Chamber dominated by the likes of centerists like Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Mike Mansfield, people who would learn the issues, listen to one another and compromise. When someone as controversial as Bork came along, partisanship would rear it's ugly head and maybe a filibuster would thrwart majority rule.

Now it's just about every damned appointment, incuding some like the head of the ATF that used to not ever come under senate scrutiny.

I think it's good for a parent to tell their kids, look, if you find yourself drunk and not sure how to safely get home, give me a call and I'll get you home safely, no questions, no criticism, no consequences. Most kids would maybe need to use this three times before the end of college. If the kid calls 8 times during the first two weeks on campus, then you have to rethink the rule.

You can brag that your hero, Ted Cruz is a fighter. But it's guys like him that make the Senate more like the WWF than the gentleman's club of a couple of generations ago. Different kinds of people need different kinds of rules.
 
The filibuster rules have been changed before. They were changed in the 1920's (may have been the 1910's) and again in the 1970's. While I still think this is a mistake, it is hardly unprecedented.

You might also note that the filibuster appears nowhere in the Constitution and what language does appear in the Constitution would appear to forbid it on Presidential nominations (President appoints with advice and consent of Senate).

Finally, the numbers tell something. Here they are on filibusters of executive nominees by President:

Eisenhower = 0
JFK = 0
LBJ = 0
Nixon = 0
Ford = 0
Carter = 2
Reagan = 2
Bush = 0
Clinton = 9
Bush = 7
Obama (first term) = 27
Obama (total) = 45 (projected)

You really think this is one sided? You are going from 7 to 45?
 
Paso, where are you numbers from. I'm finding the numbers of the filibuster very interesting as I've been hearing and reading different numbers from just about every source. One that I found interesting is that there have only been 10 filibusters of judicial nominees of which 5 were by Republicans and 5 by Democrats. I have a feeling that those numbers are probably correct in what would be considered a SUCCESSFUL filibuster. In the case where there is a filibuster and there is still a vote I'm not sure how or why that really matters.

If my thoughts are correct about successful versus not successful then I'm not surprised at the numbers you show have gone up so much. As this has increasingly (started when Bush was in office) the only tool of the minority.

...and yes, I do believe that the framers of our constitution intended for there to be tools for the minority to protect against the majority.
 
The move reflects the Democrats' limited prospects of getting anything significant done before the next electoral cycle.There is little incentive to keep things civil since there is little chance any big bills will go through. So, Democrats have decided that they would rather get some people into important positions as quickly as possible with little reason to be polite. But as usual, those that made the decision to go nuclear are only looking at the short-term. The much smarter and less antagonistic position would have been to require talking filibusters for the nominees. But I guess if people like Paso are willing to give them a pass then it makes the decision to go nuclear that much easier. They easily forget that they believed a short time ago that neither party should change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. So now we all lose.
 
My numbers are executive branch appointments.

Judicial appointment numbers are going to be very hard to find because most filibusters are just threatened and then the candidate withdraws. The DC Circuit is a very obvious example of obstructionism.

I will say for the last time that I think this is a mistake. I would not have done it. I do, however, place far more blame on the Republicans decent into just saying no to everything Obama wants to do. There should have been a compromise, but I am not sure how you compromise with terrorists.

Maybe you guys can shut down the government over executive or judicial appointments.

laugh.gif
 
paso we can all clearly see what idiots Republicans are for opposing the ACA. It's clearly a great benefit to the country. If only they got on board earlier just think how much better the US economy would be.

All joking aside, I am still somewhat surprised that people believe it is the Republicans that should be blamed for not compromising. It was Republican compromise that ultimately ended the shutdown. On an interview on CNN, Ted Cruz stated that Obama invited Repub Senators to a meeting just to tell them that he wouldn't negotiate with them at all. So where does this idea come from other than faith that Obama is ready to work together and negotiate for things and it is the Repubs who are turning their backs?

I don't really blame either side. They both want different things and it will be a fight to get any of it done, either way.
 
It was my understanding the Senate was to be the conservative branch of the legislative bodies, providing the breaks to slow things down and let cooler heads prevail.

It is also my belief that government should drag. That it should move slowly and barely get anything done. My overall view is that government should be so small you need a magnifying glass to find it, and aren't aware it's even there. You go about your daily life not even talking or thinking about the government, much less the President.

But progressive liberal agendas prefer the opposite of that, prefer a big and powerful government with it's hands in everything, and from 2008 Obama's administration has set out to alter the country and replace the structure that it started out with and that led immigrants to come here for 200 years, and replace that with a New America of some sort.

So the nuclear move makes sense to them. Change the rules. Change the Constitution. Change everything.

But that's not the country that everyone wanted to come live in since it's inception.

If it was great enough the whole world wants to come live in it, then why change it?

When you can answer that question, you'll be getting at the heart of who this man Barack Obama is. He's no friend of classical traditional original America or anything the country stands for based on the philosophies of the Founders who drafted the Constitution. He is in favor of a new country that does not resemble the country that put him in office.

Go figure. And frankly I have no clue what he has envisioned replacing it with.
eek.gif
 
I think this will backfire in a big way. If the R's take over the Senate, which if things keep going as they are is likely, then Obamacrap can be overturned with a simple majority. Hallelujah.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top