Harry Reid's grab for power

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by timpage

CJ, you are wasting your time. Nothing that has happened in the past matters anymore. The only thing that matters to the Democrats is fundamental transformation of the country. Country be damned. Rule of law be damned.

FTFY

[CuteOldGuy]

Personally, I never cared for the filibuster.

[sexaholic87]

Not to mention... Chief Justice John Roberts (hardly a liberal) has called this a "judicial emergency"... and has called for an end to the gridlock in the senate*.

This is unprecedented.

* http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicin...-endreport.pdf

[CuteOldGuy]

District court judgeships are political patronage. Confirm them so they can hire clerks to clean up the backlog so Hizzoner (or Heroner) can get to the country club where they belong.

[sexaholic87]

The thing that gets me is the simple truth of politics:

Elections have consequences.

It seems that, at least for republicans, they only have consequences when they win. I understand not liking the guy, but stopping his nominations? Just because they are liberal? If they are qualified, it doesn't matter.

Dems for years had to pass nominees that they didn't particularly liked. I'm not saying they didn't muck up the process (Miguel Estrada comes to mind), but for the most part if Bush wanted him, he got him.

Since Senate Republicans can't take their "advise and consent" duties seriously, perhaps they don't need them at all.

I hate it came to this, but it was necessary.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

Not to mention... Chief Justice John Roberts (hardly a liberal) has called this a "judicial emergency"... and has called for an end to the gridlock in the senate*.

This is unprecedented.

* http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicin...-endreport.pdf

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

The thing that gets me is the simple truth of politics:

Elections have consequences.

It seems that, at least for republicans, they only have consequences when they win. I understand not liking the guy, but stopping his nominations? Just because they are liberal? If they are qualified, it doesn't matter.

Dems for years had to pass nominees that they didn't particularly liked. I'm not saying they didn't muck up the process (Miguel Estrada comes to mind), but for the most part if Bush wanted him, he got him.

Since Senate Republicans can't take their "advise and consent" duties seriously, perhaps they don't need them at all.

I hate it came to this, but it was necessary.

You have been called out again JD. Care to reply?

[Whirlaway]

Great...in 2015 the GOP Senate can pass legislation to repeal Obamacare with a simple majority.

[BJerk]

While I wish to get the nomination process back on track, this change is worrisome. The Senate in the future will probably morph into a conservative institution controlled by the flyover states with small populations, easily controlled by backwater conservatives, and having the same two votes in Wyoming as a more modern state like California. Liberals are dominant in the cities, conservatives are dominant in hicksville. The Senate will end up as their last stand, and this will help them block Democratic Presidents and their nominees more easily.

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by timpage

CJ, you are wasting your time. Nothing that has happened in the past matters anymore. The only thing that matters to the GOP is obstruction. Country be damned. Rule of law be damned.

They're turning us into Bolivia.

Well, at least prostitution is legal in Bolivia.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

While I wish to get the nomination process back on track, this change is worrisome. The Senate in the future will probably morph into a conservative institution controlled by the flyover states with small populations, easily controlled by backwater conservatives, and having the same two votes in Wyoming as a more modern state like California. Liberals are dominant in the cities, conservatives are dominant in hicksville. The Senate will end up as their last stand, and this will help them block Democratic Presidents and their nominees more easily.

What index are you using to compare Wyoming and California, Bert? The murder rate is higher in California. The poverty rate is higher in California. The unemployment rate is higher in California. The overall quality of life is lower for California than for Wyoming.

So, Bert, in what regard is your "more modern" California "better" than "hicksville" Wyoming ... other than California is governed by over-paid, lib-retarded politicos?

[nevergaveitathought]

the issues are three as I see them:

1. transferring power to the executive branch and upsetting the balance of power all in the name of "winning"
2. changing the mindset and uniqueness of the senate, making its role no more than another 100 members of the house
3. if you can change the rules of senate at anytime, you have no rules to rely upon, no protection for a minority, which has been our hallmark since the establishment of the country, merely the rule of the majority. it's difficult to know the extent of the calming influence a republic has been versus a mere democracy but I think its been a very good thing.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The 60% super-majority isn't a constitutional protection and is not, in fact, even mentioned in the Constitution.

The 60% super majority is only a Senate rule. And the Senate can changes its rules - which it just did.

Advise and consent is in the Constitution and that little rule you mentioned goes back over 200 years. How does the Senate have any influence on a president without the minority having some sort of power to halt a very bad nomination. Jefferson put this in place to force a president to make more mainstream nominations and not partisan cookie cutter appointments. Like the right to privacy, this is a constitutional protection even without being in the Constitution.

Funny that in 2005 Reid, Biden, Feinstein, Clinton, and Obama (running for the office) were absolutely against the "nuclear" option as threatened by the GOP (but never carried out).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjdbjrXiobQ

[CuteOldGuy]

Hey, Bertie! How's that "modern" state of California doing? Yeah, that little backwater place full of rednecks and cowboys called Wyoming CAN PAY ITS BILLS!

Yeah. Let's all be like California.

[sexaholic87]

I understand why people are upset with this historic senate rule change. I can't say that I'm thrilled with it myself. However, most of you are missing a very big point:

Senate Republican Obstructionism is unprecedented and just as historic. It's never been done like this folks. EVER.

Advise and Consent is in the Constitution. The filibuster, however, is not. They are not the same thing. Because the republicans didn't take the clause seriously, the rules had to be changed.

Google Patricia Millett. She's a VERY WELL QUALIFIED jurist that they were blocking. Why? Because they essentially don't like Obama. That's not what "Advise and Consent" means. The same goes for Mel Watt, who actually is a congressman. IN THE PAST, Congressmen were usually approved pretty quickly... after all, he's one of them. But yet, they are blocking him too.

Again, unprecedented. When the very conservative John Roberts is asking for them to approve these judges, you know that there must be a huge problem. We have a 100 empty seats.

And off topic, but why are we praising Wyoming? Yeah, they pay their bills, but that's because they actually receive more federal funding than they send out:

[Old-T]

Thanks MrGoodBar. It would be enlightening to list the states with the lowest per capita income, lowest education levels, highest drunk driving stats, etc. as well.

Some significant correlation I would guess.