Harry Reid's grab for power

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by slingblade

So Beohner changes the rules to empower himself and he is patriot but Reid does it and it socialism. Reid did not break any law or rule and the filibuster was not an intentional tool when it was developed anyway, merely a loop hole. It has been abused by all lately so it is time to say goodbye.
Here is an idea why don't the conservative stop being so partisan and maybe we can go back to the doing things by the "norm" system.
There has been around 160 filibusters total against all Presidents nominees and half have been used against Obama. That should tell you something.
Before Obama Republicans wanted to do away with the filibuster, what has changed?

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/ref...tureCounts.htm

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Learn to read. The chart was federal money, not necessarily welfare. That "implication" is only in your twisted mind.

Or can you not distinguish the two? Probably not since all the federal money YOU see probably is welfare.

Perhaps you're the one that needs to learn how to read, Old-Twerp: the 'Prophylactic Man'. The title on that chart states "Socialism" which implies that the citizens of Wyoming are receiving government welfare and charity, you ignorant Old-Twerp: the 'Prophylactic Man'.

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

IB: Believe what you want. Everything doesn't happen in a vacuum. My main point is that a lot of red states receive a ton in Federal money, and without it would have to make some drastic cuts. Wyoming included. So to say that they "pay their bills" isn't entirely accurate, because they pay their bills (at least partially) with Federal money.

And to get back to the topic at hand. From James Madison:

"It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum, and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision....[But that would mean] ... [i]n all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defense privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or in particular emergencies to extort unreasonable indulgences."

Really understand what he was saying there. I think that explains not only the current senate mess we are in, but the entire debt ceiling debacle. Even then a founding father knew what could happen if a minority of fringe legislators blocked the will of the majority with "unreasonable indulgences".

Blocking those nominations, in my opinion, qualifies as unreasonable. They are very well qualified candidates.

While I hate that it came to this, I certainly understand.

The implication of the "Socialism" chart you posted was that the citizens of Wyoming were nothing but charity and welfare cases. Unlike so many other government programs, the programs that hand out money and benefits without regard for any return on the investment, money spent paying Wyoming citizens to do work that need to be done -- not the "make work" (e.g., "tumbleweed catchers") programs backed by some -- yields a return. It takes park rangers to manage the parks and it takes airmen to man the missile silos, etc. The U.S. government spending money on maintaining and/or improving government property and facilities is in no manner charity or welfare. BTW, Madison also said this:

In order to judge of the form to be given to this institution [the Senate], it will be proper to take a view of the ends to be served by it. These were,—first, to protect the people against their rulers, secondly, to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.
Debates in the Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (June 26, 1787) Journal of the Federal Convention, ed. E. H. Scott (1893), pp. 241–42

[Old-T]

You are beyond help, stupid ignorant IBBuffoon.

You lie, you deny, you rant. You may not be the most evil person on here but you are clearly the most delusional.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You are beyond help, stupid ignorant IBBuffoon.

You lie, you deny, you rant. You may not be the most evil person on here but you are clearly the most delusional.

suitable for no response to any of his tripe ...

[Doove]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

And it's the red states that talk about seceding.

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

IB: Believe what you want. Everything doesn't happen in a vacuum. My main point is that a lot of red states receive a ton in Federal money, and without it would have to make some drastic cuts. Wyoming included. So to say that they "pay their bills" isn't entirely accurate, because they pay their bills (at least partially) with Federal money.

And to get back to the topic at hand. From James Madison:

"It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum, and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision....[But that would mean] ... [i]n all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defense privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or in particular emergencies to extort unreasonable indulgences."

Really understand what he was saying there. I think that explains not only the current senate mess we are in, but the entire debt ceiling debacle. Even then a founding father knew what could happen if a minority of fringe legislators blocked the will of the majority with "unreasonable indulgences".

Blocking those nominations, in my opinion, qualifies as unreasonable. They are very well qualified candidates.

While I hate that it came to this, I certainly understand.

The more relevant statistic would be how much in taxes in paid to the Federal Government from each state, and how much they get back during Obama's administration. Guess what - everyone gets back more than they give, thanks to deficit spending.

[IIFFOFRDB]

NY pays its way at exactly 1.00. CA is a net beneficiary to the tune of 9 cents (1.09). Florida is a quite large beneficiary at 1.39. Texas, interestingly, is a net benefactor at .91 on the dollar. So among the Big 4 Florida is living the most off the federal government and Texas the least.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02...federal-taxes/

[IIFFOFRDB]

Speaker Senator Beaver Pelt, crying...

[CuteOldGuy]

Hey Mr. Goober. Did you know that your cute little chart is based on 2005 data? Has anything changed since then?

That being said, the filibuster rule for federal appointees, except for SCOTUS, was ridiculous. A President should be able to pick his own team. With the filibuster, appointees become political pawns. I doubt if I would like any of Obama's appointees, but he's the President. Sad as that is to say.

The filibuster rule was adopted at a time when the Senate fulfilled a different role. Prior to the ill-considered 17th Amendment, the Senate represented the state legislatures. Their duty in the advice and consent role was to insure that the federal government did not overreach it's purview into state sovereignty. Meaningless now.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hey Mr. Goober. Did you know that your cute little chart is based on 2005 data? Has anything changed since then?

That being said, the filibuster rule for federal appointees, except for SCOTUS, was ridiculous. A President should be able to pick his own team. With the filibuster, appointees become political pawns. I doubt if I would like any of Obama's appointees, but he's the President. Sad as that is to say.

The filibuster rule was adopted at a time when the Senate fulfilled a different role. Prior to the ill-considered 17th Amendment, the Senate represented the state legislatures. Their duty in the advice and consent role was to insure that the federal government did not overreach it's purview into state sovereignty. Meaningless now.

I agree ... the President is the President, picking his choice for any office should be an automatic ... NQA

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hey Mr. Goober. Did you know that your cute little chart is based on 2005 data? Has anything changed since then?

That being said, the filibuster rule for federal appointees, except for SCOTUS, was ridiculous. A President should be able to pick his own team. With the filibuster, appointees become political pawns. I doubt if I would like any of Obama's appointees, but he's the President. Sad as that is to say.

The filibuster rule was adopted at a time when the Senate fulfilled a different role. Prior to the ill-considered 17th Amendment, the Senate represented the state legislatures. Their duty in the advice and consent role was to insure that the federal government did not overreach it's purview into state sovereignty. Meaningless now.

you tell us

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ng-charts-maps

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

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.

Horseshit. It isn't in the Constitution. Period.

And there is no comparison to privacy, which is a right of the INDIVIDUAL.

The 60% cloture rules is a procedural rule - nothing more. Definitely not an individual right.

And advise and consent requires nothing more than 51%. That also has nothing to do with the cloture rule.

Once you sober up, try to remember this rule has been used to hammer conservative programs and political appointments as well.

Ever since Bork got slandered by Ted Kennedy and company, the GOP has had to find stealth conservative candidates with no paper trails even when they were in the majority in the Senate in order to avoid filibusters. Bork wasn't filibustered since the Democrats held the majority, but it has been a concern ever since.

The GOP will do better without the 60% supermajority than the Democrats will.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

The Feds should reimburse them for taking care of immigrants, then they would have a surplus.

Actually, if the Feds would enforce current law, there wouldn't be as many immigrants to care for. Why should my tax money be used to support criminals, that is, people who are here illegally?

If California wants to keep them, they can pay for them. Yeah. California is more progressive. They are also bankrupt.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Horseshit. It isn't in the Constitution. Period.

And there is no comparison to privacy, which is a right of the INDIVIDUAL.

The 60% cloture rules is a procedural rule - nothing more. Definitely not an individual right.

And advise and consent requires nothing more than 51%. That also has nothing to do with the cloture rule.

Once you sober up, try to remember this rule has been used to hammer conservative programs and political appointments as well.

Ever since Bork got slandered by Ted Kennedy and company, the GOP has had to find stealth conservative candidates with no paper trails even when they were in the majority in the Senate in order to avoid filibusters. Bork wasn't filibustered since the Democrats held the majority, but it has been a concern ever since.

The GOP will do better without the 60% supermajority than the Democrats will.

cut JD some slack he's in the top .02% on the intellectual scale, and a TEACHER.

Nuclear Physics was a little below his status level

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

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:

Oopsie Mr. Goodbar, you stepped on your crank. Patricia Millett is the CURRENT nominee for a position that became available in 2005. Lets see, who was the president in 2005 and who kept his nominee from being voted on....oh, thats right, it was Harry Reid and the democratically controlled Senate that prevented an up or down vote. Sounds like they owe George Bush a nominee.