- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Senate Democrats laid the groundwork Thursday to trigger the “nuclear option” against minority filibusters, setting up a dramatic Tuesday showdown in which Republicans either will have to accept seven of President Obama’s controversial appointments or watch as Democrats change the rules and end filibusters of executive branch nominees.
The move would fundamentally alter the balance of power between the White House and the Senate and would give the president more latitude to put his team into place. But it also would aggravate a contentious atmosphere in the Senate and dim prospects for bipartisan agreements this year, with spending, debt and immigration fights still simmering.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said at the beginning of the year that he would not use the option.
He changed his mind Thursday after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, broke his side of an agreement by delaying confirmation of some of the president’s nominees.
“A deal is a deal, a contract is a contract, an arrangement is an arrangement, a bargain is a bargain, as long as each party to such an agreement holds up his end of the bargain,” Mr. Reid said in a morning floor speech.
Republicans warned that they could retaliate easily if they reclaim the majority by ending other filibusters, which would let them push through their own priorities without fear of minority obstruction.
Harry Reid prepares Senate to go 'nuclear,' end nomination filibusters - Washington Times
Democrats better get rid of Reid, the man is an unhinged gang weasel. If the Reps regain the Senate, there will be hell to pay.
He wants to undo measures that were put in place for fairness to the American People? Wow.....
How does denying the majority will of the people equate to fairness for the people?
Is this measure only going to change the vote procedure for nominees or for all legislation?
Majority is not the same as majority will of the people.
Senators are duly elected representatives of the people. As such, they generally reflect the will of the people. Why should not a majority of them not be able to enact legislation or confirm appointments?
Senators are duly elected representatives of the people. As such, they generally reflect the will of the people. Why should not a majority of them not be able to enact legislation or confirm appointments?
Because there are safeguards to protect other areas of the country and have their voices heard too. By the way does legislation not require 60 votes in the Senate?
Because there are safeguards to protect other areas of the country and have their voices heard too. By the way does legislation not require 60 votes in the Senate?
Majority is not the same as majority will of the people.
Heya HM. :2wave: That's not necessarily true with Senators. I would say moreso with Congressmen and women.
In a representative democracy... it kindof is.
Senators come from the entire state of all the people in that state. Representatives usually come from highly gerrymandered districts that are not always an accurate representation of the people of that state.
I guess this is something that can be argued both ways all day long without resolution.
Well.....truthfully. I just look at what the Senators Vote for. Which many times is against what their own constitutients want. Prime example would be Johnny Quest McCain. Who probably does moreso than any other Senator.
And how many times have the good people of his state elected him to office?
Harry Reid prepares Senate to go 'nuclear,' end nomination filibusters - Washington Times
Democrats better get rid of Reid, the man is an unhinged gang weasel. If the Reps regain the Senate, there will be hell to pay.
How many times did they even have anyone else to run up against him? Someone that did represent all of Arizona. How many times did the Repubs support him and tank any other Repub that refused to step back and not challenge him.
Every time McCain ran there was opportunity both within his own party and any opposition party to defeat him. The people elected McCain time after time after time after time.
Yeah, and that still doesn't mean he was representing his constituients all the time either.
Senators come from the entire state of all the people in that state. Representatives usually come from highly gerrymandered districts that are not always an accurate representation of the people of that state.
I guess this is something that can be argued both ways all day long without resolution.
How many times did they even have anyone else to run up against him? Someone that did represent all of Arizona. How many times did the Repubs support him and tank any other Repub that refused to step back and not challenge him.
That assumes that on every issue every representative always votes with the majority of their district. We know good and well that is not alwasy the case.
If we are to go by your logic (which is a fair argument mind you) then one must assume that the only reason Sen. MCconnel still ranks supreme in KY is because his campaigns ha e been successful at running off every primary candidate who has tried to run against him. Thus, allowing hi m to run for re-election unopposed. But I guess it's as they say, "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?