• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid confident he has the votes to trigger nuclear option in Senate

You seriously think that Republicans holding far left nominees of Obama, similar to Democrats holding far right nominees from Bush, will be seen by any significant number of people as a "war on women"? On what planet?
Saying that Obama is considered "far left" which in reality is a centrist moderate democrat these days... Yes...
 
Saying that Obama is considered "far left" which in reality is a centrist moderate democrat these days... Yes...

I didn't say anything about Obama's leanings - in fact, one could argue that Obama is invisible and simply jumps in front of a moving trend whenever he sees the end in sight. I was referring to his nominees, many of which are indeed from the far left of politics, law, and labor.
 
I didn't say anything about Obama's leanings - in fact, one could argue that Obama is invisible and simply jumps in front of a moving trend whenever he sees the end in sight. I was referring to his nominees, many of which are indeed from the far left of politics, law, and labor.

Which of his current nominees do you think is to the far left of politics, law, and labor?
 
Yes.. I think a lot of the Senate rules are inherently just idiotic and slow down an efficient democracy.

That's only because you don't understand how the Senate works, and your term "efficient" is so broad to be useless.
 
Which of his current nominees do you think is to the far left of politics, law, and labor?

The simple answer would be the current two nominees to the National Labor Relations Board whom Obama illegally appointed before the last election, claiming the Senate was in recess. Obama now wants them formally confirmed. Obama is paying the price for acting illegally, like a dictator, in appointing these two NLRB members while the Senate was legally sitting and the courts have slapped him down for it. Obama's other three nominees currently before the Senate are being approved by Republicans but they are not going to let Obama off the hook on the other two, and rightly so. Obama chose to disrespect Republicans in the Senate and so Republicans in the Senate are now telling him to go **** himself.
 
That's only because you don't understand how the Senate works, and your term "efficient" is so broad to be useless.

How do i not understand how the Senate works? And how am i being to broad?
 
I didn't say anything about Obama's leanings - in fact, one could argue that Obama is invisible and simply jumps in front of a moving trend whenever he sees the end in sight. I was referring to his nominees, many of which are indeed from the far left of politics, law, and labor.

And which ones are those?
 
The simple answer would be the current two nominees to the National Labor Relations Board whom Obama illegally appointed before the last election, claiming the Senate was in recess. Obama now wants them formally confirmed. Obama is paying the price for acting illegally, like a dictator, in appointing these two NLRB members while the Senate was legally sitting and the courts have slapped him down for it. Obama's other three nominees currently before the Senate are being approved by Republicans but they are not going to let Obama off the hook on the other two, and rightly so. Obama chose to disrespect Republicans in the Senate and so Republicans in the Senate are now telling him to go **** himself.

was there any problem with the canidates themselves, or was it because the NLRB is something that republicans hate vehemently?

and what about Obamas Current nominees? any problems with them?
 
I didn't say anything about Obama's leanings - in fact, one could argue that Obama is invisible and simply jumps in front of a moving trend whenever he sees the end in sight. I was referring to his nominees, many of which are indeed from the far left of politics, law, and labor.

I thought he had a radical socialist agenda bent on destroying the United States because **** it why not? Supervillain motivations, after all, happen in real life.
 
The nuclear option will polarize the senate even more. That's good news for me. Anything to slow down congress is a defitine positive.
 
How do i not understand how the Senate works? And how am i being to broad?

No one ever said they had to be efficient. Sailing through laws the way they do is not what I call good at all. Most of those clowns don't know how write, that's why most of the laws we get a total ****. I'm not at all for anything that speed them up. If they didn't have their noses in so much that really shouldn't concern them, they wouldn't have to rush to get so much done ; and poor work at that. They are suppose to be a deliberative body.
 
was there any problem with the canidates themselves, or was it because the NLRB is something that republicans hate vehemently?

and what about Obamas Current nominees? any problems with them?

Yes, Republicans and business in general have problems with the rulings of the NLRB, the Boeing issue being one example.

Obama has currently made 5 nominees to the NLRB, the two previous illegal recess appointments plus three others. The Republicans have said they will not block the three new nominees and the two illegal appointments are still on the NLRB pending adjudication at the Supreme Court - those two will remain there until the SC rules. Republicans have said they will not approve these two - they want the court to rule on the illegality of Obama appointing them so that this can't happen again and they are not going to allow the two to be nominated in the normal process now, making the Supreme Court review moot, and taking Obama off the hook. We all know that if the Supreme Court has the legal issue taken from them, Obama will not admit he acted beyond his authority.
 
I thought he had a radical socialist agenda bent on destroying the United States because **** it why not? Supervillain motivations, after all, happen in real life.

Maybe he does - that's not my issue or relevant to my comments on this thread - if you want to start a thread on that topic, feel free to do so and I might opine.
 
And will you still be happy about this move when there is a Republican president again and the same rules apply?

Just speaking for myself, I'd be in favor of it. The senate should only block appointee's by the president if there is a big problem with that person, and even then they should be blocked by an up or down vote of the senate, not by a filibuster. If 51 members of the majority party think it is an ok pick for an appointment then that's good enough. This madness has to stop.
 
Yes, Republicans and business in general have problems with the rulings of the NLRB, the Boeing issue being one example.

Obama has currently made 5 nominees to the NLRB, the two previous illegal recess appointments plus three others. The Republicans have said they will not block the three new nominees and the two illegal appointments are still on the NLRB pending adjudication at the Supreme Court - those two will remain there until the SC rules. Republicans have said they will not approve these two - they want the court to rule on the illegality of Obama appointing them so that this can't happen again and they are not going to allow the two to be nominated in the normal process now, making the Supreme Court review moot, and taking Obama off the hook. We all know that if the Supreme Court has the legal issue taken from them, Obama will not admit he acted beyond his authority.

those are not the only nominees that are being held up.

there is also the nomination of Richard Cordray for head of the consumer financial protection bureau, and Gina Mccarthy as head the environmental protection agency. what is the problem that the republicans have with their nominations, besides being appointed by Obama?

and then there is also the possable nomination of Thomas Perez as Labor Secretary and whoever obama nominates to replace janet napolitano as head of the department of homeland security.
 
those are not the only nominees that are being held up.

there is also the nomination of Richard Cordray for head of the consumer financial protection bureau, and Gina Mccarthy as head the environmental protection agency. what is the problem that the republicans have with their nominations, besides being appointed by Obama?

and then there is also the possable nomination of Thomas Perez as Labor Secretary and whoever obama nominates to replace janet napolitano as head of the department of homeland security.

Those happen to be the nominees that are now the primay issue related to the "nuclear option" and they are the ones I brought up - you asked me for examples, I gave you some.

As to the others, I think you'll find that Obama opening his yap and claiming he's going to ignore congress and by executive order initiate financial and environmental protection policy from the White House would be a pretty good reason why Republicans will not assist him in any way going forward on that dictatorial regime.
 
A rules change one way or the other by the majority to achieve some victory today usually comes at a very high cost down the road. I am not so sure that this isn't a puffy bluff by Reid. If i were a GOP in the Senate, I would force him to do it and then make him pay dearly every step of the way from here on out. I would vote against everything at every step of the way the dems put forth whether I opposed it or not.
 
Those happen to be the nominees that are now the primay issue related to the "nuclear option" and they are the ones I brought up - you asked me for examples, I gave you some.

As to the others, I think you'll find that Obama opening his yap and claiming he's going to ignore congress and by executive order initiate financial and environmental protection policy from the White House would be a pretty good reason why Republicans will not assist him in any way going forward on that dictatorial regime.

the EPA, CFPB, labor department and DHS cannot be expected to function without someone to lead their asigned positions.

what is the problem with the nominees of these departments?
 
the EPA, CFPB, labor department and DHS cannot be expected to function without someone to lead their asigned positions.

what is the problem with the nominees of these departments?

Like I said, Obama wants to legislate from the White House, ignoring congress, when it comes to these areas of governance. As a result, it's only natural that Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure that those agencies cannot function. You've answered your own question.

As for the individuals involved, I don't have any information on them at this time, so I won't comment on their fitness for the positions they are nominated for.
 
Like I said, Obama wants to legislate from the White House, ignoring congress, when it comes to these areas of governance. As a result, it's only natural that Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure that those agencies cannot function. You've answered your own question.

As for the individuals involved, I don't have any information on them at this time, so I won't comment on their fitness for the positions they are nominated for.

so is the problem with the candidates, the president who picked them, or is it the cabinet position or bureau that the nominee's are being appointed to?

is the reason that some republicans are againist Richard Cordray, Gina Mccarthy, and thomas Perez as nominees because the republican party is ideologically opposed to the very existance and function of the EPA, The CFPB, and labor department?
 
so is the problem with the candidates, the president who picked them, or is it the cabinet position or bureau that the nominee's are being appointed to?

is the reason that some republicans are againist Richard Cordray, Gina Mccarthy, and thomas Perez as nominees because the republican party is ideologically opposed to the very existance and function of the EPA, The CFPB, and labor department?

I can't speak for the Republican Party any more than you can for the Democrat Party or the President. You should ask the President why he bypasses congress, an equal agency of the US government.

The reasons for the Republican opposition are probably all of the above or a combination of them. When ideology drives the Presidency, you often have ideology drive the response.
 
Just speaking for myself, I'd be in favor of it. The senate should only block appointee's by the president if there is a big problem with that person, and even then they should be blocked by an up or down vote of the senate, not by a filibuster. If 51 members of the majority party think it is an ok pick for an appointment then that's good enough. This madness has to stop.

I agree with that. If there is a good reason, they should still be able to do something, but with your example, the majority would win all the time. I think the idea is to give the minority some type of option when there is a majority.

Richard Arenberg: U.S. Senate filibuster reform is unnecessary - The Washington Post

In 1949, Lyndon Johnson, the “master of the Senate,” said in defense of the filibuster: “If I should have the opportunity to send into the countries behind the Iron Curtain one freedom and only one . . . I would send to those nations the right of unlimited debate in their legislative chambers . . . If we now, in haste and irritation, shut off this freedom, we shall be cutting off the most vital safeguard which minorities possess against the tyranny of momentary majorities.” Later, former senator George Mitchell told his colleagues that “when I was majority leader, I didn’t always enjoy unlimited debate. There were times when I was frustrated by the ease with which the Senate rules can be used for obstruction. But with time and distance comes perspective . . . [T]he right of unlimited debate is a rare treasure which you must safeguard. Of course, it can be, and it is, abused. But that is the price that must be paid, and the privilege is worth the price.”
 
Just as had been the case when the GOP opened the proverbial Pandora's Box concerning the "nuclear option" regarding President Bush's judicial nominees, I oppose such a move. My concern then was that the threat would be levied again at some point in time even if the "nuclear option" were not adopted (it wasn't). Adoption would create a precedent under which minority rights would be eroded.

I believe a far more practical approach would entail adopting reforms in the rules associated with the next Congress (following the 2014 elections) that facilitate confirmation votes. That way, the necessary reforms would be adopted without setting a precedent that almost certainly would be used in the future to further erode minority party rights.

Having said that, my position on nominees is the following:

1. One should respect that the President has been elected and should have the freedom to choose his/her nominees.
2. If a nominee is appropriately qualified and competent for the position, he/she should be confirmed barring exceptional circumstances. In general, ideology, alone, does not rise to that level, as nominations of persons with extreme ideologies have been extremely rare (usual Democrat-Republican/liberal-conservative differences do not fall into the category of extreme ideologies).
3. Greater scrutiny should be placed on nominees for life-time appointments e.g., Supreme Court nominees. Most nominees are selected for positions that they will hold for only a limited period of time (Cabinet and mid-level Administrative positions).
 
I agree with that. If there is a good reason, they should still be able to do something, but with your example, the majority would win all the time. I think the idea is to give the minority some type of option when there is a majority.

Yea, but as it is right now the minority wins all the time. If they would have kept the filibuster as what it was intended for the democrats wouldn't have to change these rules. They aren't trying to change them because they've been used once or twice.
 
The reasons for the Republican opposition are probably all of the above or a combination of them. When ideology drives the Presidency, you often have ideology drive the response.

It works both ways. Ideology drives the GOP as well. Hence why congress has single digit approval ratings.
 
Back
Top Bottom