- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 5,729
- Reaction score
- 2,853
- Location
- Colorado mountains
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
There is use ...and then there is abuse.
This graph demonstrates where McConnell clearly crossed the line.
There is use ...and then there is abuse.This will give you a good idea:
Senate approves nuclear option
So rather than "doing nothing" they have done exactly what they were elected to do.
No I am not. What did he vow to them?
This will give you a good idea:
It will. However, I approve of that. For presidential appointments, I do not think it should take 60 votes and I do not think ideology should be used to block appointments, and both those go either way. It is a game both sides play, and it really does need to stop. Unless there is something major with an appointment, some ethics violations, clearly unqualified, something like that, then the president does get to pick. That is entirely appropriate, and it does not matter who is president. I did not support and disagreed with the blocking of Bush nominations(and it happened, bigtime) either..Maybe if the two parties stopped trying to **** each other over at every turn, things would not be so ****ed up
It's about time Harry.
There will never be a payback.
Even if, by some weird turn of events the republicons regain a senate majority...Democrats don't filibuster presidential appointments.
That is a republicon thing .
The party of mass obstruction is losing it's grip.
Wouldn't surprise me if the three Democrats were instructed to vote against the motion so that once all the Obama nominations have been cleared, one of the three can move reconsideration of the motion and rescind it going back to the 60 vote threshold before they lose the Senate in 2014.
...Democrats don't filibuster presidential appointments.
That is a republicon thing .
That doesn't make any sense at all. If Democrats lose the Senate, the Republicans can just institute it again. Remember? It only requires a majority vote to change the rules.
Show me where the filibuster was written into the US Constitution. It isn't. In fact, the filibuster was not used for several years after the founding of our nation. It was instituted by a vote on the rules in the Senate. Now the Constitution DOES have something to say about that....
Nothing unconstitutional or illegal was done today.
Do you believe that they were elected to stop all legislative activity,... or were they elected to govern?
This will give you a good idea:
Do you believe that they were elected to stop all legislative activity,... or were they elected to govern?
So much for protect minority rights, perhaps the dems only protect minority rights when it suits them to do so.Where 50% plus 1 vote can have their way over the other 50% less 1 vote. I am disappointed, but not surprised or shocked. This is just another precedence set by a Democrat that those very same Democrats will come back hollering at the top of their lungs when in the majority, the Republicans return the favor.We are moving closer and closer to rule by the majority and a direct democracy.
Bask in the glory is all I can say, because what goes around will come around. I would say as of today the Republican's have a 50-50 shot at gaining control of the Senate in 2014. It looks like Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota and Arkansas will change from Dem to Rep, then 2 of 3 of the following states, NC, AK and LA would give them control. These last three are in the toss up column today whereas the other 4 are in the lean Rep column. Interesting, I wonder how loud you will holler when the GOP uses Reid's precedence when they gain control? I fully expect you to support them in the same manner you are supporting Reid today. To do otherwise would be hypercritical and just show one is playing petty politics.
In reality, this single vote doesn't bother me that much. I am just fearful of what will follow. I can see such things happening in the future if the GOP were to win the presidency in 2016 and gained the control of the senate of repealing the ACA by simple majority vote, by repealing the highest tax bracket by simple majority vote, by repealing any democratic legislation they don't like by simple majority vote. The precedence has been set.
No, not unconstitution as you stated. The filibuster rule was instituted in 1806. That is a long history to be overturned. But the precedence has been set. From on now regardless of which party has the majority in the senate, if the majority leader wants to get something through the senate, passed and the filibuster is holding it up. All that senate majority leader has to do is point to Senator Reid and cite 21 Nov 2013 and use the nuclear option to get his piece of legislation passed whatever it is. One of the checks and balance of over reaching power, especially if one party holds both chambers and the presidency has been lost. Now do not holler if for example the GOP were to gain control of both chambers of congress and the presidency in 2016, if they use the nuclear option to repeal, say Obamacare, lower tax rates, etc that the Democrats could have stopped with the use of the filibusters. Setting precedents has consequences.
I hope cooler heads prevail, but in today's poisonous political atmosphere in Washington, I really doubt that it will.
They were elected to represent the interests of those who chose them. If those interests end up being contrary to the interests of some other group then it's reasonable to expect disagreement.
You liberals need to understand that freedom from opposition isn't freedom at all, it's tyranny.
I have been saying for several years that if the GOP doesn't make some major changes in the way that it operates and attract more minority voters who will be the majority of the voters in the USA in about thirty years it will end up being reduced to a minor regional party with no national power.
Not my problem.
"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
What about representing the nation as a whole?
You are being facetious, right?
Tell me more about Ambassador Bolton?
There is a difference between "many times" and EVERYTIME.
If I'm not mistaken, Senator Graham has indicated he would put a hold on any Obama nominee in committee until such time as the administration releases to congress the transcripts of the FBI interviews of the Benghazi survivors and allows congress to interview them as well. To date, the administration has objected, likely fearing the truth on the ground blows up their storyline.
Ummm... That would be governingDepends on their individual constituencies. Some want congress to stop passing new law and busy themselves fixing the stuff already on the books.
The 60 vote threshold has been modified many times in the past.
There is a difference between "many times" and EVERYTIME.
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?