Posted on 11/21/2013 2:34:25 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president’s nominees.
Democrats made the filibuster change with a simple-majority vote, which Republicans insisted was a violation of the rules. There is ample precedent for this kind of change, though it should be used judiciously. Today’s vote was an appropriate use of that power, and it was necessary to turn the Senate back into a functioning legislative body.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If my State Senator is not allowed to represent me, then we have taxation without representation. The democrats think they are a monarchy. When King George tried that it started a revolution.
Can an individual Senator still put a “hold” on a nomination? If so that’s what the GOP should do to ALL subsequent nominations.
why are we still playing with these people?
split the country by red v blue counties and be done with it
those people do not want to be Americns anyhow
More reason to vote all RAT Senators out next year.
Someone should remind the elitist snoobs at the Times that we live in a Representative Republic!
But let’s play their game. 60+ % of Americans want Obamacare repealed. Do it !
Wasn’t this known as the constitutional option back in 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319158/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1423646/posts
More reason to vote all RAT Senators out next year.
We have to get the RINOs out as well. They do just as much damage.
I understand and won’t spread the concern until I can read the language of the rule change as passed. If anyone has a link, share it.
Really, then why does the rule “revert” if the Democrats lose control of the Senate?
This time the change was “only for judges and executive appointees”. A Republican Senator has already said that when there is a Republican Senate and a Republican President, the rules will be changed to allow a majority vote for Supreme Court Justices ... over which the Left will go positively bonkers.
Eventually, the rules will be changed to forbid fillibusters for legislation, and the Senate will look like the House ... and respect for the rights of the minority will be eliminated.
This is one more step towards the tyranny of the majority ... and I mourn.
NYTs amnesia...
wow, good thing we didn’t elect Romney..
There is ample precedent for this kind of change, though it should be used judiciously.By "judiciously", this New York Slimes op-ed means, when the Demagogic Party wants to force the appointment of left-wingers onto the judge's benches, and at no other time. Thanks Oldeconomybuyer.
There is a bright side to this, as pointed out on Newsbusters.org yesterday. Four years from now, it will be easier for President Cruz to appoint Sarah Palin to whatever judicial position he likes.
She should be appointed to head the Department of Energy, but I like the sound of President Cruz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.