Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Schumer: I Wish Democrats Hadn’t Triggered the ‘Nuclear Option’
Breitbart ^ | January 4, 2017 | by ADELLE NAZARIAN

Posted on 01/04/2017 3:32:49 PM PST by Jim Robinson

Incoming Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says he regrets a 2013 decision by Senate Democrats, known as the “nuclear option” to decrease the number of senators needed to confirm Cabinet picks from 60 to 51 votes.

“I wish it hadn’t happened,” Schumer said in an interview with CNN, about the move that was triggered by former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

The move is dubbed the “nuclear option” because by altering the filibuster rules it stands to blow up bipartisan Senate relations.

“I argued against it at the time,” Schumer said. “I said both for Supreme Court and in Cabinet should be 60, because on such important positions there should be some degree of bipartisanship. I won on Supreme Court, lost on Cabinet. But, that’s what we have to live with now.”

Republicans hold a 52-48 majority in the new Senate which means they already have the number needed to confirm Trump’s nominees without the Democrats. However, the Democrats have still vowed to fight against the picks. Schumer and his fellow Democratic senators will aggressively target eight of President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks, which he refers to as “rigged.”

“If Republicans think they can quickly jam through a whole slate of nominees without a fair hearing process, they’re sorely mistaken,” Schumer said recently...

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 115th; cabinet; democrats; filibuster; nuclearoption; reid; schumer; trump; trumpcabinet; trumptransition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last
To: Old Grumpy
So: when it works for THEM, it’s OK. When it works for us, it’s all wrong and must be fixed.

The Democrats regard themselves as the natural ruling elite and anything that impedes that natural order is not to be tolerated. In short, they operate on the childhood rule of "Heads I win, tails you lose!" With the able and deep assist given by the fellow-traveler LEFTIST MSM, they have frequently buffaloed the opposition with dire warnings of how they would get retribution for failure to let them have their way.

Except for extraordinary tough individuals in the GOP, Reagan and Gingrich come to mind, the Democrats have had a very successful trend that they see no reason to stop. We forget how GOP successes turn into hazy fumes when the Democrats find weak individuals like Jim Jeffords and Arlan Spector to work their will.

The problem for them NOW is that there are none willing to actually turn their coat and even the wafflers have learned that Trump stands to trump anything that they might do for the opposition Democrats. Add their totally foolish bow to Obama's intolerance of opposition with opening that 'Nuclear Option' and they now find themselves with very little power or persuasion!

Stand FIRM in Congress and you will find two+ years of whimpering Schumer, crying to the LEFTIST MSM about how unfair it is that Harry did not stay to eat his own pudding!

61 posted on 01/04/2017 4:55:50 PM PST by SES1066 (Happiness is a depressed Washington, DC housing market!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
A President is entitled to choose his own cabinet. Why does it even need Senate approval?

A president chooses the White House staff and that doesn't require Senate confirmation.

But according to the Constitution the "principal Officer in each of the executive Departments" has to be confirmed by the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2).

The words "Cabinet" and "Secretary" don't appear in the text of the Constitution, but that's who it's talking about.

62 posted on 01/04/2017 4:57:44 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
All started with giving women the vote.

Next thing you know Senators are picked by popular vote and the IRS is helping themselves to a piece of every business and individuals income, from whatever source.

You reversed the order. First, income tax (16th Amendment), then popular election of Senators (17th Amendment), then women's suffrage (19th Amendment). All three thanks to the Progressive Movement.

63 posted on 01/04/2017 5:02:46 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Fhios

The Supreme Court would never take a case that is an internal Senate issue...never.


64 posted on 01/04/2017 5:22:22 PM PST by Dave W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Tango Sierra, Schmukie!

Tango Sierra!


65 posted on 01/04/2017 6:01:36 PM PST by Redleg Duke (Final countdown to the liberals' Trumpaccolips! Yee Haw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

Right, all within a 10 year period, terrible attack on our freedom.


66 posted on 01/04/2017 6:21:44 PM PST by Rome2000 (SMASH THE CPUSA-SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS-CLOSE ALL MOSQUES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
“I argued against it at the time,” Schumer said.

But he VOTED FOR IT!

L.A. Times 11/21/2013

Only three Democrats — Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan — joined Republicans in the 48-52 vote.

67 posted on 01/04/2017 6:30:52 PM PST by Henchster (Free Republic - the BEST site on the web!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

And here's the liar advocating to end the Filibuster on 8/3/2009:

Baucus has until Sept. 15 to reach an agreement with Republicans -- and that is still the goal. "But if we don't, it is not going to stop us from moving forward with health care," Schumer told reporters Monday. "If the Republicans are not able to produce an agreement (by then), we will have contingencies in place. Health reform is just too important to let this window pass by." Among the options is invoking a procedural maneuver known as reconciliation, which would allow Senate Democrats to pass a bill with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote filibuster-proof threshold.

68 posted on 01/04/2017 6:33:47 PM PST by Henchster (Free Republic - the BEST site on the web!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Be careful what you wish for....


69 posted on 01/04/2017 6:33:57 PM PST by Hildy ("The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Chuck Schumer does NOT know what a ‘fair hearing’ is.


70 posted on 01/04/2017 6:37:35 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

I say do the Nuc option on the Supreme Court!


71 posted on 01/04/2017 6:40:22 PM PST by Empireoftheatom48 (God did help the Republic, can we keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182; All
Liberals never learn... Actions Have Consequences
72 posted on 01/04/2017 6:41:26 PM PST by Cobra64 (Common sense isn't common any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Jim Robinson
I consider the filibuster an unconstitutional amending of the constitution.

In one sense, you are right. Filibusters are not mentioned in the Constitution. However, the Constitution does give the House and Senate the right to make their own rules. Article I, Section 5, clause 2 says, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

Filibusters arose very early in the nation's history as part of the rules of each house of Congress. The House of Reps basically did away with it in their rules long ago, but the Senate has kept the filibuster in one form or another since the 1830's.

I don't mind the filibuster in principle, but loathe the way it has evolved since what I would call the phony filibuster came into being in the second half of the 20th Century. It allows a senator to just declare one for almost any reason. The senator does not have to stand and speak on the topic continuously until s/he gets too tired to continue or gets his/her way. Filibusters originally were only intended to prevent the passage of bills, but in the phony filibuster era, senators could declare one for almost any reason.

Now we have the absurd situation where almost everything in the Senate requires 60 votes to pass. So yes, let's get rid of phony filibusters. If the Senate insists on keeping filibusters, then return the practice to its original form. Require the filibustering senator to do it in person on the Senate floor. Also amend the rules so that the filibuster is returned to its original more narrow purpose of only preventing passage of a bill.

73 posted on 01/04/2017 7:09:26 PM PST by Avalon Memories (If Russia did influence our election, they did us a huge favor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Memories

Sèe #34


74 posted on 01/04/2017 7:30:22 PM PST by xzins (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Tango Sierra, baby, Tango Sierra.


75 posted on 01/04/2017 7:41:45 PM PST by Rembrandt (Part of the 51% who pay Federal taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold War Veteran - Submarines

who will be the first democrat to become a TRUMP DEMOCRAT???

Just a guess, but Sen Robert Casey, PA. he is a weak link and he is up in 2018...he is in hiding for most of his six year term, but comes out when democrats drag him out...I often call him the ‘church mouse’

He runs on his late Father’s coat tails, and is a lazy, do nothing, worthless member of the Senate.
Hopefully some one in PA wakes up and finds a strong candidate to run against him.

LET’S GET IT DONE, PENNSYLVANIA...WE DID IT ON NOV. 8TH 2016, LET’S DO IT TO CASEY IN NOV.2018.


76 posted on 01/04/2017 8:06:05 PM PST by haircutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

THANKS for sharing that photo of Val ‘gal pal’ Jarrett..

have y’all seen the recent photo of her...NO glasses, and nose job, and neck tuck...a big difference...probably paid for by tax payers...


77 posted on 01/04/2017 8:12:26 PM PST by haircutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Can’t agree with that - as the vote is not actually on passage of any legislation - it is on their own internal rules of moving forward with procedures. It effectively does kill legislation by not allowing it to move forward, yes, but that is their right to set their own rules.


78 posted on 01/04/2017 8:14:44 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo

79 posted on 01/04/2017 8:15:46 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Go pound sand Chucky!


80 posted on 01/04/2017 8:51:10 PM PST by wjcsux (MAGA, I'm not tired of winning or gloating!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson