Posted on 11/21/2013 8:45:41 AM PST by ken5050
All the action today appears to be in the Senate. They just finished voting on a motion to proceed to confirm one of Obama's nominees to the DC Court of Appeals, and it failed to get the necessary 60 votes to proceed. This is the 3rd nominee that the GOP has blocked, and Reid had threatened to go nuclear, to change the rules by a simple MAJORITY vote. Before that could happen, McConnell moved that the Senate adjourn until 5PM..a privileged motion which must be voted on. The roll call is underway.
The proper response here is that any Obamacare fix gets filibustered.
Let. It. Burn.
I stopped worrying about this stuff when I could see the beltway GOP didn’t give a darn about being the Dems doormat.
We simply don’t have an engaged opposition party right now. No use for us folks on main street being foot soldiers if the generals won’t fight the battles.
This is what the touchy-feely, ‘can’t we get along?’ MO of the GOP has gotten us.
Three Dems..Manchin, Levin, and Pryor..voted with the GOP..Murkowski went to the dark side..
I wasn't paying attention, but likely some who are up for reelection, but Landreui wasn't one of them.
I can't pay close attention because I'm busy with our FReepathon thread.
LOL
OKay, thanks.
Murky is really a witch.
see #84
GOP house should have already weighed in, and let Reid and Dems know that Government would come to a stand still. Also GOP should use purse strings (if possible) pull salary for any nominee that gets appointment using current rules.
Question...Can the GOP still put holds on nominees (not sure if a hold was a form of filibuster)
Question...Can the GOP still put holds on nominees (not sure if a hold was a form of filibuster)
///////
I don’t see why not.
The GOP needs to tell the Chamber amnesty hacks to stow it and then hit the Dems with a populist 2 x 4 upside the head. Landrieu, Hagen, Pryor, etc. All of ‘em. Turn up the heat and destroy them now.
The problem for the Democrats is that lifetime appointment of crooked judges puts a target on their crooked judges.
Law breaking leads to law breaking. The purpose of politics is to compete by non-violent means, accepting small gains or small losses, so that the system of avoiding violence doesn’t break down. When you change the rules of the game, then others can change the rules of the game. You don’t change the rules of the game based on an expectation of long term strength, but rather from weakness.
Thanks again John Cornyn, you moron.
For those of us with no tv..what happened? Is the motion adopted to change?
I am glad. A simple majority should be for everything. When did this stupid 60 vote thing start. Is this in the constitution? Did the founders want 60 votes for judges? Bills? Budgets? Etc.
great post
Should be interesting to watch McLame try and spin this.
Agreed, this is an attempt by the Dems to do two things. One, pack the courts with Obama nominees in advance of losing the Senate next year and two, try to retain the Senate by drawing attention away from ObamaCare and refocusing it on the partisan bickering and disfunction.
well... this will start a flame, I’m sure...
But, I’m actually GLAD!
I believe the constitution REQUIRES majority votes for confirmation of judges and cabinet members. The Senate has been ABUSING their authority to hold up Judge nominations for a long time now. The Rats used it against Bush with great affect.
ELECTIONS MATTER! The President should get to pick Judges, and the Senate should affirm, or deny... based on a MAJORITY vote. I believe that to be the Founder’s intent. I wish, McConnell had had the balls to do this when it would have helped us.
Now... if Dingy tries to extend this to regular order legislation??? I’ll be as pissed as every else on here.
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.