Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: lbryce

What are they going to do that’s any different?


9 posted on 11/04/2014 10:03:30 PM PST by steve86 (Prophecies of Maelmhaedhoc OÂ’Morgair (Latin form: Malachy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: steve86
Here's some answers from the other side (what will they do differently?).

1. Staffing the executive branch. For much of the Obama presidency, Republicans in the Senate stymied up literally hundreds of presidential appointments to cabinet slots big and small, as well as nominations to the federal bench. Harry Reid implemented filibuster reform one year ago, and nominations have been handled more quickly—but with Republicans in charge, expect them to grind to a halt. Republicans blocked nominees reflexively under the old filibuster rules, many times without offering a single actual objection, and that’s very likely to resume now.

Republicans well understand that failing to staff the executive branch—and particularly the judicial branch—is a great way to slow down Obama’s priorities now, and even affect the trajectory of American jurisprudence long he leaves office. There are still fifty-nine vacancies on federal district and appellate courts, a seven percent vacancy rate, and 35 percent of those empty seats are in areas that have been declared judicial emergency. This problem will get much worse, not better, over the next two years.

2. Filling a Supreme Court vacancy. The old filibuster rules still required sixty votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, which was going to be a tough lift anyway. But Obama managed it twice already. With Republicans in charge, it may be impossible.

First the nominee would have to clear the GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, which will be chaired by conservative stalwart Chuck Grassley. Then a Republican Senate has to approve the nominee. In the event Obama sends any kind of discernibly liberal judge to the Senate, it’s easy to imagine the GOP outright blocking him or her. Alternately, Obama could try to avoid that situation by making an opaque nomination with no discernible views on key issues like abortion and money in politics. This might be the more terrifying of the two possibilities.

3. Deregulating carbon emissions. If the GOP’s biggest goal is repealing Obamacare, a close second is blocking the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed limits on carbon emissions. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse pointed out on All In with Chris Hayes last night, the GOP House has actually passed more bills targeting the EPA than those repealing Obamacare. And unlike with the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have the full and enthusiastic backing of their corporate allies in blocking EPA carbon limits.

When noted climate denier Jim Inhofe takes the gavel of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee from Barbara Boxer in January, there are many ways he could pass legislation stopping the regulation. He could attach riders to any number of bills that deny funding for those regulations. Or he could simply decline to fund the entire EPA, and tell the White House no money would be forthcoming until the regulations are cancelled.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/188057/republicans-just-took-over-senate-heres-why-sucks#

19 posted on 11/04/2014 10:09:08 PM PST by steve86 (Prophecies of Maelmhaedhoc OÂ’Morgair (Latin form: Malachy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: steve86

Bill Beckel on Fox said the huge gains in the House for the Republicans will be good.......then they won’t have to rely on the Tea Party. FUBB

Here in Washington State, Bill I-591 (Pro-gun) is failing, and Bill I-594 (anti-gun, including preventing me letting my son shoot my shotgun at the trap range), is passing. Hopefully I-594 will be brought to court and found unconstitutional, but I doubt it.


24 posted on 11/04/2014 10:11:05 PM PST by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts 2013 is 1933 REBORN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: steve86; All
Presidents since 1994 wanted Amnesty

Republicans stopped Bush's, Clinton's and Obama’s Amnesty and they did it with just a simple majority in the House. democrats didn't stop it as they wanted the 40 million new voters.

ditto for gun control, hillary care, full socialism etc. (note democrats quickly passed Obamacare but they had super majorities in House and Senate to do it with no Republican votes).

now for the FIRST time Republicans have a super majority in the House. so there's no way that this new House will allow Amnesty , nor anything socialist as they stopped Amnesty and all this since 1994 with just a simple majority the House

Freedom is saved tonight. the stakes couldn't have been higher. we were a millimeter away from falling into the abyss.

Now is Ted Cruz can become majority leader and or President then a new Age of Freedom will dawn. for the mean time Lois Lerner will fall.

40 posted on 11/04/2014 10:27:39 PM PST by Democrat_media (Obama ordered IRS to rig 2012 election and must resign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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