Skip to comments.
Democrats Warn GOP on Using 'Nuclear Option'
AP ^
| 1-16-05
Posted on 01/16/2005 1:46:52 PM PST by inquest
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141 next last
To: inquest
When are they gonna learn. It's pronounced: NOO-KYU-LUR!
21
posted on
01/16/2005 2:09:03 PM PST
by
uglybiker
(The most popular guy at a nudist camp can carry 2 cups of coffee and a dozen doughnuts)
To: Texas Eagle
Yes, I wish everyone would stop calling it that. It's overkill. Another daisy commercial.
We're going to be in the majority. That's the way history is
I see Marx lives.
To: only1percent
Traditionally the courts have deferred ENTIRELY to the presiding officers and rule-making bodies of the houses of Congress on the question of what the Constitution dictated insofar as their rules and procedures. The Constitution says that the Senate can set it's own rules, and one of those rules states that it takes 60 votes to shut off a debate. And that applies to all debates, not just judicial nominations. Now if the Vice-President wants to rule that the Democrats are in violation of Senate rules then that's one thing. He'll have to cite the Senate rule that they're in violation of. But if the Vice-President wants to shut down the Democrat filibuster on the grounds that it is unconstitutional then that's way beyond his authority to decide.
To: inquest
Sound's like we need to "Pop Smoke" and go for it!
24
posted on
01/16/2005 2:10:12 PM PST
by
zzen01
To: Non-Sequitur
The Constitution does not give the Vice-President the authority to rule on what is Constitutional and what is not.
Do you really think the Court would take a case to decide who has authority to make rulings within the Senate rules, etc. I don't think they would. It's not a matter of Constitutionally but rather how the Senates rules will be enforced, imo.
25
posted on
01/16/2005 2:10:21 PM PST
by
deport
(Law of Probability Dispersal: Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.)
To: inquest
Bush will never do the bully pulpit thing, nor will Frist do anything worthwhile.
26
posted on
01/16/2005 2:10:42 PM PST
by
cynicom
(<p)
To: BullDog108
27
posted on
01/16/2005 2:14:32 PM PST
by
Andy from Beaverton
(I only vote Republican to stop the Democrats)
To: No Longer Free State
But the Senate rules DO. And that's what this is all about -- Senate Rules. Well you would have to point out which Senate rule prevents judicial appointments from being filibustered. According to Rule XXII, it takes 60 senators to close debate on "any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate." It doesn't exclude judicial nominations.
To: deport
Do you really think the Court would take a case to decide who has authority to make rulings within the Senate rules, etc. No, but if the Vice-President rules that filibustering judicial nominations is unconstitutional then you can expect the court to take it up in a heart-beat. He doesn't have that authority.
To: BullDog108
As much as I understand the context of the 'nuclear option', in the case of Democrats, I wish it were being referred to in the
literal sense. LOL
30
posted on
01/16/2005 2:33:23 PM PST
by
Viking2002
(Taglines? Vikings don't need no steenkin' taglines..............)
To: inquest
Screw Harry Reid and the horse he rode in on.
Reid has already made a fool of himself many times over and the Congress hasnt even started.
He sounds more like that nutty fool that was speaking for Saddam than a USSenator , with his silly threats.
To: Starhopper
You Know the dems would use the "nuclear option" if given the chance. They wouldnt hesitate. Hypocrites. The Dems already did in 1975.
A true supermajority is 2/3rds or 67 votes. In 1975 the Dems couldn't get around a determined Republican minority, so they changed the votes required to get around a filibuster to 60 votes, which they had.
32
posted on
01/16/2005 2:35:53 PM PST
by
RJL
To: Non-Sequitur
Wrong.
As chair of the Senate, he can issue such rulings.
33
posted on
01/16/2005 2:38:25 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("War is an ugly thing, but...the decayed feeling...which thinks nothing worth war, is worse." -Mill)
To: inquest
It's pure bluff. As we have said so often, how could the Democrats be any nastier or more obstructive than they already are? They've already pulled out all the stops, to the point where they are damaging themselves. Four years of nasty behavior and partisan vitriol is more than enough.
34
posted on
01/16/2005 2:39:52 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: BullDog108
Me, too. Being nice to 'Rats is like being nice to a snake. It will eventually bite you anyway.
35
posted on
01/16/2005 2:40:13 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: Embraer2004
We will lose 4...if we lose 6 without a Dem addition....Ben Nelson maybe, the nuclear option would fail. It should be used as a last resort.
36
posted on
01/16/2005 2:40:36 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("War is an ugly thing, but...the decayed feeling...which thinks nothing worth war, is worse." -Mill)
To: BullDog108
Ditto, GO NUCLEAR EARLY! Take NO PRISONERS!
37
posted on
01/16/2005 2:42:11 PM PST
by
agincourt1415
(Abolish the United Nations)
To: BullDog108
I agree with you....one thing that the nuclear option will do is educate some of those idiotic liberals. When I explained the constitutional processes concerning this issue to a liberal she just stopped and thought.....something she hadn't done since she registered as a democrat.
38
posted on
01/16/2005 2:42:28 PM PST
by
gortklattu
(As the preacher in Blazing Saddles said "You're on your own.")
To: Non-Sequitur
Well, the Dems have done the same thing in the past, and to my knowledge, no court heard any case.
39
posted on
01/16/2005 2:43:04 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("War is an ugly thing, but...the decayed feeling...which thinks nothing worth war, is worse." -Mill)
To: rwfromkansas
As chair of the Senate, he can issue such rulings. The Vice President can rule on questions of order. He cannot rule an action unconstitutional.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson