Skip to comments.
Harry Reid is Considering Rule Change to Block Filibuster
Townhall.com ^
| May 18, 2013
| Heather Ginsberg
Posted on 05/18/2013 4:14:30 PM PDT by jazusamo
Well, Harry Reid is resorting to desperate measures in order to try and regain some power in the Senate. Reports say that he is getting ready to use the so-called nuclear option to change the senate rules so that 60 votes are no longer needed to block a filibuster.
And it looks like President Obama will support Reids efforts if the Republicans try to block upcoming nominations.
If Senator Reid decides to do something on nominations, the president has said hell be there to support him, a Democratic aide told the Post. "This would take away the right to filibuster on nominations... All executive branch and judicial nominations would be subject to majority votes. He would not do it on legislative items.
Reid had considered using the nuclear option last year, but the old school Democrats would not allow it. This year, many Democrats have expressed that if Reid attempts to use the nuclear option it will kill any chance at immigration reform.
In the past Harry Reid has said he would consider going to a simple majority in order to block filibusters, and he said he would use it, if necessary. So what ever happened to checks and balances? If Harry Reid can use this option, we have no way of knowing what he will resort to next. The Democrats seem like they are willing to do anything in order to try and run over the Republicans.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: abouttime; democrats; doit; filibuster; fuhr; go4it; harryreid; intendedconsequences; nevada; nuclearoption; reid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 next last
To: HenpeckedCon
Someone please explain to me how a UN treaty trumps the US constitution no matterr how many senators vote for it and the president signs it. Changing the constitution requiires a 2/3 vote of the states AND a 2/3 vote of congress.
61
posted on
05/18/2013 5:25:13 PM PDT
by
diverteach
(If I find liberals in heaven after my death.....I WILL BE PISSED!!!)
To: chris37
That depends on whether Cruz is Majority Leader...
62
posted on
05/18/2013 5:27:35 PM PDT
by
BobL
(To us it's a game, to them it's personal - therefore they win.)
To: jazusamo
And how is Dingy Harry proposing to change a Senate rule when it requires 67 votes? Same way they jammed Obamacare down our throats - CHEAT.
How Many Votes to Change the Senates Rules
Senate rules require 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate. However, its actually quite possible for 50 Senatorsif backed by the Vice Presidentto have elements of existing procedural deemed unconstitutional. The US court system neither will nor should rule on things like the constitutionality of a de facto supermajority rule. But this is precisely why you have a President of the Senate (i.e., a Vice President) and I think it would be perfectly plausible for Joe Biden to say that by specifying supermajority voting for certain purposes (treaties, veto overrides, constitutional amendments) the constitution is clearly assuming majority rule for other purposes. Then it would take a majority of Senators to back up Bidens ruling. And low and behold, a return to majority rule.
63
posted on
05/18/2013 5:27:55 PM PDT
by
Cheerio
(Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
To: HenpeckedCon
I'm sorry. Did I insult you in some way? You insulted the forum by arguing that there was nothing to worry about because of a threshold of 67 Senators.
Why 34 Senators?
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution does specify "two thirds of the Senators present" for ratification of a treaty.
Two thirds of a minimum quorum is 34.
If 0bamas Gestapo keep all of the Republicans away from the Senate, it would only take 2 of 3 democrats present to ratify the treaty.
Or if Dirty Harry holds the Senate in session and then secretly convenes 50 members of the Slave Party to show up at 3AM. He's not above that sort of thing you know.
64
posted on
05/18/2013 5:29:56 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
To: bigheadfred
No one else I'd rather have on my *rag-tag-team.*
65
posted on
05/18/2013 5:33:58 PM PDT
by
Daffynition
(Stand Your Ground)
To: BobL
Well now that would be quite something, but I expect they GOP would stick with McConnell for some reason that I cannot possibly understand.
Cruz is an extremely impressive individual. As much as I like to hate on the GOP, I have nothing negative to say of him thus far.
66
posted on
05/18/2013 5:39:14 PM PDT
by
chris37
(Heartless.)
To: BobL
I LOVE IT!!! The Senate made a mess of Bush-43s court appointments and many, many, other things - even though the Dems only had 43 votes. They simply filibustered EVERYTHING. Now they think its unfair - FINE!!! We will get power back, at least for a short time (until Amnesty ends it all for us). During that time, it sure would be nice to get people on to the courts with a majority vote.
Remember this? I have a long memory when it comes to the commie left and their takedown of America.
Editorial: Hypocrisy abounds on filibuster issue
May 18, 2005 Reid: THE RIGHT to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House, and in these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government."
"Change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever (and would be) simply majoritarian absolute power on either side (of Congress), and that's not what the Founders intended."
67
posted on
05/18/2013 5:40:01 PM PDT
by
Cheerio
(Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
To: Cheerio
I had the pleasure of voting for Cruz twice. The first time, I was told by the Republican Party to vote for someone else. But I was told by another party, whose first letter is “T” to vote for Cruz. Obviously I voted for Cruz...then again in November.
I cannot remember EVER seeing a newbie in either house of Congress shake things up to the extent that he has. He has the old farts screaming at him, because he “know his place”. He’s been there less than 5 months and he’s making them look like monkeys.
68
posted on
05/18/2013 5:53:58 PM PDT
by
BobL
(To us it's a game, to them it's personal - therefore they win.)
To: Daffynition; jazusamo; null and void; SunkenCiv
Pig Headed but ultimately loyal...dont try to sty me...
i have a plan...
reid...bama...all of them...wont stand a chance...
69
posted on
05/18/2013 5:54:03 PM PDT
by
bigheadfred
( barry your mouth is writing checks your ass cant cash)
To: jazusamo
a Democratic aide told the Post. "This would take away the right to filibuster on nominations... All executive branch and judicial nominations would be subject to majority votes. He would not do it on legislative items. Yeah, tell that to Miguel Estrada. They sang a much different tune about judicial nominees when W was President. But then again, if it weren't for double standards Liberals would have no standards at all.
To: jazusamo
Do it Harry!
It will be a lot easier to undo Obamacare and other Obamations in 2015 after the Republicans take back the Senate.
71
posted on
05/18/2013 6:10:09 PM PDT
by
P-Marlowe
(There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)
To: jazusamo
Too bad a recall vote can’t be mounted in Nevada to recall him.
To: jazusamo
I have a nuke option for them...
73
posted on
05/18/2013 6:20:55 PM PDT
by
stevie_d_64
(It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
To: jazusamo; All
Is he desperate here? Follow me on this...
* We have an election in Massachuetts, could this quasi-Rino Seal Republican Win?
* Tangent to this, The Menedez story IMHO hasn't gone away, when does he get asked to leave for doing the nasty with 15 yr old Domincan Hookers.
* Tangent to that Lautenberg also from NJ is not that well, and could assume room temperature at any moment.
So is Dingy Harry looking at a swing of 3 not in his favor ( assuming Crispy Creme would appoint Republicans ) if we were to get lucky and run the table?
74
posted on
05/18/2013 6:27:58 PM PDT
by
taildragger
(( Tighten the 5 point harness and brace for Impact Freepers, ya know it's coming..... ))
To: rarestia
This is probably about amnesty. They want to ram amnesty through and dump it on the House. Hairy can let a few Dems off the plantation on that vote if he only needs 50 votes.
If Reid needs 60 votes for amnesty I believe he needs the gang GOP plus one more and all the Dems. Some of the Dems up for reelection won’t want to vote for amnesty right now.
75
posted on
05/18/2013 6:28:06 PM PDT
by
lodi90
To: jazusamo
He wants gun confiscation, LOST, and total abdication of the US Constitution. Doing so by Congressional action probably gives the old made guy a hardon.
76
posted on
05/18/2013 6:33:23 PM PDT
by
combat_boots
(The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
To: taildragger
So is Dingy Harry looking at a swing of 3 not in his favorCould be and if the truth keeps coming out about the Rats it could be more than 3.
77
posted on
05/18/2013 6:39:15 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
("Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith)
To: bigheadfred
I have a feeling your *plan* includes an ax.
78
posted on
05/18/2013 6:41:57 PM PDT
by
Daffynition
(Stand Your Ground)
To: jazusamo
Three? ... If I could do it, I would be very tempted to call down 3 million volts on fithy Harry Reid, enemy of America.
79
posted on
05/18/2013 6:42:37 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Being deceived can be cured.)
To: Daffynition
80
posted on
05/18/2013 6:47:36 PM PDT
by
bigheadfred
( barry your mouth is writing checks your ass cant cash)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 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