Posted on 11/21/2013 6:13:21 AM PST by sickoflibs
The Senate is on the verge of striking down the long-standing filibuster rules for most presidential nominations, potentially doing so on a party-line vote that would alter nearly 225 years of precedent.
Democrats, infuriated by what they see as a pattern of obstruction and delay over President Obama’s nominees, expect to trigger the showdown by bringing up one of the recent judicial nominees whom Republicans blocked by a filibuster. According to senior Democratic aides, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) will set in motion a complicated parliamentary process that ends with a simple-majority vote setting a new rule that will allow for swift confirmation of executive branch nominees and most selections for the federal judiciary without having to clear a 60-vote hurdle.
(clip)
The impact of the move is more far-reaching, however. The means for executing this rules change — a simple-majority vote, rather than the long-standing two-thirds majority required to change the chamber’s standing rules — is more controversial than the actual move itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Aren’t the Senate rules only to change with a 2/3 vote? LAWLESS RATS will never let you down - count on it. We are so done, you can stick a fork in it.
Mark Levin was ranting about this today, with his dictatorship theme. I had to hear what he would say about it.
In 2006 the SAME Levin was demanding that the GOP Senate majority do nearly exactly what Reid did, end filibuster for judges with a simple majority vote.
His rational?? Filibustering judges meaning with less than 51 is unconstitutional.(its in his book too)
Obama takes over and then Levin demands that GOP do what he used to say was unconstitutional.
Gets better :He points out how Dems dont feel shame for flipping 180 degrees on this.
Very true. According to Levin, the Nuclear Option is pure dictatorship if the RATs do it, but the constitutional option and necessary if the GOP does it. (unfortunately for him, the GOP didn't have the balls to do it)
I'm seeing a similar double standard from Levin and his followers when it comes to amending the Constitution. Aside from the bill of rights, if anyone else amends the constitution (especially in the last 100 years), it "destroys our Republic" because "the founders" knew what they were doing in 1789 and set up the "perfect system of checks and balances" that we DARE not EVER alter because the founders were infallible and KNEW what was best for us in 2013. Of course, if Levin and his fans want to amend the constitution and change the way the federal government is setup and functions after 225 years with their "liberty amendments", it's necessary AND prudent because the founding fathers "COULDN'T foresee the tyranny of the federal government in 2013".
Levin is unbelievable for pointing out the rat’s hypocrisy yet ignoring his own flip flop.
Hopefully this will benefit us if we take back the WH in 2016. If so, we can thank Reid for having the gumption to do what the Senate GOP likely never would have.
In the meantime, bad times, automatic confirmation for a bunch of commie phukkheads. And if they decide next year to ditch filibusters on legislation whenever it suits them (and they can’t use budget reconciliation to skirt the rule) we have to rely on Boehner to keep things from passing the House.
The 3 rats to break ranks BTW
Manchin WV (trying to cancel out his recent support of gun control? Possessed by the spirit of Bob Byrd?)
Levin MI (retiring dinosaur)
Pryor AR (up for reelection and a likely loser, scared, nobody call him and thank him, they’d have had his vote if they needed it)
I had to do some reading up on what the Constitution says about it. Or - what people think the Constitution says about it. One paper made sense to me that a “passing” vote meant more than 50%. And while the house and senate can make their own rules, the founders probably would have assumed that a usual vote would pass on a simple majority.
With the 60(?) votes in both chambers though they can overule a veto by the president.
One paper was interesting though, in that the Constitution and rules were designed to be “obstructionist”, and that there are many other ways to obstruct a bill other than a fillibuster. So I imagine those ways will be explored and developed. Hopefully we can develop them before an immigration “reform” bill is pushed through.
Lots of double-talking from both the Dems and the Pubs.
The whole thing is a pile of sh*t, period.
“Hopefully this will benefit us if we take back the WH in 2016. If so, we can thank Reid for having the gumption to do what the Senate GOP likely never would have.”
Exactly.
Obama figures they will lose the Senate next year and so they want to get some judges through before then.
That is much more likely now with Obamacare rollout.
Dem conventional wisdom is that the GOP wont be able to win in a POTUS election year when turnout is high, only in midterms.
Naturally Republicans see the GOP winning 2016 easily now, as in 2010 they saw GOP winning 2012 easily.
“Obama figures they will lose the Senate next year and so they want to get some judges through before then.”
Exactly. That’s what this is all about.
2016 is going to be the Hillary! sect vs. the Biden sect vs. the Negro sect. Break out the beer and pretzels - libs eating other libs.
In spite of their praising Hillary these years while she was SofS (same as supporting Obama) the progressive base of the Dem party has been making noises that they think she's too moderate establishment, as she's like a Grahamnesty.
Some are looking at Liz Warren as someone more like them.
She's a woman too so that makes it dangerous for GOP male candidates to go after her.
The filibuster is a pointless and vexing procedure not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. It should have been put out of its misery ages ago.
Chris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris ValaikaChris Valaika
It keeps some bills from becoming laws, certainly from passing Senate.
It also gives cover to those who want to be seen as voting yes without consequences of those bills becoming laws
He sounds like a scrub.
He’ll be the MVP of the Cubs. Watch.
Cubs hire Bill Mueller as their hitting coach. Had been an advanced scout with the Dodgers. Break out the champagne!!!
In all seriousness, this is a nice move.
Ok..if they want to play this game. If the gop-e takes the Senate next year, then change the rules for impeachment and throw his sorry arse out of there.
I agree with you about Bork.
One interesting thing though.
If Bork had been on the court we would have won Planned Parenthood Vs. Casey 5-4 instead of losing 5-4.
But we also would have lost the Heller and McDonald Second Amendment cases.
I’m not comparing the two issues, just making an observation.
No doubt we would have won a ton more 5-4 cases though.
It sounds like Mueller has the right philosophy. Patient at bats like AL East. The Cubs hit like that in 2008 and had the best record in the NL.
Yes.
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.