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 ...
I’m kind of surprised they’re going to pull this cr*p now, considering the nearly certain probability that the GOP takes majority control of the Senate in next year’s elections. They’re setting a precedent that’s going to come back and bite them hard.
Do it.
What goes around comes around.
Republicans should have done this back in 1987 when the democrats were destroying (”Borking”) Supreme Court nominee, Judge Robert Bork, a staunch Constitutional “Originalist”.
A threat to change the filibuster rules would likely have ended the democrats attack and could have propelled Bork’s nomination through the senate.
Bork’s nomination was not approved and he was replaced by
fence sitter Judge Anthony Kennedy who was unanimously approved by the Senate.
If Bork had been confirmed as a Supreme Court justice much of the liberal onslaught of the past 25 years would not have taken place.
So, let the democrats change the rules and wait for the days when it comes back to bite them in their Obamas.
As someone else mentioned here, Reid knows he might lose Senate to GOP in 2015 and so Dems must pack the courts with as many ruling class progressives as they can so they can rule us from the court, nulifying a GOP congress, even a future GOP PUTUS.
Recall some recent court rulings 5-4 on marriage, immigration, voter IDs, ...
This is what happens when you negotiate with terrorists on things like illegal recess appointments. If the terrorists get what they want they always strap the bomb back on and ask for more. Just another GOPe tip toe strategy fail in the making here.
Same old Dem crap. Rule #1 in their Playbook;
- If you lose at something, change the rules.
Rule 17 “Whatever it f******ing takes!**
(a reference to the sleazy Enroll America chap being filmed undercover by O’Keefe and company)
I thought the GOP took that to court and won, which is not negotiation.
Of course once Reid and Obama can pack the court you can forget another ruling like that,.
“I’m kind of surprised they’re going to pull this cr*p now, considering the nearly certain probability that the GOP takes majority control of the Senate in next year’s elections.”
Unless they know they are absolutely certain that when the votes are “counted” they will keep most of their seats....
We should have beaten them to the punch and eliminated the filibuster ourselves back when Republicans controlled the Senate by healthy margins. If so, we could stacked the courts with Bush nominees and rammed through the “Drill Baby Drill” laws that would have allowed oil exploration in ANWAR and offshore and other conservative legislation. However our good “buddies” McCain would never allow it, saying it was unfair to the democrats would NEVER resort to such petty tactics if they were in charge....
Actually, I think the exact reason they are pulling this now is because they KNOW that Republicans are going to take the Senate next year. They are in desperation mode to pack every federal court (and also all those new panels and departments created by Obamacare) with far left nominees (who will serve for decades) before they lose what power they have.
The goal has to be to roll McCain and one of his “Gangs Of” for more unilateral concessions.
Another advantage of ridding ourselves of the filibuster is that simple majorities in both houses and the presidency can craft legislation with the constitutional provision that removes it from court review. So, pack it all they want. Without the filibuster, judge-free legislation is just around the corner.
yes it’s a bluff.
of course I thought the 0bamacare bill was a bluff the way they did it - taking a house bill, erasing it, and inserting a different bill that was “deemed” passed... Rs will do this same thing to undo 0care I HOPE.
On the second one Obama has set a precedent where a GOP POTUS (if one could be elected) could by order allow oil companies to drill and to suspend the capital gains and estate taxes.
Just by order nullify parts of any law they want with an POTUS order.
Yes, the GOP “won” in court on the recess appointments and then McCain brokered a deal giving away the victory.
McConnell should have told Reid and the kenyan to shove those court illegal nominees where the sun don’t shine. Now the Dems are back asking for more a couple months later because the surrender caucus always caves.
not negotiating with terrorists is no longer the law of this land. Actually, let me rephrase that, we have terrorists in the administration committing green on blue attacks all across the nation. Changing the Rules of Engagement has to be considered with a view towards the consequences. What did the rational founding fathers say about it?
“The communists always change the rules when they are in charge.’
Also when they see their regime starting to crumble.
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.