PDA

View Full Version : Dems arent thinking about the future...or are they?



imported_WILDJOKER5
11-21-2013, 06:04 PM
So, what do you make of this new rule change that happened in the senate today that has stripped any minorities power in the senate? Do they not think this will play against them if and when the GOP takes over the senate? Or is it something else, like the dont think the GOP and TEA party will be able to vote together to stop a filibuster in the future?

Seems simple though really, the dems didnt like not having full control to silence to opposition so they just changed the rules.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/21/senate-nears-possible-vote-on-curbing-filibusters/

garhkal
11-21-2013, 06:11 PM
Personally i would like it to also apply to the house of reps.. BUT then the dems would be the one suffering cause They are the minority there.

AJBIGJ
11-21-2013, 06:20 PM
So, what do you make of this new rule change that happened in the senate today that has stripped any minorities power in the senate? Do they not think this will play against them if and when the GOP takes over the senate? Or is it something else, like the dont think the GOP and TEA party will be able to vote together to stop a filibuster in the future?

Seems simple though really, the dems didnt like not having full control to silence to opposition so they just changed the rules.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/21/senate-nears-possible-vote-on-curbing-filibusters/

It will give Harry Reid quite a bit of unprecedented access towards getting exactly what he wants to certain things, at least until the numbers no longer favor his side, then he will find himself a bit more impotent. At least in principle. In practice it really won't change much, I can't recall the last time I've seen one of the president's nominees get overturned based on a filibuster, so in a sense, it probably will speed up towards the inevitable in the appointee ratifying process. I think that ship has long since sailed. If it were more than just a play on presidential appointees I might grow more concerned, but now I see little change to the final outcome. I think the Senate would require a much more substantial overhaul to become an effectively functioning entity in that sense.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-21-2013, 06:33 PM
It will give Harry Reid quite a bit of unprecedented access towards getting exactly what he wants to certain things, at least until the numbers no longer favor his side, then he will find himself a bit more impotent. At least in principle. In practice it really won't change much, I can't recall the last time I've seen one of the president's nominees get overturned based on a filibuster, so in a sense, it probably will speed up towards the inevitable in the appointee ratifying process. I think that ship has long since sailed. If it were more than just a play on presidential appointees I might grow more concerned, but now I see little change to the final outcome. I think the Senate would require a much more substantial overhaul to become an effectively functioning entity in that sense.The article mentioned 2 being rejected quite recently. And if we are appointing someone for life, should it be a snap decission?

AJBIGJ
11-21-2013, 06:50 PM
The article mentioned 2 being rejected quite recently. And if we are appointing someone for life, should it be a snap decission?

Which part of the article are you referring to? After reading the article again I saw the word "derailed" used and that was in reference to three recent nominations. I'll have to fact check those but to me that essentially means delayed vice stopped cold.

MitchellJD1969
11-21-2013, 06:54 PM
So, what do you make of this new rule change that happened in the senate today that has stripped any minorities power in the senate? Do they not think this will play against them if and when the GOP takes over the senate? Or is it something else, like the dont think the GOP and TEA party will be able to vote together to stop a filibuster in the future?

Seems simple though really, the dems didnt like not having full control to silence to opposition so they just changed the rules.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/21/senate-nears-possible-vote-on-curbing-filibusters/

I hope it bites him in the butt next time the repubs have control of the senate. Not sure that will happen but it would be just desserts for the pos.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-21-2013, 07:00 PM
Which part of the article are you referring to? After reading the article again I saw the word "derailed" used and that was in reference to three recent nominations. I'll have to fact check those but to me that essentially means delayed vice stopped cold.

Ok, it might have been the way it was worded that threw me as well.

From what I see, this is only for appointments the POTUS makes and confirmations, nothing to do with laws like Obamacare.

AJBIGJ
11-21-2013, 07:10 PM
Ok, it might have been the way it was worded that threw me as well.

From what I see, this is only for appointments the POTUS makes and confirmations, nothing to do with laws like Obamacare.

Correct, that is what I read into it as well.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-21-2013, 07:14 PM
Correct, that is what I read into it as well.

Sadly though, laws can be overturned through unfovorability of the population, the judges are life time if they dont get into trouble. I feel these appointments need to move slower than a law being passed.

AJBIGJ
11-21-2013, 07:18 PM
Sadly though, laws can be overturned through unfovorability of the population, the judges are life time if they dont get into trouble. I feel these appointments need to move slower than a law being passed.

In principle yes there should be some deliberation, but honestly I think in most cases the filibuster is being utilized as a platform to launch presidential campaigns moreso than a reasonable expectation of accomplishing movement. It's a very cynical way of seeing things but in terms of net effect I've very little evidence to the contrary.

SomeRandomGuy
11-21-2013, 07:18 PM
Call me crazy but I have always thought the Senate should vote up or down on all Presidential nominees with a simple majority required to pass. It drives me crazy when the Senate blocks presidential nominations. Especially for cabinet positions. The President is elected by the people and should be free to nominate whoever he wants for his cabinet. It always seems like the losing party tries to block cabinet nominations as revenge for losing the elction.

AJBIGJ
11-21-2013, 08:05 PM
Call me crazy but I have always thought the Senate should vote up or down on all Presidential nominees with a simple majority required to pass. It drives me crazy when the Senate blocks presidential nominations. Especially for cabinet positions. The President is elected by the people and should be free to nominate whoever he wants for his cabinet. It always seems like the losing party tries to block cabinet nominations as revenge for losing the elction.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, I think a lot of people respected the message of Rand Paul's filibuster on drone killing from both sides of the spectrum. Cruz's Obamacare filibuster was a little less well-received at the time, even though I think history may decide in his favor nonetheless. I should add in the latter case this was not intended towards affecting the outcome of a political appointee. As to many of the appointees, yeah, I think quite a few get blockaded because people want to take potshots at the President. Chuck Hagel's appointment comes to mind there. In some cases I think the "vetting" is all for show. John Kerry's nomination almost gave a "good ol' boy club" sort of vibe to it.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2013, 10:48 PM
I found myself laughing at this when I heard it. It is yet another example of changing the rules because it suits your needs and not the good of the people.

The GOP tried this several years ago and it was blocked. One of the votes against was by freshman Obama.

Don't get me wrong, no one is on the high ground on this issue but I throw up in my mouth a little when I hear pontification by elected officials about the hold up of federal appointments.

Rainmaker
11-25-2013, 06:57 PM
Well, It's just some stupid 225 year old procedural rule made up by Racist old white men. So, To quote the HillBillary "What difference does it make now anyway"?

After screwing the pooch on Obango care. They've lost all popular support to ram anymore of their Utopian agenda thru. There's a backlog of district court vacancies. So, they are stacking the DC Fed Court so BarryO or Queen Clinton can just rule by executive fiat .

Get ready for more hidden taxes, Amnesty schemes, Gun Grabbing attempts, Emergency Powers (to raise the debt ceiling and spend us into Oblivion), QE Forever, NSA Spying, Police State, etc. etc. that the people don't want and they can't pass otherwise.

Corruption of the senate does this to a republic (see Rome). When you have a system that allows for the Treasure Secretary of the United States to take a job (payoff) as managing director of Warburg Pincus only 10 months after leaving .gov than what can you expect? Nomsayin.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-02-2013, 03:16 PM
Call me crazy but I have always thought the Senate should vote up or down on all Presidential nominees with a simple majority required to pass. It drives me crazy when the Senate blocks presidential nominations. Especially for cabinet positions. The President is elected by the people and should be free to nominate whoever he wants for his cabinet. It always seems like the losing party tries to block cabinet nominations as revenge for losing the elction.Well, the filibustering of judges started with Dems during Bush's term in office, and the GOP was lambasted for thinking of changing this rule of how to break the filibuster by Reid, Obama, Clinton, Biden, and so on. Now its ok to do since they see Obama wont be getting any new laws past after the Obamacare fiasco and the big possibility of the GOP taking over the senate, Obama's decrees will need to be up held by the courts, so why not pack them full of Obama cronies?

USN - Retired
11-21-2014, 10:28 PM
Here is an interesting video about Nancy Pelosi's war on women. Interestingly, her war on women even includes Democratic women...

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/08g4yv/petty-woman