Conquer Club

The Democrat-controlled Senate voted Thursday to invoke the so-called “nuclear option,” making it possible to confirm most presidential nominees by a simple majority vote.
Confirmed: U.S. Senate Passes Nuclear Option Fundamentally Changing Filibuster Power

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) led Democrats in approving a substantial change to Senate filibuster rules.

Thursday’s vote marked a major shift in more than 200 years of Senate precedent that required a 60-vote majority to assure a final vote on most presidential nominees. The “nuclear option,” however, means only 51 votes are required to confirm most judicial and executive nominees.

Supreme Court appointees are still exempt form the rule change. Also, it’s important to note that this vote doesn’t block other filibusters like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s nearly 13-hour marathon speech against President Barack Obama’s drone program.
Thursday’s “nuclear option” vote only applies to most judicial and executive nominees.

“It shows you just how desperate and cynical Democrats have become,” one Senate Republican aide told TheBlaze. “They have proven willing to destroy a defining and historic aspect of the Senate in order to distract from their disastrous health care law and the harm it’s inflicting on the American people right now.”

“Unfortunately, while their ploy may help them in the news cycle for a few days, Americans will still be suffering all the while,” the aide added.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) accused Republicans Thursday of “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” of the president’s selections for court vacancies and other offices.

“It’s time to change the Senate, before this institution becomes obsolete,” Reid said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for his part, accused Democrats of trying to distract from the ongoing disaster that has been the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, adding that Democrats would later come to regret the rule change.

“When Democrats were in the minority they argued strenuously for the very thing they now say we will have to do without, namely the right to extend a debate on lifetime appointments. In other words, they believe that one set of rules should apply to them and another set to everybody else,” he said.

McConnell reminded his colleagues Reid said in 2012 he wouldn’t try to change the process of approving appointees.

“He may as well just have said, ‘If you like the rules of the Senate, you can keep them,’” McConnell said, referring to the president’s oft-repeated promise that Americans could keep their insurance under Obamacare.

“Senator Reid is breaking over 100 years of years of precedence in order to get his way,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “Reid is a bully, dictating to the Senate.”

Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Joe Manchin (W.V.) and Carl Levin (Mich.) voted with Republicans against the rule change.

“My judicial nominees have waited nearly two-and-a-half times longer to receive yes or no votes on the Senate floor than those of President Bush. The ones who do get a vote are generally confirmed with little or any dissent. This isn’t obstruction on substance on qualifications. It’s just to gum up the works,” President Obama said after the vote. “The vote today I think is an indication that a majority of senators believe as I believe that enough is enough. The American’s people’s business is far too important to keep falling prey day after day to partisan politics.”

“I’m a former senator. So is my vice president. We both value any Senate’s duty to advise and consent. It’s important and we take that very seriously. But a few now refuse to treat that duty of advise and consent with the respect that it deserves. It is no longer used in a responsible way to govern. It’s rather used as a reckless and relentless tool to grind all business to a halt. That’s not what our founders intended,” he added.

Metsfanmax wrote:Only in an era of complete absurdity can a Senate that is widely lambasted for not getting anything done, be lambasted for making it easier to get things done.

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Only in an era of complete absurdity can a Senate that is widely lambasted for not getting anything done, be lambasted for making it easier to get things done.

And then, in the very near future, Republicans don't have to worry about Democrats filibustering ultra-Conservative Supreme Court nominations...Republicans will just pass them 51-49.

At least they won't be getting lambasted for not getting anything done.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Only in an era of complete absurdity can a Senate that is widely lambasted for not getting anything done, be lambasted for making it easier to get things done.

And then, in the very near future, Republicans don't have to worry about Democrats filibustering ultra-Conservative Supreme Court nominations...Republicans will just pass them 51-49.

At least they won't be getting lambasted for not getting anything done.

If that happens, so be it*. The procedure is more important than the individual battles.

*Though, as the article points out, this doesn't change the process for Supreme Court nominees.

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Only in an era of complete absurdity can a Senate that is widely lambasted for not getting anything done, be lambasted for making it easier to get things done.

And then, in the very near future, Republicans don't have to worry about Democrats filibustering ultra-Conservative Supreme Court nominations...Republicans will just pass them 51-49.

At least they won't be getting lambasted for not getting anything done.

If that happens, so be it*. The procedure is more important than the individual battles.

*Though, as the article points out, this doesn't change the process for Supreme Court nominees.

Not yet.....but, surely, you aren't going to get mad if the rules suddenly get changed again, of course?

Phatscotty wrote:No, what's really happened is Democrat's realize Obamacare is only gonna get worse, and there is no way in hell they are going to keep Congress, so they said fck it and they're gonna ram as much as they can through this next year and trash the place on the way out.

As for the nuclear option, I think it's important for the minority to have power and to have a voice. I actually thought you would have agreed. We have made it over 200 years with the current rules, leave it to Obama to complain about how Democrats didn't win Congress so they have to change the rules again to go around the Republicans, which America sent there specifically to divide the power. Power divided is power checked. That's what American's voted for, and then confirmed it again that we wanted Obama, but did not give him a super majority.

Just a question though, the videos I posted in the OP, was Biden and Obama completely full of shit then, or are they completely full of shit now?

thegreekdog wrote:I like when the government can't do anything. Makes me warm and fuzzy (as opposed to Andy's hot and bothered).

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I like when the government can't do anything. Makes me warm and fuzzy (as opposed to Andy's hot and bothered).

Thanks Ron Swanson.

Metsfanmax wrote:Allowing the filibuster option effectively changes the majority threshold when one party is being obstructionist, and that's never how the Senate was intended to be.

thegreekdog wrote:Obviously I'm entirely against this (and not for partisan reasons). I like when the government can't do anything. Makes me warm and fuzzy (as opposed to Andy's hot and bothered).

It is weird that this would be proposed at all. What are the Dems going to do if President Chris Christie nominates a CIA director who wants to use drones on domestic targets? Oh... yeah... they support that; nevermind then.

john9blue wrote:should've been 55% or something

50% is ridiculous and 60% can lead to tyranny of the minority

Metsfanmax wrote:

john9blue wrote:should've been 55% or something

50% is ridiculous and 60% can lead to tyranny of the minority

Why is 50% ridiculous? Is it ridiculous that 50% is needed to pass a law?

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

Supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the perceived problem.[2] A separation of powers has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber.

john9blue wrote:^ this. there's a fine balance between tyrannies of majority and minority. 60% had problems for sure, but 50% is too far in the other direction.