Nuclear Option in the Senate

from JoeUser Forums



The GOP is playing a dangerous game by threatening to change the rules of the Senate. The GOP claims the president deserves an up or down vote on his judicial nominations. If that is true, many more judicial nominations under Clinton never got an up or down vote because they were bottled up in committee. If the objective is an UP or DOWN vote, the tactics of the Republicans during the Clinton administration to prevent a vote through committee is just as much of a problem is holding up a vote in the Senate through filibuster. The end result is the same in both scenarios - no UP or DOWN vote.

Only nine of the Bush judges out of over 200 have not been approved by the Senate. If the Republicans force this change of the Senate rules, I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate. The old saying , "Be careful what you asked for " may come back to haunt the Republicans.
politics
22,601 views 91 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm all for an Up/Down vote rule. Stalling this stuff in committee is just plain bad. I don't care which side is doing it, if you're going to oppose an appointee, at least have the guts to actually DO it. This committee crap is just cowardly.

Yeah, both sides do it, but who cares which side is proposing this change? It's a good one. Once the rule is there, everyone has to play by it.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is my point. I hope the GOP will relish this changes as much when it works against them in the future.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree and disagree with you here.

To me, the only Constitutional thing to do is to change the rules. While the filibuster is Constitutional, it doesn't excuse the Senate of their responsibility of Advise and Consent. The Senate does not have the authority to decide who can and can't be nominated by the president. They also have no authority to decide which of the president's nominees they will consider. Their Constitutional mandate is to vote on the names presented, plain and simple.

Yes, the Republicans used their own tactics for blocking the vote, and those were just as unconstitutional as what the democrats are doing now. Don't argue one miscarraige of Constitutional mandates by pointing out another. That only makes you sound like a kid trying to justify actions by saying, "Well, Little Johnny did it first!"

"I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate." I hope to see that day too, it would be refreshing to see the Senate run by Constitutional rules for once. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"during the Clinton administration"

Wait a minute, don't I keep hearing from you and many Democrats that Prs. Clinton isn't in office anymore, so why keep bringing his name into the argument! ;~D
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Only nine of the Bush judges out of over 200 have not been approved by the Senate. If the Republicans force this change of the Senate rules, I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate. The old saying , "Be careful what you asked for " may come back to haunt the Republicans.


Democrats should just allow a vote to be taken.

It will be a long time before democrats are in control of anything. The party is self-destructing.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are not talking about who's is president were talking about tactics that have been used over the years in the United States Senate.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are not talking about who's is president were talking about tactics that have been used over the years in the United States Senate.


So do you support the democrats tactics?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are not talking about who's is president were talking about tactics that have been used over the years in the United States Senate.


I know, that is why I seperated my main thought from the joke. ;~D
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
They are doing the same thing as the GOP did to Clinton. I do not think everyone a presiident nominates must be approved. Only 9 out of 200 were not approved.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
hey are doing the same thing as the GOP did to Clinton. I do not think everyone a presiident nominates must be approved. Only 9 out of 200 were not approved


The person the President nominates doesn't have to be approved, but shouldn't they be allowed a vote.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
They are doing the same thing as the GOP did to Clinton. I do not think everyone a president nominates must be approved. Only 9 out of 200 were not approved.


Then for christ's sake just give them an up or down vote. You don't want them in? Give them a down vote. The reason that isn't happening is that they know that they'll get a majority of up votes.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
They are doing the same thing as the GOP did to Clinton. I do not think everyone a presiident nominates must be approved. Only 9 out of 200 were not approved.


Yeah, 9 out of 200. That's all. The repugs blocked over 60 of Clinton's nominees, using the same tactics, that being the fillibuster, but they won't talk about that. All they do is claim liberal and democrat obstructionism when all the dems are doing is exactly what the repubs have done, and to a greater extent, in the past. I sure hope it comes back to haunt them. They deserve it.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The GOP did not give an Up or Down vote to the Clinton nominees- They kept them in committee. What is the reason the Bush nominees should receive and Up or Down vote?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once again, who the hell cares who's calling for this change or when they're doing it or even why. Yeah, it will benefit them this time around, but a time will come where it doesn't and they'll have to give an up/down vote anyway. For once I wish we could get past the "Everything republicans do is evil/Everything democrats do is two-faced" argument and actually see the issues at hand.

This is a GOOD RULE no matter who proposes it.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The GOP did not give an Up or Down vote to the Clinton nominees- They kept them in committee. What is the reason the Bush nominees should receive and Up or Down vote?


No... the correct question "should" be, "why shouldn't they?"
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
To answer the question, "why shouldn't they" Answer the great Compermise in the Congress was to make sure in the Senate protected the interests of the minority groups and the house was based on the majority. It does not seem to me that that should be changed so Bush can get 100% of his judges approved! . Senate was to be more deliberative and recognize the minority in this country. Therefore changing the rules for judges violates that principal. When the Republicans want to do something else like change Social Security or make tax cuts permanent and Democrats filibuster, will the next change the ram through those kinds of actions?

Again I say someday the Republicans will be sorry if they change the rules in the Senate. I do not believe 9 out of 200 judges that were not approved is worth changing the way in which the Senate operates and to violate the compromise in the House and Senate.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Both houses of Congress are meant to represent their particular areas and the people within them. It is NOT the responsibility of the Senator from PA to try and do what he feels is best for the people in CA, they have their own senator.

We vote for people to represent our interests and values. If an area or state votes in a particularly conservative congressman, they are implicitly agreeing with his politics and policies. If they go against what we believe, we vote for the other guy.

Requiring an actual vote on an appointee or an issue is NOT violating the spirit of the Senate. It is in fact forcing them to do the job they've been charged with. If a majority approves of something, that's not "ramming it through", that's called passing a law or approving an appointee. They're doing the task appointed to them. Just because you don't agree with the issue being approved, does not make the process wrong. You say they have to represent the minority in the country... well, you probably have some senators that would vote it down, and some that would vote it up, they're still representing the population that voted them in.

Our government wastes WAY too much time working through loopholes in rules and procedures to subvert laws and such to fit agendas. I'm tired of it from ALL sides.

You have still failed to show how such a change in the rules would be a BAD thing. You say "Well, the Republicans did this to Clinton, so we get to do it too!" That's stupid thinking right there. That's the thinking employed by both sides that keeps us from actually ever reaching meaningful compromises. For once, SOMEONE has to be the bigger man and go "Ok, I'll take the hit on this one if it means we have a better result in the long run"

Col - You're truely showing that you're nothing more than Anti-Bush with no consideration for anything else. Your knee-jerk reaction to anything Bush or Republican related shows that you're not even trying to be fair or unbiased in your "research" Take a second to look beyond the immediate situation and maybe you'd see that maybe, just maybe, the Republicans are doing a GOOD thing for the government, regardless of their own short-sighted reasons.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
My opposition is to the conservative agenda that is dominating American politics. The vast majority of Americans are not conservatives and in fact if you take a look at the majority you would find there somewhere in the middle. Because the Republicans who are dominated by the conservatives have got control of Congress and the White House we are being governed from the fringe right which does not represent the majority of Americans truly want. That is clearly documented in a poll after poll that questions Americans about the approach that Bush and the conservatives are taking on many issues such as the budget, Social Security, border security, trade. Every one of those polls have between 30 and 40% support for the conservative right Bush agenda. It's time our government initiate policies that represent were the majority want to be not where the Republican right wants to be.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the approval rating really and truely is that low overall for the policies of the Right, then they'll all get voted out next time around. Until then, they were legally voted into office and to try and game the system to prevent them from exercising the privledges associated with being in the majority is really the troubling bit.

This is how the system is designed to work, in cases where it gets out-of-whack, we have regular elections to fix the problem. What you want to do is change the system whenever it doesn't suit your world view as opposed to working within the confines of the system to fix problems.

You can't pick and choose when you do and don't listen to polls, or when you do and don't want to change the rules on how things are played. If you're in the minority, then since this is at least nominally a democracy, your voice is heard less. When you're in the majority, it's heard more... The system is not wrong in one case and right in another. It's the way it was designed to work.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
To answer the question, "why shouldn't they" Answer the great Compromise in the Congress was to make sure in the Senate protected the interests of the minority groups and the house was based on the majority. It does not seem to me that that should be changed so Bush can get 100% of his judges approved! . Senate was to be more deliberative and recognize the minority in this country. Therefore changing the rules for judges violates that principal. When the Republicans want to do something else like change Social Security or make tax cuts permanent and Democrats filibuster, will the next change the ram through those kinds of actions?


Like I said give them an up or down vote. Knock off the BS, if they get a down vote they DON'T get in do they? An up or down vote would NOT guarantee Bushs selections get in now would it?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Every one of those polls have between 30 and 40% support for the conservative right Bush agenda. It's time our government initiate policies that represent were the majority want to be not where the Republican right wants to be.


Here he goes with his polls again. Col, polls are unreliable and a "poll" of 1000 people doens't truely represent the millions in this country. A President who bases policies on polls doensn't work. You think people aren't capable enough of handling their own finances, why should the President listen to them about government economics?

If I conduct a poll and the majority of people want a dictatorship, will you go along with it?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
We have a dictatorship with Bush and the conservatives. What they want is NOT what the majority want but they continue passing laws that ignore what the majority want! We need a split in the power so there must be compermise!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is FAR from a dictatorship... A majority yes, dictatorship no.

How do I know it's not a dictatorship? Because we still have elections, and in a few years we won't have Bush anymore. Seems to have all the trappings of a representative democracy.

Like I said, if they are truely ignoring the majority, then they won't be reelected. But you were saying Bush wasn't representing the country but he still got elected with a clear majority of the vote. What you want is a dictatorship that suits your own views. God forbid people actually might have voted for and AGREE with what's happening now.

I disagree so I vote against them, but I recognize that I am one person and it's possible that more than a few disagree with me. That's their right. My rights do not extend to rob them of the value of their vote.

You're really starting to slip off your rocker here Col.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
How can it be a representative democracy when you got George Bush running around the country telling everybody to change Social Security when majority don't want it changee. How many millions of taxpayer money has he spent on his 60 SS trips? He got his way with over 200 judges and demands all 209. Sound like a dictatorship to me. We are certainly do not have what the majority wants.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
We have a dictatorship with Bush and the conservatives. What they want is NOT what the majority want but they continue passing laws that ignore what the majority want! We need a split in the power so there must be compermise!


You really don't have any logical thinking do you? We do not have a dictatorship and to even suggest so just shows how stupid anti-Bush people can be. You don't run the country based on a poll of 1000 Americans, don't you get that? Our government is elected so a split in power is up to the country when they head to the polls. The obsessive anti-Bush rhetoric that you and others live by is part of the reason democrats are not in power.


How can it be a representative democracy when you got George Bush running around the country telling everybody to change Social Security when majority don't want it changee. How many millions of taxpayer money has he spent on his 60 SS trips? He got his way with over 200 judges and demands all 209. Sound like a dictatorship to me. We are certainly do not have what the majority wants.


Once again col, you have lost it. I would be you most Americans don't even know how social security works, much less know anything about how to fix it. That's the reason you don't run the country on polls.

You never answered my question.

If I conduct a poll and the majority of people want a dictatorship, will you go along with it?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not a dictatorship because we voted him in, and he can't run again in 2008. You really have no clue how this system works do you? When a leader does something we don't agree with, we make appropriate changes in the next election. What will you say though when in a few years, the republicans still hold the majority? That the whole thing was rigged? That Americans are too dumb to pick their leaders? The Social Security thing isn't new... we heard about it before the last election, yet he still got back into office. His policies have remained pretty steady since he started in 2001, yet he still won. How do your polls explain that?

He's not demanding all 209 get approved, just that they get VOTED ON. That is far from unreasonable, far from exerting dictatorial power.