Historic change in senate rules (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Phydeaux -> Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 11:04:48 AM)

So it looks as if Reid has gone nuclear and they are going to try to ram rod democratic nominees to the court figuring they're going to lose the senate.

Probably right.

We know cruz can fili - lets see if mcconnell can shephard the republicans - he is such a pussy running for reelection.




mnottertail -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 11:23:50 AM)

Yeah, that aint what it looks like at all.  It looks like obstructionist nutsackerisms are all in all done there.

The desperate and inept nutsackers are gnashing their teeth and whining, cuz they got no shot at a president in the next 2 decades at least.




RottenJohnny -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 11:48:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
So it looks as if Reid has gone nuclear...

Isn't it always best to waste more time fucking around with Senate rules rather than do anything to fix the fact that the population hates your guts?




Aylee -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 11:50:19 AM)

~Fast Reply~

I would not call it historic as at one point 2/3's were needed and it was lowered to 60 votes.

I would call it an unfortunate rule change as I prefer that the Senate move slowly.

I would like to share a Heinlein quote here:

Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?




mnottertail -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 11:53:45 AM)

Yeah, five years to ok a fuckin office holder is less than slowly.  I prefer most cockwaggling sort of business to be passed quickly.

Like a dogshit bill comes up from the house, flush it.  Done.  House wants to pass 42 repeals and name countless post offices after St. Wrinklemeat?

Do it quick.  Dogshit should not be debated for years.  




DomKen -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 11:57:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
I would call it an unfortunate rule change as I prefer that the Senate move slowly.

It wasn't about the Senate moving slowly. It was about the Senate moving at all.

Republicans have filibustered 168 judges and executive branch appointments in the last 5 years. It has been over 900 days since the EPA had a director. The ATF has never had a director since Obama was elected. The Republicans were holding up 3 appellate court judges simply to keep the rightward tilt of the appellate courts.

In 2005 the Democrats filibustered a judge deemed unqualified twice by the American Bar Association and back then McConnell was all for ending the filibuster across the board.




jlf1961 -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 11:59:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

~Fast Reply~

I would not call it historic as at one point 2/3's were needed and it was lowered to 60 votes.

I would call it an unfortunate rule change as I prefer that the Senate move slowly.

I would like to share a Heinlein quote here:

Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?



Heinlein never met the filibuster champions who delay everything simply to be dicks.




DomKen -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 12:02:34 PM)

Just to further make the point that the Minority Leader is a hypocrite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INpeklsK6oA#t=42




Phydeaux -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 12:17:49 PM)

Dims did the same fililbustering.

You know - like they filibustered the hispanic appointee solely becuase he was a republican hispanic and didn't want the repubs to have a hsispanic success story.





mnottertail -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 12:20:58 PM)

No we don't know.  Solely nothing.  But thanks for the nutsacker view complete with mischaracterization, lies and uselessness.   




farglebargle -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 12:48:09 PM)

https://twitter.com/SenatorReid/status/403581600224776192

"I'm old enough to remember when Sen. McConnell insisted on up-or-down votes for judicial confirmations."




DomKen -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 12:48:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Dims did the same fililbustering.

You know - like they filibustered the hispanic appointee solely becuase he was a republican hispanic and didn't want the repubs to have a hsispanic success story.



The name of this supposed appointee filibustered solely for being a Republican and Hispanic?





mnottertail -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 1:09:23 PM)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/politics/02gonzales.html?_r=0

This loser you think?

Nope, musta been this nobody, who was appointed for ideology, not for his experience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada

But that was a bitch filibuster, they allowed it to break. 

We still dont have appointees some 5 years on in the administration. Positions are going wanting.

and Estrada has taken his rightful place as a nobody again.




joether -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 2:36:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Dims did the same fililbustering.

You know - like they filibustered the hispanic appointee solely becuase he was a republican hispanic and didn't want the repubs to have a hsispanic success story.

The name of this supposed appointee filibustered solely for being a Republican and Hispanic?


Yes, the person did not get the seat, because Republicans were trying to win political points by getting a Hispanic person into the slot. That by basic definition is DISCRIMINATION. Which last I checked, is OUTLAWED in an apparently unknown document conservatives have never heard of: The US Constitution! It is well known that Republicans have been against many thinks Hispanics in the nation have asked and demanded: better schools, clean water, safe streets, decent representation. These are all things Republicans HATE, so Hispanics often vote for those that try their best to accomplish those things: Democrats.

Republicans have used the filibuster option for way to long on entirely petty issues. A long list of candidates whom have the credentials for those positions were denied because Republicans were petty and hateful of the nation. An now the Republicans threaten if they EVER get power they'll show all of us just how immature, irresponsible and unaccountable with power they can wield! Conservatives on this board and at large in the nation bitch about bad government destroying this nation. Well, you folks keep voting in that bad government year after year. Imagine if you held the people you vote to the same level of accountability and responsibility with power as you slam the President every hour of the day. If not TWICE, or is your credibility that much in doubt as a US Citizen? Conservatives have hired bad people to represent them for two decades now, and are paying a steep price for it.

The purpose of the Senate is to get things accomplished for the best of the nation, NOT, to be used to bully the majority and freeze the nation into inaction. Republicans have abused their power time and time ago, and today, they just lost one of their tools to do such a thing. Because EVERY issue that came before the Senate required a Super Majority to win. That included the petty stuff that was usually voted by both parties twenty years ago without much effort or considerable thought.




KYsissy -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 3:11:07 PM)

Politics as usual. The Dems may regret this in 8-10 years.




DomKen -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 3:30:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Nope, musta been this nobody, who was appointed for ideology, not for his experience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada

But that was a bitch filibuster, they allowed it to break. 

We still dont have appointees some 5 years on in the administration. Positions are going wanting.

and Estrada has taken his rightful place as a nobody again.

I know the echo chamber is pushing the meme that Estrada was filibustered because of his ethnicity but I wanted fido to commit himself.

Estrada was a political hack with no judicial experience with zero reason to be seated on any appellate court. The fact is this was W trying to repay one of the lawyers who worked Bush v Gore for him.




Phydeaux -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 4:36:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Dims did the same fililbustering.

You know - like they filibustered the hispanic appointee solely becuase he was a republican hispanic and didn't want the repubs to have a hsispanic success story.

The name of this supposed appointee filibustered solely for being a Republican and Hispanic?


Yes, the person did not get the seat, because Republicans were trying to win political points by getting a Hispanic person into the slot. That by basic definition is DISCRIMINATION.


Do you even have the foggiest clue? Why do I even bother to ask.

Estrada was "highly qualified" according to the bar.

He graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor's degree from Columbia in 1983. He received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree magna cum laude in 1986 from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, Estrada served as a law clerk to Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He then clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court during his first year on the Court in 1988. One of his fellow clerks during that year was Peter Keisler, another controversial conservative nominee to the D.C. Circuit whose nomination was never processed by the Senate Democrats during the 110th Congress.

From 1990 until 1992, Estrada served as Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. In 1992, he joined the United States Department of Justice as an Assistant to the Solicitor General for the George H. W. Bush Administration where he served with now Chief Justice John G. Roberts. In those capacities, Estrada represented the government in numerous jury trials and in many appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, he practiced law in New York with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

He was denied a hearing simply for political reasons.

Leaked internal memos to Democratic Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court partially because "he is Latino," and because of his potential to be a future Supreme Court nominee.[6] A spokesman for Durbin said that "no one intended racist remarks against Estrada" and that the memo only meant to highlight that Estrada was "politically dangerous" because Democrats knew he would be an "attractive candidate" that would be difficult to contest since he didn't have any record.[6] Democrats argued that Estrada had extreme right-wing views, although others pointed to Estrada's difference with some conservatives on Commerce Clause issues.[7]

Estrada's was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a judicial nominee who had clear support of the majority in the Senate.[12] Estrada's was the first filibuster of any court of appeals nominee.[12] It was also the first filibuster that prevented a judicial nominee from joining a court.

Republicans back then were pussies.. and they're pussies now. Dimocrats are unethical, power hungry, and corrupt. They have the media on their side. But at least they know how to fight.

And Studly - tell me something - why is it okay to let people into the university of michigan based on race -but not the supreme court. This I have to hear.....




Phydeaux -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 4:41:04 PM)

Oh and DomKen

I think Kagan (you know.. supreme court justice) is more qualified than you to say who is qualified to be on the bench.

Quoting:

Likewise, at her confirmation hearing on June 29, 2010 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when asked by Senator Lindsey Graham whether she believed that Estrada was qualified to serve on an appellate court, Kagan responded affirmatively and added that she believed Estrada was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court as well. Kagan then told Senator Graham that she would welcome the opportunity to put this belief in writing after her hearing. When questioned by Senator Coburn the following day, she reaffirmed her position, saying that she "...would have voted for him".[16] In July, 2010, in follow-up to her promise to Senator Graham, Kagan wrote a letter expressing her belief in Estrada's "superlative" qualifications for appointment to "any federal court," whether to the federal appellate or to the U.S. Supreme Court. In her letter, Kagan commended Estrada as "a towering intellect" with "a prodigious capacity for hard work," also remarking that "no one I know is a more faithful friend or a more fundamentally decent person"




DomKen -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 4:59:12 PM)

He had no writings to review on his legal beliefs. He had no record as a judge at any level. And he was a political hack who had only gotten the appointment because he was helfpful in getting W appointed. The Senate Democrats wanted at least some indication of what kind of judge he would be and there was none. The Democrats did allow all but the very worst of W's appointees both as judges and as executive branch workers. The Republicans have held up a lot more completely non controversial Obama appointments. Millet for example.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: Historic change in senate rules (11/21/2013 7:22:55 PM)

In the words of Dwight Yokam... "Baby things change"

Obama in 2005: If Republicans Kill Filibuster, ‘Gridlock Will Only Get Worse’




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875