• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Democrats Change The Rules - Unprecedented

Mike

Well-known member
Washington Post - The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn on Thursday, when Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.

The rule change means federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote super majority that has been required for more than two centuries.

The change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations. But the vote, mostly along party lines, reverses nearly 225 years of precedent and dramatically alters the landscape for both Democratic and Republican presidents, especially if their own political party holds a majority of, but fewer than 60, Senate seats.
 

Mike

Well-known member
NBC NewPresident Barack Obama said Thursday that he supports Senate Democrats’ dramatic action to change the chamber’s rules for presidential nominees, saying "enough is enough" when it comes to gridlock on Capitol Hill.

"The vote today, I think, is an indication that a majority of senators believe as I believe that enough is enough," Obama said at the White House. "The American people’s business is far too important to keep falling prey day after day to Washington politics."

Decrying the past "abuse of arcane procedural tactics" to block legislation and nominations, Obama conceded that neither party is blameless in creating gridlock on Capitol Hill.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
This is a good thing.

A simple majority is 51%....not 60%

This is a good thing for now and in the future.


Rules change all the time....big deal!!
 

BRG

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
kolanuraven said:
This is a good thing.

A simple majority is 51....not 60

This is a good thing for now and in the future.


Rules change all the time....big deal!!

Its not a good thing, it was put in place so the minority can't be run over. The Dems can't get what they want because it has been nearly all extreme left changes, they couldn't get what they wanted so they changed it in the middle.

I listened to the president talk and he sounded just like a child on the play ground, teacher teacher teacher, their not playing like I want, boo hoo pout pout pout!!!
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
kolanuraven said:
kolanuraven said:
This is a good thing.

A simple majority is 51....not 60

This is a good thing for now and in the future.


Rules change all the time....big deal!!

Will you say that when the R's take back the senate?

You won't believe me, but I will not be upset when/if the tables get turned in a few yrs.

It's like pre-school and they give everyone a little gold star cause they don't want anyone to " not" feel like a winner.

There are winner and loosers in life.....plain and simple.

If you are the minority, that means you lost and next time around you'll see that you run a better campaign and NOT be the looser
 

jigs

Well-known member
I have to admit, for all the dumb ideas and stupid thoughts that Kola posts, she is pretty much cut and dried fair..... an ignorant liberal, but fair.
 

redrobin

Well-known member
If you like your filibuster you can keep your filibuster.




Obama, then a senator, opposed the nuclear option at that time.

"I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules," he said on the Senate floor in 2005. "In the long run it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority."
 

Mike

Well-known member
The Democrats have a history of wanting to changes the rules when it benefits them. Except this one: WASHINGTON – Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., voted today against the use of the so-called "nuclear option" to change the Senate rules. Below are Levin’s remarks as prepared for delivery on the Senate floor:

Since its creation, the United States Senate has been uniquely committed to protecting the rights of minorities. It has done so in part through its rules governing debate. Its rules protect the right of members to speak until a super-majority is ready to end debate and to proceed to a vote on the matter before it. Matters are then decided by a majority vote, except for treaties, veto overrides and certain points of order.

Of particular importance in protecting minority rights is Senate Rule 22, which requires a supermajority of two-thirds of Senators to end debate on any proposal to amend the Senate Rules. In the past, a few Senate majorities, frustrated by their inability to get certain bills and nominations to a vote, have threatened to ignore this two-thirds requirement and instead to change one or more debate rules by a simple majority. Because that step would change the Senate into a legislative body where the majority can, whenever it wishes, change the rules, it has been dubbed the “nuclear option.”

Arguments about the nuclear option are not new. This question has been debated for decades. Confronting the same question in 1949, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a giant of the Senate and one of my predecessors from Michigan, said that if the majority can change the rules at will, “there are no rules except the transient, unregulated wishes of a majority of whatever quorum is temporarily in control of the Senate.” Changing the rules, in violation of the rules, by a simple majority vote is not a one-time action. If a Senate majority demonstrates it can make such a change once, there are no rules that bind a majority, and all future majorities will feel free to exercise the same power, not just on judges and executive appointments but on legislation.

We have avoided taking those nuclear steps in the past, sometimes barely. And I am glad that we avoided the possible use of the nuclear option again earlier this year when our leaders agreed on a path allowing the Senate to proceed to a vote on the President’s nominees for several unfilled vacancies in his administration.

Today, we once again are moving down a destructive path. The issue is not whether to change the rules. I support changing the rules to allow a President to get a vote on nominees to executive and most judicial positions. This is not about the ends, but means. Pursuing the nuclear option in this manner removes an important check on majority overreach which is central to our system of government. As Senator Vandenberg warned us, if a Senate majority decides to pursue its aims unrestrained by the rules, we will have sacrificed a professed vital principle for the sake of momentary gain.

Republicans have filibustered three eminently qualified nominees to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. They make no pretense of argument that these nominees are unqualified. The mere nomination of qualified judges by this President, they say, qualifies as “court packing.” It is the latest attempt by Republicans, having lost two presidential elections, to seek preventing the duly elected president from fulfilling his constitutional duties.

The thin veneer of substance laid over this partisan obstruction is the claim that the D.C. Circuit has too many judges. This is, to be kind, a debatable proposition, one for which there is ample contrary evidence, and surely one that falls far short of the need to provoke a constitutional battle. Republicans know they cannot succeed in passing legislation to reduce the size of the court. So, presented with a statutory and constitutional reality they do not like, they have decided to ignore that reality, and decided that they can obstruct the President’s nominees for no substantive reason.

I do not want anyone to mistake my meaning here: The actions of Senate Republicans on this matter are irresponsible. These actions put short-term partisan interest ahead of the good of the nation and the future of this Senate as a unique institution. And it is deeply dispiriting to see so many Republican colleagues who have in the past pledged to filibuster judicial nominees only in extraordinary circumstances engaged in such partisan gamesmanship. Whatever their motivations, the repercussions of their actions are clear. They are contributing to the destruction of an important check against majority overreach and to the frustration of those now willing to break the rules of the Senate in order to change those rules.

Why then do I not join my Democratic colleagues in supporting the method by which they propose to change the rules? My opposition to use of the nuclear option to change the rules of the Senate is not a defense of the current abuse of our rules. My opposition is not new. When Republicans threatened in 2005 to use the nuclear option in a dispute over judicial nominees, I strongly opposed their plans, just as Senator Kennedy and Senator Biden and Senator Byrd and just about every Senate Democrat – including Democrats still in the Senate today – opposed them.

Back then, Senator Kennedy called the Republican plan a “preemptive nuclear strike,” and said: “neither the Constitution, nor Senate Rules, nor Senate precedents, nor American history, provide any justification for selectively nullifying the use of the filibuster. Equally important, neither the Constitution nor the Rules nor the precedents nor history provide any permissible means for a bare majority of the Senate to take that radical step without breaking or ignoring clear provisions of applicable Senate Rules and unquestioned precedents.”

And here is what then-Senator Biden said during that 2005 fight: “The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It’s the one thing this country stands for. Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now but you won’t own it forever. And I pray to God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

So my position today is consistent with the position that I took, and that every Senate Democrat took, during that 2005 fight to preserve the rights of the Senate minority. I cannot ignore that history.

Nor can I ignore the fact that Democrats have used the filibuster on many occasions to advance or protect policies we believe in. When Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives from 2003 to 2006, it was a Democratic minority in the Senate that blocked a series of bills that would have severely restricted the reproductive rights of women. It was a Democratic minority in the Senate that beat back special-interest efforts to limit Americans’ right to seek justice in our courts when they are harmed by corporate or medical wrongdoing. It was a Democratic minority in the Senate that stopped the nominations of some to the federal courts who we believed would not provide fair and unbiased judgment. Without the protections afforded the Senate minority, total repeal of the estate tax would have passed the Senate in 2006.

We don’t even need to go back to 2006 to find examples of Senate Democrats using the rules of the Senate to stop passage of what many of us deemed bad legislation. Just in the last year, these protections prevented adoption of an amendment that would have essentially prevented the EPA from protecting waters under the Clean Water Act; an amendment to allow loaded and concealed weapons on lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers; and would allow some individuals who were deemed mentally incompetent access to firearms. That’s just in the last year. Removing these minority protections risks that, in the future, important civil and political rights might disappear because a majority agree that they should.

Just as I have implored my Democratic colleagues to consider the implications of a nuclear option that would establish the precedent that the majority can change the rules at will, it is just as urgent for my Republican colleagues to end the abuse of rules allowing for extended debate that are intended to be invoked rarely.

Some of my Democratic colleagues may rightfully ask, if a Democratic majority cannot initially muster a supermajority to end filibusters or change the rules, then what can the majority do?

The rules give us the path, and that is to make the filibusterers filibuster. Let the Majority Leader bring nominations before the Senate, and let the Senate majority force the filibusterers to come to the floor to filibuster. The current rules of the Senate allow the Presiding Officer to put the pending question to a vote when no Senator seeks recognition. Let us, as the Senate majority, dedicate one week, or just one weekend, or even just one night to force the filibusterers to filibuster. In 2010, in testimony before the Rules Committee on this subject, Senator Byrd said:

“Does the difficulty reside in the construction of our rules, or does it reside in the ease of circumventing them? A true filibuster is a fight, not a threat, not a bluff. … Now, unbelievably, just the whisper of opposition brings the ‘world’s greatest deliberative body’ to a grinding halt. … Forceful confrontation to a threat to filibuster is undoubtedly the antidote to the malady.”

Before a Senate majority assumes a power that no Senate majority before us has assumed, to change the rules at the will of the majority, before we do something that cannot easily be undone, before we discard the uniqueness of this great institution, let us use the current rules and precedents of the Senate to end the abuse of the filibuster. Surely we owe that much to this great and unique institution.

I know there are some on my side of the aisle who do not believe we can force filibusterers to the floor under the current rules. So let me read the colloquy between the Majority Leader and Republican Leader in January of this year:

Mr. REID: In addition to the standing order, I will enforce existing rules to make the Senate operate more efficiently. After reasonable notice, I will insist that any Senator who objects to consent requests or threatens to filibuster come to the floor and exercises his or her rights himself or herself. This will apply to all objections to unanimous consent requests. Senators should be required to come to the floor and participate in the legislative process—to voice objections, engage in debate, or offer amendments…Finally, we will also announce that when the majority leader or bill manager has reasonably alerted the body of the intention to do so and the Senate is not in a quorum call and there is no order of the Senate to the contrary, the Presiding Officer may ask if there is further debate, and if no Senator seeks recognition, the Presiding Officer may put the question to a vote. This is consistent with precedent of the Senate and with Riddick’s Senate Procedure, 1992. See page 716 in Riddick’s and footnotes 385 and 386 on page 764. This can be done pre-cloture or post-cloture on any amendment, bill, resolution, or nomination.

Mr. McCONNELL: This is consistent with the precedent of the Senate with the understanding that Senators are given the timely notification of the Presiding Officer’s intention so that they will be able to come to the floor to exercise their rights under the rules. (Congressional Record S273, January 24, 2013)

In that formal conversation, both the Democratic and Republican Leaders of the Senate showed how the current rules can be used to force filibusterers to filibuster, to come to the floor and talk. They are right. All we need is the willingness to use those rules.

The best alternative is to amend our Rules, as provided for in the Rules, so that they embody the principle that a President, regardless of party, should be able to get a vote on his or her nominees to executive positions and to district and circuit courts. I believe most Senators support that proposal. We should change the Senate Rules, through the process the Rules provide, to ensure a vote on executive branch nominations without the threat of a filibuster. This would avoid a nuclear option that would violate our precedents and do great damage to this institution. In fact, amending our rules in this manner would prevent what I think all of us fear: yet another nuclear showdown at some future date prompted by yet another confrontation over executive branch nominees. If there is bipartisan agreement on other improvements to the Rules, other ways we can improve or modernize our procedures, we should make those improvements as well.

There is no justification for the Republican attempts to deny this President the ability to discharge his duties. Those who have followed this cynical policy, whether or not they acknowledge it, are contributors to the loss of protections for the Senate minority. Given a tool of great power, requiring great responsibility, they have recklessly abused it. They will pay the price now, but eventually, the nation will.

In the short term, judges will be confirmed who should be confirmed. But when the precedent is set that a majority can change the rules at will on judges, that precedent will be used to change the rules on consideration of legislation, and down the road, the hard-won protections and benefits for our people’s health and welfare will be less secure.
- See more at: http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/senate-floor-statement-on-proposed-nuclear-option#sthash.3TgJrI3l.dpuf
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I think it's an excellent idea. The pub party needs to totally capitulate, let the donks just take over and run everything on a party-line, or simple majority vote. Fark that precious Constitution. They did it with Obamacare, straight party-line vote, and look how well that's worked out for them.

The sooner the country falls into total chaos and ruin the sooner the rebuilding can begin.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Harry Reid's speech on the Senate floor in 2005.
Sen. Reid gave a decent speech on the Senate floor explaining why nuking the filibuster would be wrong:


The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.

Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.


It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.

It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.

And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.


For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”

It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.

Reid wasn’t the only Senate Democrat to speak against the nuclear option in 2005. Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Baucus, Dodd, Feinstein, and Schumer, also railed against the proposed use of reconciliation to end Democrat filibusters.

What a damn hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

gmacbeef

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Big Muddy rancher said:

Will you say that when the R's take back the senate?

You won't believe me, but I will not be upset when/if the tables get turned in a few yrs.

It's like pre-school and they give everyone a little gold star cause they don't want anyone to " not" feel like a winner.

There are winner and loosers in life.....plain and simple.

If you are the minority, that means you lost and next time around you'll see that you run a better campaign and NOT be the looser

I'm calling B.S. on this post right now. You along with all the other Dems will be griping & bitching a year from now.
 

gmacbeef

Well-known member
Mike said:
Harry Reid's speech on the Senate floor in 2005.
Sen. Reid gave a decent speech on the Senate floor explaining why nuking the filibuster would be wrong:


The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.

Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.


It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.

It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.

And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.


For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”

It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.

Reid wasn’t the only Senate Democrat to speak against the nuclear option in 2005. Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Baucus, Dodd, Feinstein, and Schumer, also railed against the proposed use of reconciliation to end Democrat filibusters.

What a damn hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reid & Oblamea are two of the sorriest SOB's in this country. :twisted: :twisted:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Sen. Carl Levin is a rare animal indeed, a principled democrat.

His eloquent presentation of the senate's history on this important issue and the pitfalls of embracing the siren's song of majority rule remind us of just how wise our founding fathers were.

Sen Levin's words also remind us that Kola would be wise to restrict her commentary on this forum to the happenings at the local schoolboard meeting.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
BARACK OBAMA 4/13/05: “Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country. I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate.” (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Floor remarks, Washington, DC, 4/13/05

BARACK OBAMA 4/13/05: “The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05

Barack Obama 4/25/05: “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this President has come to the majority in the Senate and basically said: Change the rules. Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there were not very many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of Senators have acted and said: Mr. President, we are with you. We support you. But that is a bridge too far. We cannot go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President. We have confirmed 95 percent of your nominees. And if you cannot get 60 votes for a nominee, maybe you should think about who you are sending to us to be confirmed because for a lifetime appointment, 60 votes, bringing together a consensus of Senators from all regions of the country, who look at the same record and draw the same conclusion, means that perhaps that nominee should not be on the Federal bench.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor remarks, 5/23/05
 

Steve

Well-known member
up until January of 2009 our government was a set of checks and balances.. a republic that honored the minority with rights..

Today we just became another once great country led like any another sorry third world country with an ignorant dictator,.. a country that the world is laughing at, while trying to figure out how to contain at the same time..

Obama has taught me that democracy is one of the WORST forms of government.. a mob rule of sorts.. one small step away from dictatorship..

a sad day for the once grand ol Republic...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Don't worry when the Republicans take back the Senate in Nov. 2014, the rules the Dems passed today will not survive the following lame duck session . Everything will be right back to the Historical Rules as there is no way the Dems are going to live with a simple majority rules in the Senate WHEN THEY ARE THE MINORITY.

They have done it before in State rules and now you will see them do it in the Federal Government. The Dems are in no way going to live by the rules they expect the Republicans to live by NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL.

Democrap MO: DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO. :mad:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
gmacbeef said:
kolanuraven said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Will you say that when the R's take back the senate?

You won't believe me, but I will not be upset when/if the tables get turned in a few yrs.

It's like pre-school and they give everyone a little gold star cause they don't want anyone to " not" feel like a winner.

There are winner and loosers in life.....plain and simple.

If you are the minority, that means you lost and next time around you'll see that you run a better campaign and NOT be the looser

I'm calling B.S. on this post right now. You along with all the other Dems will be griping & bitching a year from now.



Honestly, I don't care whether you believe me or not. I was asked a question and I answered it.

I can't do any better than that.

I guess I could bluster and stomp like you are doing, but I've a business to run and don't have the inclination for such foolishness today!
 
Top