I understand that tonight law-abiding citizens are being rounded up and herded into "democrat" camps for reeducation or culling by death panels. It has begun. Be very afraid. barfo
The way I hear it, one scenario is ObamaCare takes down enough Democrats that they lose the Senate. Then a Republican wins the presidency and nominates as conservative a guy they want to replace Ginsberg. And they'll do the nuclear option thing to bypass the minority's wishes. Maybe it won't come to pass, but it is the price paid.
The nuclear option is the price Republicans are paying for abusing the "majority rules" system with their gridlock.
judicial vacancies had been waiting with qualified appointees waiting for years. But the Republicans refused to let any of the 90+ vacancies be filled regardless of candidate. That's totally abusing their power. Sure, it was in their right to abuse their power. So, this left the Democrats with only one course of action, to use their power to get appointees voted in. Sucks to be a Republican but this was totally and completely their fault. They fucked up, they poked and poked and poked till getting popped in the mouth. Boo fucking hoo, it's a good day to not be a Republican.
The Constitution creates a system of checks and balances. The three branches of government - legislative, executive, and judical - are designed to check one another. But nowhere in the document does it say, nor was it designed, to have a minority in one party in one body of one branch act as a check or balance. The Senate is a body where majority was intended to rule, unless otherwise stated in the Constitution (for instance, to pass a treaty - 2/3 of the Senate is needed.) For those of you who love the Constitution, you should be happy that the abused, super majority, 60 vote rule, has been eliminated. And it is fair enough that when the Republicans take control of the Senate, or the Presidency, that their nominees get an up or down vote as well. This is a democracy. It is majority rule. Minority interests are protected, but never was it intended that they prevail. Hurray for sanity.
Constitution has supermajority clauses. Like to override a veto or amend the constitution. So much for the majority rules thing. The constitution says congress writes its own rules. For as long as I can remember, and that's 5 decades, the rule has been 60 and before that 2/3 majority. So this is very much against tradition. But go for it. What comes around goes around, and you will be very upset when it does.
Wow, was I wrong. The Democrats are more desperate than I thought. No longer is the Senate the cooling dish of American politics. We have now become a parliamentary system.
You've made your Big Bad Wolf threat about 5 times in this thread. But everyone knows it's empty because Republicans block 20 times as many appointees as Democrats do. Also, your threatening assumes a Republican President simultaneous with a Republican Congress, which is very rare.
I'll guess. You must be claiming Alzheimer's as your excuse. Or is it that you get yourself inaugurated as Governor at midnight because astrology says it's the best time.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ar_option_and_the_fallout_to_come_120755.html The second aspect of this that Republicans find hard to swallow—as they should—is the Democrats’ hypocrisy. Perhaps hypocrisy is too mild a word. When George W. Bush was president and Democrats were in the Senate minority, they did everything they could to sabotage his judicial appointments. They used stalling tactics, the filibuster, and outright character assassination. Obama took great pride in appointing a Hispanic to the Supreme Court, but Bush wanted to do it first. He couldn’t even get the brilliant Miguel Estrada appointed to the D.C. Court of Appeals—the same panel that Democrats have now gone nuclear over. Comparing the quotes of Democrats then to Democrats now—and we’re talking about the same people—is a case study in situational ethics. In 2005, when Republicans invoked the very same idea he has now rammed through the Senate, Harry Reid said the filibuster “serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.” He wasn’t the only one. Here’s then-Sen. Obama back then: “[A] change in the Senate rules would change the character of the Senate forever. … You would have, simply, majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the Founders intended.” And here is Sen. Chuck Schumer: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a Constitutional crisis. The checks and balances, which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated, by the nuclear option. … It is amazing, almost a temper tantrum.” The two most prophetic Democratic senators were Dianne Feinstein of California and a certain small-state senator with national ambitions named Joe Biden. “The nuclear option, if successful, will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority,” said Feinstein. “It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments. And then legislation.” “I say to my friends on the Republican side,” added Biden: “You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. And I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
No details to write? Of course not. Speaking of fantasy, I could read your copy-and-pastes from the conservative RealClearPolitics all day. Not writing half of your posts must save you a lot of time.
Republicans block 20x as many appointees. You wrote that. It's utter bullshit. Both parties have done it. The Democrats put on some of the most hateful witch hunts I've witnessed in my lifetime. Tower, Bork, Thomas.
82 presidential nominees have been blocked under President Barack Obama, 86 blocked under all other presidents
http://news.yahoo.com/are-republica...nees-at-‘unprecedented--levels-001414638.html Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction, according to the Wall Street Journal. But when it comes to judicial nominees – the process that sparked Senate Democrats to approve the nuclear option on Thursday – he’s really just suffering from a historically negative trend going back more than two decades. According to congressional data, former President George W. Bush actually had a lower percentage of circuit court nominees approved during his time in office than Obama. And when it comes to the amount of time it takes for circuit court nominees to get approved, Bush and Obama are actually in surprisingly close company, with Bush faring slightly worse. (See chart) Obstruction of judicial nominees first became a regular practice during President Clinton’s time in office, and the amount of time it takes for a nominee to be approved skyrocketed during George W. Bush’s presidency. According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, President Obama had 71.4% of his circuit court nominees approved during his first term, which is slightly better than George W. Bush’s 67.3% level of success during his first term. President Obama also didn't fare the worst when it comes to district court nominees. During his first term, 82.7% of Obama’s district court nominees were approved, George H.W. Bush had 76.9% of his nominees approved. (20x my ass)
Since the above article mentions the WSJ: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/21/do-obama-nominees-face-stiffer-senate-opposition/ The Congressional Research Service released a report in May analyzing the fate of Mr. Obama’s first-term judicial nominees compared to the fates of those nominated by other presidents. A look at the confirmation rates for district court nominees picked by the past four presidents shows a mixed bag: For Mr. Obama, the Senate approved 143 of his 173 nominees; for President George W. Bush, 170 of 179 nominees; for President Bill Clinton, 170 of 198 nominees; and for President George H.W. Bush, 150 of 195 nominees.
The role of the Senate is to advise and consent. What isn't being taken into account here is that the nominees from President Obama may be much further to the fringe than those under Presidents George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton. His reputation at the U of C Law School was of someone who was on the left fringe of a largely left-leaning faculty. His judicial appointments show exactly that outlook. Whether or not someone shouldn't be confirmed simply because they're too radical is another issue.
