Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

Status
Not open for further replies.

McKinney_5900

Bronze Member
Jul 30, 2010
1,142
932
Damned good move. The founding fathers would certainly agree too. Republicans are here for a simple reason after Obama was elected,,,to destroy all positive legislation from any Democrat!, even though it screws all Americans besides the super wealthy.

CASE CLOSED!
 

OP
OP
Red James Cash
Aug 20, 2009
12,824
7,899
New Hampshire
Detector(s) used
Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
Primary Interest:
Other
Damned good move. The founding fathers would certainly agree too. Republicans are here for a simple reason after Obama was elected,,,to destroy all positive legislation from any Democrat!, even though it screws all Americans besides the super wealthy.

CASE CLOSED!

The NDAA was positive legislation? :sign10:Welcome to the twilight zone,night gallery and the outerlimits all rolled into one
 

onfire

Silver Member
Nov 30, 2004
2,677
1,336
Wisconsin
Detector(s) used
250 2500
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Damned good move. The founding fathers would certainly agree too. Republicans are here for a simple reason after Obama was elected,,,to destroy all positive legislation from any Democrat!, even though it screws all Americans besides the super wealthy.

CASE CLOSED!

And you don't think 90% of dem's in office arn't wealthy? Get real
 

Jan 2, 2013
4,541
1,971
somewhere between flagstaff, preskit
Detector(s) used
Whites prism III
Primary Interest:
Relic Hunting
Half the nominees filibustered in the history of the United States were blocked by Republicans during the Obama administration; of 23 district court nominees filibustered in U.S. history, 20 were Obama's nominees; and even judges that have broad bipartisan support have had to wait nearly 100 days longer, on average, than President George W. Bush's nominees.

Obstruction, McConnell said, began with the Democrats when they decided to filibuster Circuit Court nominees under Bush. "They made it up. They started it," he said, arguing that Republicans were only following their lead. His argument, though, raises the question of why eliminating the filibuster on such judges, if it was never used before 2000, should be seen as an historic development in the first place.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/senate-filibuster-reform_n_4316325.html
 

packerbacker

Gold Member
May 11, 2005
8,310
2,992
Northern California
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
CAUTION: Slaughter ahead!! Keep the powder dry!
 

Attachments

  • to slaughter.jpg
    to slaughter.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 54

packerbacker

Gold Member
May 11, 2005
8,310
2,992
Northern California
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
QUOTE: "Half the nominees filibustered in the history of the United States were blocked by Republicans during the Obama administration"
so, what's your point? You think maybe these "nominees" might be just some more screw-ups and the gop doesn't want to screw things up worse than they already are?
 

Dave44

Silver Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,815
2,214
Chesterfield, Va.
Detector(s) used
Whites XLT, Minelab Etrac, Minelab Excal II, At pro
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I think the biggest problem is that these nominees a extremist wackos with no experience. The best thing you could do is keep them out.

But I think this has a sunset. It is until such time as dems lose control. Then the new rule goes away.
 

packerbacker

Gold Member
May 11, 2005
8,310
2,992
Northern California
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
pip, this is changing the number of votes needed to approve an "appointed" position to office. This will make it easier for ol' bozo to get his appointees approved. I guess if you loose elections in too many districts you just change the rules to make up for it. Of course dimwit says that now we will be safer because he can get more control on guns.
 

packerbacker

Gold Member
May 11, 2005
8,310
2,992
Northern California
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Here's how dumbo felt about the "nuclear option" in 2005
"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."
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top