Senate went nuclear`

[ednksu]

Welcome to majority appointments, congrats Reps, you earned it.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Welcome to majority appointments, congrats Reps, you earned it.

Yes, evading the filibuster to ram things through seems to be working out well for the party of big gov lately. According to Harry Reid, "we have to pass these nominations to find out whether these people are qualified."

[steve dave]

pretty alpha name for the thing they did

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Typical libs with their short attention spans. It's like the don't even realize they will be on the other end of this crap in a few years.

[Dugout DickStone]

I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. 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,

 

[ednksu]

Typical libs with their short attention spans. It's like the don't even realize they will be on the other end of this crap in a few years.

not if Reps keep this up.

I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. 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,

 

Is this from the shutdown? 




Here is the reason why I'm 51% okay with this, as supposed to the filibusters for Bush II's nominations, these people are stalled for purely ideological reasons to stimy Obama and make political witch hunts (Benghazi).  Bush's nominations were political ideology based, because of the judge's positions, not because they were Bush's people.  The other issue is that these appointments have been held up purely because certain branches of the Rep party hate progressive institutions which have protected the vulnerable in our country, see the NLRB>

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Typical libs with their short attention spans. It's like the don't even realize they will be on the other end of this crap in a few years.

not if Reps keep this up.

I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. 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,

 

Is this from the shutdown? 




Here is the reason why I'm 51% okay with this, as supposed to the filibusters for Bush II's nominations, these people are stalled for purely ideological reasons to stimy Obama and make political witch hunts (Benghazi).  Bush's nominations were political ideology based, because of the judge's positions, not because they were Bush's people.  The other issue is that these appointments have been held up purely because certain branches of the Rep party hate progressive institutions which have protected the vulnerable in our country, see the NLRB>

LOL, ok.  Only one side has an ideological mindset, and it's the wrong one. 

[ednksu]

Typical libs with their short attention spans. It's like the don't even realize they will be on the other end of this crap in a few years.

not if Reps keep this up.

I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. 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,

 

Is this from the shutdown? 




Here is the reason why I'm 51% okay with this, as supposed to the filibusters for Bush II's nominations, these people are stalled for purely ideological reasons to stimy Obama and make political witch hunts (Benghazi).  Bush's nominations were political ideology based, because of the judge's positions, not because they were Bush's people.  The other issue is that these appointments have been held up purely because certain branches of the Rep party hate progressive institutions which have protected the vulnerable in our country, see the NLRB>

LOL, ok.  Only one side has an ideological mindset, and it's the wrong one. 

you have terrible reading comprehension

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Typical libs with their short attention spans. It's like the don't even realize they will be on the other end of this crap in a few years.

not if Reps keep this up.

I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. 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,

 

Is this from the shutdown? 




Here is the reason why I'm 51% okay with this, as supposed to the filibusters for Bush II's nominations, these people are stalled for purely ideological reasons to stimy Obama and make political witch hunts (Benghazi).  Bush's nominations were political ideology based, because of the judge's positions, not because they were Bush's people.  The other issue is that these appointments have been held up purely because certain branches of the Rep party hate progressive institutions which have protected the vulnerable in our country, see the NLRB>

LOL, ok.  Only one side has an ideological mindset, and it's the wrong one. 

you have terrible reading comprehension

If what I said is not what you meant, then you better go back and rewrite.

Here is what I think is going on. Obama is trying to fill spots on the DC circuit court, that doesn't need to be filled based on need, simply to get liberals in place. It looks like they could lose control of the senate in 2015 when obamacare finishes crashing, at which time they will have someone challenge the nuclear option in court and have one of the newly appointed judges strike it down after they push a bunch more crap through. Maybe it will work.

[Dugout DickStone]

Typical libs with their short attention spans. It's like the don't even realize they will be on the other end of this crap in a few years.

not if Reps keep this up.

I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. 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,

 

Is this from the shutdown? 




Here is the reason why I'm 51% okay with this, as supposed to the filibusters for Bush II's nominations, these people are stalled for purely ideological reasons to stimy Obama and make political witch hunts (Benghazi).  Bush's nominations were political ideology based, because of the judge's positions, not because they were Bush's people.  The other issue is that these appointments have been held up purely because certain branches of the Rep party hate progressive institutions which have protected the vulnerable in our country, see the NLRB>

Its from when Obama was a Senator and the GOp was considering the NO

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Here's regarding the nuclear option.

And here is Harry Reid:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, praised Mr. Bush's support for "an independent judiciary," then called on him to ask Senate Republicans to drop their threats to change the rules.

"The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government," Mr. Reid said.

[p1k3]

Is this what the Nazis did?

[ChiComCat]

I would be ok with it if it were just executive branch appointees.  GOP has been a particular pain in the ass on these which is not the normal procedure.

Stopping it on Judicial nominees worries me.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I would be ok with it if it were just executive branch appointees.  GOP has been a particular pain in the ass on these which is not the normal procedure.

Stopping it on Judicial nominees worries me.

Not sure where you get the GOP has been a particular pain at this, it's the same reason it was brought up in 2005. Also, they all end up going through in the end unless they're just horrible. It weeds out the really poor choices. Now they'll make it through.

[Headinjun]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rush-limbaugh-compares-changing-the-filibuster-to-rape-audio

 

[ednksu]

Typical libs with their short attention spans. It's like the don't even realize they will be on the other end of this crap in a few years.

not if Reps keep this up.

I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. 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,

 

Is this from the shutdown? 




Here is the reason why I'm 51% okay with this, as supposed to the filibusters for Bush II's nominations, these people are stalled for purely ideological reasons to stimy Obama and make political witch hunts (Benghazi).  Bush's nominations were political ideology based, because of the judge's positions, not because they were Bush's people.  The other issue is that these appointments have been held up purely because certain branches of the Rep party hate progressive institutions which have protected the vulnerable in our country, see the NLRB>

LOL, ok.  Only one side has an ideological mindset, and it's the wrong one. 

you have terrible reading comprehension

If what I said is not what you meant, then you better go back and rewrite.

Here is what I think is going on. Obama is trying to fill spots on the DC circuit court, that doesn't need to be filled based on need, simply to get liberals in place. It looks like they could lose control of the senate in 2015 when obamacare finishes crashing, at which time they will have someone challenge the nuclear option in court and have one of the newly appointed judges strike it down after they push a bunch more crap through. Maybe it will work.

I suggest you talk to people who deal with the courts.  There is a backlog and the courts are overworked, partially because of the open spots on the bench.


Also

[Cire]

Typical libs with their short attention spans. It's like the don't even realize they will be on the other end of this crap in a few years.

not if Reps keep this up.

I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. 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,

 

Is this from the shutdown? 




Here is the reason why I'm 51% okay with this, as supposed to the filibusters for Bush II's nominations, these people are stalled for purely ideological reasons to stimy Obama and make political witch hunts (Benghazi).  Bush's nominations were political ideology based, because of the judge's positions, not because they were Bush's people.  The other issue is that these appointments have been held up purely because certain branches of the Rep party hate progressive institutions which have protected the vulnerable in our country, see the NLRB>

LOL, ok.  Only one side has an ideological mindset, and it's the wrong one. 

you have terrible reading comprehension

If what I said is not what you meant, then you better go back and rewrite.

Here is what I think is going on. Obama is trying to fill spots on the DC circuit court, that doesn't need to be filled based on need, simply to get liberals in place. It looks like they could lose control of the senate in 2015 when obamacare finishes crashing, at which time they will have someone challenge the nuclear option in court and have one of the newly appointed judges strike it down after they push a bunch more crap through. Maybe it will work.

I suggest you talk to people who deal with the courts.  There is a backlog and the courts are overworked, partially because of the open spots on the bench.


Also

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

That's an awesome graphic, but Obama is on pace to place the same number of judges as GW Bush. GW places 325 in his 8 years and Obama has already placed 202 in less than 5 years. Phony outrage.

[ChiComCat]

I would be ok with it if it were just executive branch appointees.  GOP has been a particular pain in the ass on these which is not the normal procedure.

Stopping it on Judicial nominees worries me.

Not sure where you get the GOP has been a particular pain at this, it's the same reason it was brought up in 2005. Also, they all end up going through in the end unless they're just horrible. It weeds out the really poor choices. Now they'll make it through.

In the past, most cabinet appointees go through without problems.  The consensus was that if the president won the election, he should get to choose who advises him.  GOP has been a particular pain in the ass on this.  In the case of Hagel, requests for a crap ton of financial documents had not been asked to a nominee prior to my knowledge. I agree they mostly all end up getting through, so holding them up is usually just political gamesmanship.  That is what I have an issue with.  They should be focused on issues rather than just trying to be a pain in the ass for the other party.  And I don't mean this just as a lampoon for the GOP, because I wouldn't be surprised if Dems did it their next opportunity now too.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather the process stay in place, but in the current climate I understand why they went around it.

[p1k3]

maybe Barry should stop being such a communist. I mean, if Bush was nominating Nazis left and right you would have probably seen the same result.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

maybe Barry should stop being such a communist. I mean, if Bush was nominating Nazis left and right you would have probably seen the same result.

He nominates horrible awful people he know will get blocked just so later he can say he was treated unfairly.  He's the worst