Senate Dems Stop Filibustering Of Obama Nominees

[angelatc]

So much for Rand's End-The-Fed ploy:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-usa-senate-nominees-vote-idUSBRE9AK11420131121


The Democratic-led Senate, in a historic rule change, stripped Republicans on Thursday of their ability to block President Barack Obama's (http://www.reuters.com/people/barack-obama?lc=int_mb_1001) judicial and executive branch nominees.


On a nearly party-line vote of 52-48, Democrats abruptly changed the Senate's balance of power by reducing from 60 to 51 the number of votes needed to end procedural roadblocks known as filibusters against all presidential nominees, except those for the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Warlord]

Reid is a tyrant

[Seraphim]

Imperial Presidency gains momentum yet again.

[Lucille]

On a nearly party-line vote of 52-48

I'm sure McCain voted with the Dem fascists.

[angelatc]

I'm sure McCain voted with the Dem fascists.

I had to look to be sure, but all the Republicans voted against it. There are only 45 Republicans in the Senate. Carl Levin of Michigan, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Joe Manchin of West Virginia voted with the GOP.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304607104579211881413579404

According to that, McCain apparently tried to negotiate a deal to stop the rule change.

Can you imagine the shrieking from the left if Bush and co had done this? But that's that - what won't happen is the GOP changing it back when they get the majority again.

[jllundqu]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_print.html


The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn Thursday, as 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 that federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority 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.

[jllundqu]

This changes many things..... this is how civil wars are started.

[jkr]

we already there...

[Miss Annie]

What Senator Obama said about the action in 2005. No surprise really.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q6aqw_SfU0

[69360]

When the GOP takes the senate in 2014 they will just change it back.

[helmuth_hubener]

When the GOP takes the senate in 2014 they will just change it back.

Why?

I don't think you have thought this through.

[69360]

Why?

I don't think you have thought this through.

Really? So you think if one party has the oval office and presidency they should just be able to appoint anyone they like with no oversight at all? Because that's what you'll get. The GOP at least gets that.

[jllundqu]

Why?

I don't think you have thought this through.

Agreed.... No one thinks the GOP will yeild this power back. When they retake the majority, they will ram thru their nominees without question or concern. The dems just screwed themselves. This just turned the Senate from a Republic-institution (minority rights) into pure majority-rules chaos... Two wolves and a sheep...

[ZENemy]

Viable solutions are impossible from within the system, because the system is the problem.


The losing party regardless of their label (repub, dem) will change the rules as they see fit, after all they feel they "are the law"

[moostraks]

Why not just fast forward to where all appearances of checks and balances no longer exist? This is ridiculous. To think that the Republican party will roll back anything they themselves will be able to exploit seems naive to me. They will talk a good game and then ring their hands on why they are unable to do so. I would loved to be proved wrong but ain't gonna hold my breath.

[Pericles]

When the GOP takes the senate in 2014 they will just change it back.

I'd guess the Ds think the Rs really don't have the balls to do that. Wars get started that way.

[69360]

Agreed.... No one thinks the GOP will yeild this power back. When they retake the majority, they will ram thru their nominees without question or concern. The dems just screwed themselves. This just turned the Senate from a Republic-institution (minority rights) into pure majority-rules chaos... Two wolves and a sheep...

Wrong, the GOP will likely take the senate next year on anti obama backlash. If they do they will change it back while Obama is still in office. Despite all the GOP hate on here I think the party will do the right thing.

[jllundqu]

the party will do the right thing.

Now I've heard everything... "The GOP will do the right thing" :p HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA LMAO!!!!!

[rich34]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_print.html

Well there goes Rand's attempt at forcing an audit of the Fed. To go this route they apparently wanted absolutely nothing to do with Rand's maneuvering. This is desperate.

[ClydeCoulter]

So, a simple majority vote to get rid of a super majority requirement? WTF?

[angelatc]

So, a simple majority vote to get rid of a super majority requirement? WTF?

Yeah, that seems to be a weakness in the system.

[69360]

Now I've heard everything... "The GOP will do the right thing" :p HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA LMAO!!!!!

You hate the GOP, I don't. The Pauls, Massie, Amash and lots of other good people we got elected have (R) next to their name for a reason.

[Pericles]

Yeah, that seems to be a weakness in the system.

Just moved one step closer to when the shooting starts.

[angelatc]

When the GOP takes the senate in 2014 they will just change it back.


Woud you care to lay a wager on that? I'll even let you off on the 2014 part. I bet that when the GOP takes back the Senate, they will not change this rule back.

[Contumacious]

So much for Rand's End-The-Fed ploy:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-usa-senate-nominees-vote-idUSBRE9AK11420131121

Senator Reid (D-USSR) is preparing the nation for the upcoming merger between the democrats and republicans.

They will soon merge with the democrats and things will be forever peachy.

One political party under god, indivisible, with welfare and insurance for all

.

[anaconda]

LOL Obama commenting on "what our founders envisioned."

[serenityrick]

Barack Obama put it best in 2005:


I am also aware that the Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority -- and that protection, with some changes, has been in place for over 200 years.

[anaconda]

Poorly written article. Refers to an important rule change without any previous references or statement. I am not even clear what the 52-48 vote actually entailed. Perhaps a "nuclear option" just for federal appointees? I dunno.

[angelatc]

Poorly written article. Refers to an important rule change without any previous references or statement. I am not even clear what the 52-48 vote actually entailed. Perhaps a "nuclear option" just for federal appointees? I dunno.

Pretty much everybody except Supreme Court Justices. I guess they decided that they'll need to stop the GOP using that mechanism in the future.

[Lucille]

Wrong, the GOP will likely take the senate next year on anti obama backlash. If they do they will change it back while Obama is still in office. Despite all the GOP hate on here I think the party will do the right thing.


Woud you care to lay a wager on that? I'll even let you off on the 2014 part. I bet that when the GOP takes back the Senate, they will not change this rule back.

Worse.

Grassley: GOP Will Expand Filibuster Rules When in Power
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/11/21/grassley-gop-will-expand-filibuster-rule


When Republicans regain control of the Senate, they're likely going to expand the rules change that Democrats approved Thursday to apply to U.S. Supreme Court nominees, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said on the Senate floor.

The changes passed by Democrats affects votes on judicial and executive nominees -- requiring only 51 votes to end a filibuster -- but excludes nominees to the Supreme Court.

[nobody's_hero]

So, a simple majority vote to get rid of a super majority requirement? WTF?

I have to say that democrats seem to be more corrupt when it comes to voting requirements.

Franklin Roosevelt was pissed that the didn't have enough friends on the supreme court, so he simply added more justices.

[angelatc]

I have to say that democrats seem to be more corrupt when it comes to voting requirements.

Franklin Roosevelt was pissed that the didn't have enough friends on the supreme court, so he simply added more justices.

He actually didn't, but he threatened to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937). And because he was in office for 12 years he appointed 8 justices.

[nobody's_hero]

He actually didn't, but he threatened to. And because he was in office for 12 years he appointed 8 justices.

Well then this is certainly a new low.

[Original_Intent]

Holy crap this is huge. And if they polled Americans a week from now, 98% would be like Whut? And why should I care?

[angelatc]

Holy crap this is huge. And if they polled Americans a week from now, 98% would be like Whut? And why should I care?

This is what Democrats do, though. That's how they got Obamacare passed, remember? They could not get the votes, so they just bypassed that.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Really? So you think if one party has the oval office and presidency they should just be able to appoint anyone they like with no oversight at all? Because that's what you'll get. The GOP at least gets that.

Haha please, your faith in the GOP is hurting my sides with laughter.

[Natural Citizen]

In a report from Capitol Hill, Rand Paul just got dissed pretty good on RT regarding his position on the fed chairman nominee. Or, to be clear, his position on the fed. They basically said he was a fake. As well, when we open up the books on the fed there are some others that get opened up too that some may not want to provide a position on. Consider Yellen's previous responsibilities before this appointment.

[Peace&Freedom]

The GOP has the advantage (if they want to be cynical) in continuing this new rule once they take majority control of the Senate in 2014, ramming through their most disputed bills and appointments in their first year, then re-introducing the filibuster rules afterward so they can say "we restored minority rights" in time for the 2016 elections. How will the Democrats be able to complain?

[Zippyjuan]

When the GOP takes the senate in 2014 they will just change it back.
Nope. It will benefit them too. Then the Democrats won't be able to stop what they want to do.

[angelatc]

The GOP has the advantage (if they want to be cynical) in continuing this new rule once they take majority control of the Senate in 2014, ramming through their most disputed bills and appointments in their first year, then re-introducing the filibuster rules afterward so they can say "we restored minority rights" in time for the 2016 elections. How will the Democrats be able to complain?

If I trusted the Republicans not to install a bunch of neocons into permanent positions of power, I'd be ok with that. But while the GOP is our best hope (sadly) for change, they aren't changed yet.

[Brett85]

Really? So you think if one party has the oval office and presidency they should just be able to appoint anyone they like with no oversight at all? Because that's what you'll get. The GOP at least gets that.

It would be absolutely stupid for the GOP to change it back! So you're saying that the GOP should allow the Democrats to confirm judges with only 50 votes, while the GOP should have to get 60 votes to confirm judges? I really hope the GOP isn't that stupid.

[angelatc]

This is interesting - the Senate Republicans may have found a way to stymie the judicial nominations:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/


The Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive business meeting to consider pending nominations and legislation on November 21, 2013. A quorum was not present, and the Committee was not able to complete action on pending matters. The meeting recessed subject to the call of the Chair.

They did not show up for the meeting. With no quorum, the nominations couldn't proceed.

[Champ]

Anyone notice that this comes at the same time when the Audit the Fed bill was the driving force behind Rand Paul's newest proposed filibuster?

Reid used the last ditch and most extreme option he had in his arsenal to prevent the Audit the Fed bill from being put up for a vote. To me, this shows how afraid Reid and the establishment are of exposing the Fed to the public for what it is with a full audit and all the attention it might get, just like drone strikes and obamacare got from those filibusters.

All of the other reasons the President and Reid mentioned: for purposes of more Liberal/Democrat control, to prevent obstacles in the Senate, and to make Washington a nicer place to work in, etc. are all secondary to the fact that this is blocking Rand Paul's bill from getting more exposure and a chance to be voted on in the Senate.

Of course, they would never in a million years mention anything about the Fed or risk giving it attention.

[angelatc]

Anyone notice that this comes at the same time when the Audit the Fed bill was the driving force behind Rand Paul's newest proposed filibuster?

Reid used the last ditch and most extreme option he had in his arsenal to prevent the Audit the Fed bill from being put up for a vote. To me, this shows how afraid Reid and the establishment are of exposing the Fed to the public for what it is with a full audit and all the attention it might get, just like drone strikes and obamacare got from those filibusters.

All of the other reasons the President and Reid mentioned: for purposes of more Liberal/Democrat control, to prevent obstacles in the Senate, and to make Washington a nicer place to work in, etc. are all secondary to the fact that this is blocking Rand Paul's bill from getting more exposure and a chance to be voted on in the Senate.

Of course, they would never in a million years mention anything about the Fed or risk giving it attention.

That's exactly what I thought. The Democrats have been crabbing about the hold up on the nominations for 5 years. Suddenly they feel the need to push people through?

I think this also might mean that they are afraid of losing the Senate, and they want to get as many cronies installed as they can while there's still time.

[puppetmaster]

Agreed.... No one thinks the GOP will yeild this power back. When they retake the majority, they will ram thru their nominees without question or concern. The dems just screwed themselves. This just turned the Senate from a Republic-institution (minority rights) into pure majority-rules chaos... Two wolves and a sheep...

The dems did not screw themselves.....watch

[puppetmaster]

I have to say that democrats seem to be more corrupt when it comes to voting requirements.

Franklin Roosevelt was pissed that the didn't have enough friends on the supreme court, so he simply added more justices.

Yes he did. DC will hear the obamacare appeals.

[eduardo89]

I think Reid and Obama realise they have a huge chance of losing their majority in the Senate in 2014 so they're going to try and do everything they can to get their judicial nominations in before them and stack the courts in their favour.

[Dianne]

If the pussies are gonna take it, what can you do? They could actually file a law suit, and keep it tied up for years.

The GOP in their corner on this... they could fight this .. You can fight anything and stop it in its' tracks... The damn GOP could even file for Chapter 13 and stop everything that madman Obama has to dish out.

[phill4paul]

Checks and balances. Lol.

[dillo]

They should just filibuster anyway, sack up boys

[supermario21]

Look at it this way, now when Rand gets elected in 2017, we can make Andrew P. Napolitano Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!

[eduardo89]

Look at it this way, now when Rand gets elected in 2017, we can make Andrew P. Napolitano Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!

SCOTUS nominees are still subject to a 60-vote threshold.

[angelatc]

Look at it this way, now when Rand gets elected in 2017, we can make Andrew P. Napolitano Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!

You think Roberts is going to drop dead?

[angelatc]

SCOTUS nominees are still subject to a 60-vote threshold.


The first thing the GOP majority should do is change that.

[eduardo89]

The first thing the GOP majority should do is change that.

And then change it back once they get someone like Bork on the court lol

[angelatc]

And then change it back once they get someone like Bork on the court lol

Wait until they're lame ducks, then change it back while also changing the rules about changing it.

[Peace&Freedom]

This is interesting - the Senate Republicans may have found a way to stymie the judicial nominations:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/

They did not show up for the meeting. With no quorum, the nominations couldn't proceed.

Clever, but it's a lot easier for Reid to change the committee rules to bypass the quorum requirements, than to change the filibuster rule. Since he's already done the latter hard thing, they will likely change the former as well, to get their nominees through.

[supermario21]

Ok, well any spot then...Ginsburg is getting pretty old.

[eduardo89]

Wait until they're lame ducks, then change it back while also changing the rules about changing it.

GOP Plan:

1) Nominate someone like Bork to the Court
2) Pass it with just a majority
3) Change rules requiring 99 votes to nominate SCOTUS judges
4) Change rules requiring 100 votes to change rules
5) Hahaha fuck you Democrats.

[Cleaner44]

When the GOP takes the senate in 2014 they will just change it back.


Wrong, the GOP will likely take the senate next year on anti obama backlash. If they do they will change it back while Obama is still in office. Despite all the GOP hate on here I think the party will do the right thing.

I just had to save this nonsense so we can look back later and see how naive you were. Even if we elect 5 more liberty candidates in 2014 to go with Rand and Massie and Amash, they will still be drastically outnumbered by the BIG GOVT progressive Republicans. One can only wonder how long you have been paying attention to politicians.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Reid is a tyrantMitch McConnell. John Boehner, et al, are Pussies... They never should of caved on ObamaCare. Oh, I forgot, it's all WWE Kabuki Theater.

[Lucille]

Democrat Tom Harkin: Change Senate Rules on Filibusters for Legislation Next
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/11/22/democrat-tom-harkin-change-senate-rules


After the Senate voted to change filibuster rules Thursday, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called for more reforms.

“This has been escalating for a long period of time and it was time to stop it and that’s what we did this morning,” Harkin said. “Now we need to take it a step farther and change the filibuster rules on legislation.”

So now the Rs want to apply it to SCOTUS noms, and the Dems want to apply it to legislation. Great.

[Zippyjuan]

Republicans tried to do the same thing eight years ago too.

[helmuth_hubener]

Republicans tried to do the same thing eight years ago too. Some much-needed perspective.

[Lucille]

Some much-needed perspective.

Yes, we can always count on ZippyJeffry to give us the establishment's perspective.

They didn't do it though. They actually didn't even try. They just talked about it and made an agreement with the Dems rather than change the rule.

[angelatc]

Yes, we can always count on ZippyJeffry to give us the establishment's perspective.

They didn't do it though. They actually didn't even try. They just talked about it and made an agreement with the Dems rather than change the rule.

Exactly. 8 years ago the Republicans had the senate majority. They either did it or they didn't. They didn't.

[tangent4ronpaul]

OK, but nominees for what offices?

I think these are coming up:
Fed Chairman
DHS head
A bunch of generals to replace the ones Obama just fired.
not sure beyond that.

Anyone know of others and the implications?

-t

[Lucille]

OK, but nominees for what offices?

I think these are coming up:
Fed Chairman
DHS head
A bunch of generals to replace the ones Obama just fired.
not sure beyond that.

Anyone know of others and the implications?

-t

O Duce wants to stack the DC circuit court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senates-filibuster-decision-could-reshape-influential-dc-federal-appeals-court/2013/11/21/3b3fd76a-52de-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html


The D.C. Circuit has outsize importance in national legal disputes and has helped determine rules for credit card fees, precautions at meat plants and whether companies must deliver pensions promised to their workers. It is often described as the most important court in the land after the Supreme Court.
[...]
Some conservatives say they fear Obama’s picks will make pro-government, pro-regulation decisions that hurt average Americans.

“President Obama is eager to inflict the same sort of damage on the judiciary that he is inflicting on American health care,” said Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, referring to rollout problems with the Affordable Care Act.

Because of its experience in federal agency law and its jurisdiction in the home of the U.S. government, the D.C. Circuit has become the venue for any company or group trying to appeal a federal agency’s decision or regulation.

“The decisions that get handed down by the D.C. Circuit aren’t the ones everybody has heard of, but they end up affecting everyone,” Courtney said. “It has a lot of complicated cases that decide about things that decide how government will actually work in real lives. Whether that’s contraception, workers’ rights, environmental protection or consumer health, these are decisions that have a huge impact.”

[dillo]

if the dems get immigration reform, it wont matter theyll have a majority every year anyway

[VBRonPaulFan]

Can you imagine the shrieking from the left if Bush and co had done this? But that's that - what won't happen is the GOP changing it back when they get the majority again.

oh you mean like in 2005?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I-mOmAi4Iw

pretty sure Joe feels perfectly fine about the changes now, though.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Filibuster Fallout: Reid maneuver could send ‘wrecking ball’ through talks on key legislation

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/22/filibuster-fallout-reid-maneuver-could-send-wrecking-ball-through-talks-on-key/?cmpid=edpick&google_editors_picks=true

Democrats who claimed victory -- including President Obama -- in stripping the Senate minority of its power to block nominations may have done so at the sacrifice of the president's legislative agenda.

Before Thursday, trust on Capitol Hill was frayed yet there was tentative hope following the bruising fight over the partial shutdown that Republicans and Democrats could find some spectrum of common ground for the rest of Obama's term. Maybe pass a few budgets, maybe do something lasting about that pesky deficit.

But the move to use a rare parliamentary tactic and overhaul Senate procedure making it easier for the majority party to approve presidential nominees has poisoned an already tainted well. Any prospect for compromise on items ranging from immigration legislation to a fiscal deal to tax reform is now that much fainter.

"There's no question that the move by Harry Reid will make it much tougher to get anything done between now and 2014," GOP strategist and former long-time Senate aide John Ullyot told FoxNews.com.

"In the short-term, it's a wrecking ball through any efforts that were underway previously to have both parties work together on key bills."

Because of the rule change, non-Supreme Court judicial nominees and executive-office nominees can now be approved with just 51 votes, as opposed to 60.

In the first test of Senate relations following the filibuster change, Republicans united to block a critical defense policy bill. The bill failed in a vote late Thursday, nine votes short of the number needed to advance.

Republicans were angry over Democrats' move to limit amendments, but the vote could also reflect new tensions over Reid deploying what's known as the "nuclear option."

The Senate is now adjourning for the Thanksgiving break, and lawmakers will have time to stew over what just happened.

The docket, though, is not getting any thinner. Under the terms of the budget resolution in late October, a bipartisan committee is supposed to be hammering out a new deal to keep the government operating into early 2014. The committee is charged with coming up with a plan by Dec. 13, and Congress is facing a January deadline to approve it. Plus they're facing a Feb. 7 deadline to raise the debt ceiling.

Several lawmakers had already indicated there will be no "grand bargain" this time around, but now the question is whether lawmakers can avoid another partial shutdown.
(cont)

AWESOME!!!!

-t