Citing Unprecedented Obstruction, Reid Announces Senate Democrats Will Go ‘Nuclear’

[boutons_deux]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced on Thursday morning that he will “go nuclear” by changing the Senate rules to end filibusters of President Obama’s judicial nominees, except for the Supreme Court.

The Republican minority has blocked the appointments of Robert Wilkins, Nina Pillard and Patricia Millett, all of the president’s appointments to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, from receiving an up-or-down vote. All of President George W. Bush’s six appointments to the court were approved by the upper house of Congress. Due to the court’s seniority system, its power is heavily tilted to Republican appointees (http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/images/DC-Circ-chairs1.jpg).

Rather than allowing a vote on these nominations, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) called for the vacant seats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/chuck-grassley-dc-circuit_n_4311984.html) to be removed from the court.

Before President Obama was elected, three judges to the federal court of appeals had their nominations filibustered, Reid noted. A total of 20 Obama’s nominations had been blocked.

Reid listed a litany of obstruction by Republicans in the Senate, including the unprecedented attempt to use the requirement for 60 votes to eliminate a part of the executive branch, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the attempt to block a Republican nominee for the Secretary of Defense and the successful filibuster of a sitting member of the House of Representatives.

More than half of the 168 filibusters in the history of the United States have happened during the Obama administration, he noted. In addition, 75 of Obama’s executive branch nominees are still waiting for confirmation—and they’ve been waiting for 140 days, on average.

“The American people think the Senate is broken,” Reid said, before noting that Democrats have played a part in escalating the use of filibusters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/21/a-brief-history-of-the-senate-filibuster-fight/).

“It’s time to change the Senate before it becomes obsolete,” he said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) responded to the majority leader’s speech by accusing Democrats of trying to change the subject from the failure of the Affordable Care Act :lol

http://www.nationalmemo.com/citing-unprecedented-obstruction-reid-announces-senate-democrats-will-go-nuclear/

Harry found his balls! The only way to deal with Repug crazies is to out-crazy them.

[Winehole23]

passed

[boutons_deux]

:toast:downspin::lol:ihit
:toast:downspin::lol:ihit
:toast:downspin::lol:ihit
:toast:downspin::lol:ihit
:toast:downspin::lol:ihit
:toast:downspin::lol:ihit

[boutons_deux]

http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/powergrab2_20131121_132239.jpg

http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/powergrab2_20131121_132239.jpg

eat MY SHIT FOX, and all you Repugs and tea baggers here, and everywhere.

[Winehole23]

The current super-majority requirement for judicial nominations, combined with the application of interest-group litmus tests on judicial ideology, has made it increasingly difficult to confirm high caliber judicial nominees, particularly if they have ever been involved in any controversial issue. The current confirmation gauntlet has discouraged Presidents from nominating many high-quality nominees (Conspirators perhaps?), and deterred others from accepting nominations if asked. It has also furthered the politicization of the judiciary by making confirmation contingent upon satisfying a minority of the Senate.


The filibuster of judicial nominees is bad for the courts. It was a bad thing when first used against Miguel Estrada, and it is bad now. Of course it’s rich for Senator Reid and his colleagues to complain about the use of a tactic they themselves deployed with relish (and used to defeat just as many nominees), but that’s politics (and Kerr’s law (http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225858249)). I have no idea how Senate Republicans are likely to respond if Senator Reid pulls the trigger, and how this could effect the ability of the Senate to conduct other business, but I won’t shed a tear for the end of judicial obstruction. So go ahead Harry, make my day. I am sure the next President will appreciate it.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/21/time-go-nuclear/

[SnakeBoy]

eat MY SHIT FOX, and all you Repugs and tea baggers here, and everywhere.

Celebrate while you can


http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110128050245/disney/images/3/34/Wormturns03.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Celebrate while you can


http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110128050245/disney/images/3/34/Wormturns03.jpg

Only if the Repugs' voter suppression and gerrymandering works beyond red states. VA, Repugs losing all 5 statewide offices, should be good omen for all purple states

What I'd like to see next is limiting states to one senator if their population is below some %age of the total population, to really fuck over the underpopulated, rural western red states, to make the Senate somewhat more a proportional representation body.

[boutons_deux]

Filibuster changes, governors underscore exodus from Washington


Events Thursday brought more evidence of why much of the 2014 campaign will feature candidates fleeing, figuratively or literally, from Washington.

In the Senate, supposedly the more collegial of the two houses of Congress, bitterness seethed beneath the veneer of civility as majority Democrats and minority Republicans fought over a filibuster rule that has, depending on the viewpoint, given voice to the outnumbered or contributed mightily to paralysis on things like presidential appointments.

“Can anyone say the Senate is working now? I don’t think so,” said Harry Reid, the Nevada senator and majority leader who edged into country-song territory to lament the “wasted hours and wasted days” caused, he said, by Republican obstructionism.

“It only reinforces the narrative of a party that is willing to do and say just about anything to get its way,” Bitch McConnell said, neatly encapsulating what Americans believe about both sides.

:lol bullshit, false equivalance from the short-timer McConnell

Republican governors, meeting in distant Arizona, took pains to contrast Washington and their statehouses, which they described as the places where things were getting done, according to an account by Real Clear Politics. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/21/republican_governors_try_to_seize_partys_mantle_12 0740.html#ixzz2lJ1Ig2uZ)

"We're going to run on our record. I'm very proud of that," said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who faces a stiff reelection fight in 2014. "We said we were going to do these things and we've done them largely. Isn't that what you should want?"

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-78278710/

[boutons_deux]

Obama Applauds Senate For Changing Filibuster Rules

President Barack Obama praised the Senate for changing filibuster rules (http://www.nationalmemo.com/democrats-change-senate-rules-limit-filibuster/) on Thursday, lauding “the step that a majority of senators took today to change the way Washington does business.”

“An unprecedented pattern of obstruction in Congress has prevented too much of the American people’s business from getting done,” the president told reporters in the White House briefing room.
“Today’s pattern of obstruction is not normal,” he added. “It’s not what our founders envisioned.”

The rule change — commonly referred to as the “nuclear option” — allows a simple majority to end filibusters on executive and lower court nominees, as opposed to the previous standard of three-fifths (usually equal to 60 votes). According to the president, the new rules will improve the legislative process.

“If you’ve got a majority of folks who believe in something, then it should be able to pass,” he said. “The gears of government have to work. And the step that the majority of senators took today, I think, will help make those gears work just a little bit better.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-obama-applauds-senate-for-changing-filibuster-rules/

Now to fill every open federal judgeship with progressives, same with his 120 govt positions that have been blocked.

I figure some Hatriots will start shooting at Dems.

[TSA]

http://news.yahoo.com/filibuster-reaction-harry-reid-nuclear-hypocrisy-184412234.html

On Monday, for the third time in less than a month, Senate Republicans filibustered an Obama nominee to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That’s the court that’s checked the president more than once, as when it said he couldn’t make “recess appointments” when the Senate wasn’t in recess. So in a Tuesday closed-door lunch, Reid moved closer to ending the practice, and it’s reported he picked up crucial support from California Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer along with Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy among others.

The hypocrisy here should not go unnoticed. Although the filibuster for legislation has a long history, prior to 2003 it was seldom used to block executive-branch nominations — and appellate-court nominees in particular. In fact, Democrats themselves began using it this way in the 108th Congress, after they lost the Senate in the 2002 midterm elections. Here’s the backstory.

Start with Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court’s December 2000 decision that effectively decided the presidential outcome, creating a firestorm among Democrats, especially among the legal professoriate. On January 13, 2001, for example, 554 professors from 120 law schools took out a full-page ad in the New York Times condemning the Court’s majority for having acted not as judges but as “political proponents for candidate Bush.” And at a Democratic retreat a month later Yale’s Bruce Ackerman urged members not to confirm a single Bush nominee for the Supreme Court until after the 2004 elections.

Democrats got their break in May when Vermont senator James Jeffords left the Republican party. That switched control of the Senate to the Democrats, who immediately turned their attention to the eleven appellate court nominees then before the Senate Judiciary Committee, two of them Democrats — a gesture from Bush. Those two were immediately confirmed. The rest would not even get hearings. Instead, Democrats began calling for “litmus tests” — explicit demands that nominees state their views on everything from abortion to affirmative action to Congress’s unquestioned power to regulate anything and everything.

But the near lock-down on appellate-court nominations did not end with the 2002 midterm elections, which switched control of the Senate back to the Republicans. It was then that Senate Democrats began the unprecedented filibustering of appellate-court nominations. The most egregious case was that of Miguel Estrada, whose life story was pure American dream. First nominated by President Bush in May 2001, Estrada finally withdrew his name from further consideration some 27 months later, after seven failed cloture votes in the next, 108th Congress.

Things came to a head early in the 109th Congress when Republicans themselves, still in control of the Senate, threatened finally to “go nuclear” — to end the appellate-court filibusters Democrats had introduced only in the previous Congress. That was headed off when the bipartisan “Gang of 14” reached a compromise: Democrats would filibuster nominees only in “extraordinary circumstances,” they agreed, and Republicans would not use the nuclear option. That compromise held for the rest of the 109th Congress — though not without difficulties — but it became moot after Democrats regained control of the Senate following the 2006 midterm elections since they no longer needed to filibuster Bush nominees.

In sum, after the 2000 election was decided, Senate Democrats sat on their hands for two years as Bush appellate-court nominees twisted in the wind. In the minority after the 2002 elections, those Democrats then initiated the filibuster for many of Bush’s nominees. Only after the 2005 Gang of 14 compromise was imposed did things settle down. And after the 2006 elections, Democrats no longer needed to filibuster.

So is the Republican use of the filibuster today simply fair turn-around — with Democrats in no position to complain when Republicans use tactics they themselves introduced? If so, that would be enough to illustrate the hypocrisy of today’s Democratic protests. But that’s not what’s at issue here. In the D.C. Circuit matter, which has driven Senator Reid to the nuclear option, Republicans are not raising ideological objections to Obama’s nominees — as Democrats did when they filibustered Bush’s picks. Their objection, rather, is that these judges are not needed, because the workload of the court is so light. In fact, speaking of hypocrisy, Democrats, in the minority in the 109th Congress, used that very rationale to urge Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter in a July 2006 letter not to confirm any additional Bush nominees to the D.C. Circuit — and none was confirmed after that letter from Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin was sent, all of whom are still on the committee. Yet now, when the court’s workload is even lighter, Democrats cry foul when Republicans point that out.

In fact, look at the numbers from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In 2006, written decisions per active judge had declined by 17 percent since 1997. Since 2006 they have declined another 27 percent. In 2006, the total number of appeals filed had declined by 10 percent since 1997. Since 2006 they have declined another 18 percent. The Administrative Office ranks the twelve circuits using various caseload benchmarks: 2013 is the 17th straight year that the office has ranked the D.C. Circuit last on both appeals being filed and appeals being terminated. There simply is no need for more judges on the D.C. Circuit when those there now do not have enough to do — unless, of course, the aim is to have a bench more sympathetic to rule by presidential diktat, which may be precisely why Senator Reid wants to go nuclear.

[boutons_deux]

yep, that's the right wing LIE of a talking point: we conservatives control that court (and have blocked Dem nominations), so there's no need for more (Dem) nominations

Harry Reid and Senate's gonna fuck all y'all real hard and deep approving ALL of Obama's nominees.

[boutons_deux]

it's gonna be great fun watching all the Repugs trying to handle getting fucked, whining and moaning in "OUTRAGED, I TELL YA" by the Dems and Barry :lol :lol :lol :lol

eat shit, Repugs, tea baggers, rednecks, Koch-suckers


how it feel when Y'ALL are the target of HARDBALL KICKASS politics? Feels great, don't it, having Harry Reid's dick up your ass? :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

[TSA]

Hypocritical pieces of shit. What's new.


FgTR5YkyZ3Y

4q6aqw_SfU0

[Th'Pusher]

It's unfortunate it had to come to this imo, as I like the concept of an empowered minority in the senate. That said it is amusing watching Obama and Reid fingercuff republicans. TSA has Harry Reid in his mouth and Barry in his ass. :wakeup

[boutons_deux]

Hilarious to hear Repugs bitch about Dem power grab!! :lol

Repug NEGATIVE power grab deserves another Dem power grab.

tit for tat.

eat shit, y'all.

Repugs DARED the Dems, pushed the Dems, thought the Dems were weak, soft, "compromisers", would never NUKE the Repugs.

Well, that's just another fantasy in the Repug echo chamber laid to waste.

oh, btw, EAT SHIT, Y'ALL

[Th'Pusher]

I'm thinking about flipping on some Fox News tonight just to check out the butthurt tbh.

[TSA]

It's unfortunate it had to come to this imo, as I like the concept of an empowered minority in the senate. That said it is amusing watching Obama and Reid fingercuff republicans. TSA has Harry Reid in his mouth and Barry in his ass. :wakeup

I hate liars, Republican or Democrat. I hate 99% of all politicians. This move is not good for the country and I don't find any humor in it. Before this congress couldn't get anything done, what happens now when Republicans say fuck it, nothing leaves the House.

[TSA]

Hilarious to hear Repugs bitch about Dem power grab!! :lol

Repug NEGATIVE power grab deserves another Dem power grab.

tit for tat.

eat shit, y'all.

Repugs DARED the Dems, pushed the Dems, thought the Dems were weak, soft, "compromisers", would never NUKE the Repugs.

Well, that's just another fantasy in the Repug echo chamber laid to waste.

oh, btw, EAT SHIT, Y'ALL

Your attitude is a prime example of what is wrong with our two party system. You don't give a fuck about your country, it's all just blue vs. red for you.

[Th'Pusher]

I hate liars, Republican or Democrat. I hate 99% of all politicians. This move is not good for the country and I don't find any humor in it. Before this congress couldn't get anything done, what happens now when Republicans say fuck it, nothing leaves the House.
Don't be ridiculous. And Why no youtoobz of McConnell and the other republicans arguing FOR an up or down vote? Where there is agreement between the parties, shit will pass. Nothing new there. The difference is Barry will be able to appoint nominees.

[baseline bum]

I hate liars, Republican or Democrat. I hate 99% of all politicians. This move is not good for the country and I don't find any humor in it. Before this congress couldn't get anything done, what happens now when Republicans say fuck it, nothing leaves the House.

What gets out of the House now besides Obamacare repeals?

[pgardn]

Oh goodie.

We will now witness more intransigence on both sides.
hooray for discord and petty personal vendettas.

[TeyshaBlue]

Oh goodie.

We will now witness more intransigence on both sides.
hooray for discord and petty personal vendettas.

Lol enlightened progressives

[TSA]

Don't be ridiculous. And Why no youtoobz of McConnell and the other republicans arguing FOR an up or down vote? Where there is agreement between the parties, shit will pass. Nothing new there. The difference is Barry will be able to appoint nominees.

Start a thread about hypocritical Republicans and I'd be more than happy to post some youtubes. This thread is not about them. If you don't think this will make the house worse you're blind. I'm assuming you voted for Obama, how does it make you feel to have supported such a two faced liar?

[boutons_deux]

Your attitude is a prime example of what is wrong with our two party system. You don't give a fuck about your country, it's all just blue vs. red for you.

ah, the good old "since you're against Repugs, so you're against the country, you're not A Real American, you're a traitor."

86 filibusters against all other presidents 200+ years, 82 against Obama in 5 years.

one judge waited 17 months for confirmation, then affirmed 91 - 0. Not one Repug, nothing but bad-faith obstruction.

just GFY and fellate a gun

[TSA]

Oh goodie.

We will now witness more intransigence on both sides.
hooray for discord and petty personal vendettas.

Going to be a long three years. Hopefully the upcoming shit storm we are about to witness wakes people up enough clean house on both sides.

[pgardn]

Lol enlightened progressives

Damn me for wanting a productive government.

[TSA]

ah, the good old "since you're against Repugs, so you're against the country, you're not A Real American, you're a traitor."

86 filibusters against all other presidents 200+ years, 82 against Obama in 5 years.

one judge waited 17 months for confirmation, then affirmed 91 - 0. Not one Repug, nothing but bad-faith obstruction.

just GFY and fellate a gun


Did you forget which party got the filibuster party rolling?

[Th'Pusher]

Start a thread about hypocritical Republicans and I'd be more than happy to post some youtubes. This thread is not about them. If you don't think this will make the house worse you're blind. I'm assuming you voted for Obama, how does it make you feel to have supported such a two faced liar?

Why is this thread not about hypocritical republicans? I can post multiple youtoobz of current republican senators arguing for the exact parliamentary rule changes the senate made today.

Explain specifically how this is going to make the house worse. What bill would have come out of this House of Representatives that is not going to come out of the house now that this rule change is in place.

[Th'Pusher]

Damn me for wanting a productive government.

Majority rule in the senate, which I think this will eventually lead to, is going to produce a less productive government?

[TSA]

Why is this thread not about hypocritical republicans? I can post multiple youtoobz of current republican senators arguing for the exact parliamentary rule changes the senate made today.No one is stopping you. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the President and the Senate Majority Leader.


Explain specifically how this is going to make the house worse. What bill would have come out of this House of Representatives that is not going to come out of the house now that this rule change is in place.
Guess we'll both just have to wait and see. I just don't see how this will make anyone more unified.

[TSA]

Majority rule in the senate, which I think this will eventually lead to, is going to produce a less productive government?

It's hard to be less productive but I think it will be. Like I said, hopefully the public wakes up and cleans out both sides.

[m>s]

of course they'd want a true democracty (majority rules) in a country where the majority or retards

[pgardn]

of course they'd want a true democracty (majority rules) in a country where the majority or retards

are retards...

[m>s]

autocorrect pussy bitch

[pgardn]

Majority rule in the senate, which I think this will eventually lead to, is going to produce a less productive government?

No.

Hardball v. Hardball.

This country grows more divided. Obama, sadly lost his leadership a while back. The middle ground shrinks.

[m>s]

^yeah and we know who's side you picked. the late admirable heinrich himmler would have cut off your head and shit down your throat.

[pgardn]

autocorrect pussy bitch

Thats what the Jews said.

It was a very unfortunate auto correct. I cried.

[Th'Pusher]

I just don't see how this will make anyone more unified.

I don't see how it will make anyone less unified. The parties are polarized regardless. This is about allowing Barry to fill three open seats on the most powerful court save for SCOTUS. The Republicans would have filibustered any nominee Barry made under the reasoning the court didn't have the work load to justify the seats. In the event they win the presidency in '16, they would have done an about face and approved any appointment forcing the Democrats to filibuster. Now, the president gets his appointments, assuming his party controls the senate, regardless of which party is in office.

When it comes to passing legislation, that's a different story, but that's not the rule that was changed...today.

[pgardn]

^yeah and we know who's side you picked. the late admirable heinrich himmler would have cut off your head and shit down your throat.

You fucktard Himmler could give the orders but having to watch any actual killing and he threw up.
He could not kill a mouse by himself. You don't know your own hero.

[m>s]

you parrot allied lies and think you're telling me a thing or two

[pgardn]

you parrot allied lies and think you're telling me a thing or two

Your own Nazis, so diligent in keeping accurate records, noted it fool!
We know more about numbers in the Holocaust due to the Nazis than anyone else.

[m>s]

blood and brains splashed in his face and made him gag. you're a terrible liar or an idiot tbh.

[pgardn]

I don't see how it will make anyone less unified.


So the Democrats had no qualms about using this method?

[pgardn]

blood and brains splashed in his face and made him gag. you're a terrible liar or an idiot tbh.
Then he should have eaten them like a tough guy.

To Be Honest...? Oh Yes. An honest Nazi? After the war, there were hardly any avowed Nazis in Germany. Where did they all go? Chicken Shit Nazi.

[m>s]

actually there were so many that they gave up denazification. the rest went to argentina (the smart thing to do). yes the nazis were civilized and had values..honesty was one. hitler was the world's first animal rights activist and introduced the 40 hour work week and fair labor standards.

[pgardn]

actually there were so many that they gave up denazification. the rest went to argentina (the smart thing to do). yes the nazis were civilized and had values..honesty was one. hitler was the world's first animal rights activist and introduced the 40 hour work week and fair labor standards.

Well hell that was damn civil.
I retract everything I have ever said.
Where do I sign up brother?

[Th'Pusher]

So the Democrats had no qualms about using this method?

Sure they did. The decision came after much resistance and consideration. They'll live with the consequences if and when the republicans nominate a candidate that can unite the American people and win the presidency and the senate.

This is is a utilitarian decision. I just don't see how this makes anything more polarized than it already is.

[TSA]

I just don't see how this makes anything more polarized than it already is.
:lol

[DeadlyDynasty]

actually there were so many that they gave up denazification. the rest went to argentina (the smart thing to do). yes the nazis were civilized and had values..honesty was one. hitler was the world's first animal rights activist and introduced the 40 hour work week and fair labor standards.
Is this true?

[pgardn]

Sure they did. The decision came after much resistance and consideration. They'll live with the consequences if and when the republicans nominate a candidate that can unite the American people and win the presidency and the senate.

This is is a utilitarian decision. I just don't see how this makes anything more polarized than it already is.

So the Democrats have no worries about political retribution? Things can't get any worse?

I can accept the utility of what may have been a stumbling block for both parties.

[m>s]

Is this true?

yeah i should have elaborated by saying he introduced it to Europe. hitler was a huge henry ford fan and got the idea from ford who introduced it in america first.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol

So you can't provide any examples of legislation that would come out of the house that won't because of the rule change? So it further pisses off the already intransigent republicans. How will this negatively impact the Democratic Party?

[Th'Pusher]

So the Democrats have no worries about political retribution? Things can't get any worse?

I can accept the utility of what may have been a stumbling block for both parties.

Explain how the political retribution you're referring to might take effect.

[pgardn]

Explain how the political retribution you're referring to might take effect.

The Republican Senator M. McConnell said the main Republican thrust would be to defeat Obama in 2010. This was not accomplished. So what's left? Torpedo the Democratic Party so they don't get in 2014.

You out don't think it can get any worse? Take a look at the talks with Iran? Do you think the Republicans can have an effect on what might be a fruitful process?

[Th'Pusher]

The Republican Senator M. McConnell said the main Republican thrust would be to defeat Obama in 2010. This was not accomplished. So what's left? Torpedo the Democratic Party so they don't get in 2014.

He's going to attempt to do this regardless. You think that this parliamentary rule change will give Mitch ammunition?


You out don't think it can get any worse? Take a look at the talks with Iran? Do you think the Republicans can have an effect on what might be a fruitful process?

Talks with Iran will be torpedoed in a bipartisan fashion if and when AIPAC overrules the will of the American public regardless of this rule change imo.

[m>s]

if they attack iran you know who i'm rooting for.

[Th'Pusher]

if they attack iran you know who i'm rooting for.
You're irrelevant tbh...

[pgardn]

He's going to attempt to do this regardless. You think that this parliamentary rule change will give Mitch ammunition?



Talks with Iran will be torpedoed in a bipartisan fashion if and when AIPAC overrules the will of the American public regardless of this rule change imo.

Good foreign policy accomplishments are possible given the fortunate change of leaders. Obama and Kerry have the possibility of making some great strides forward along with other countries. IMO torpedoing this could strip Obama of almost anything positive. IMO Republicans would not accept a complete surrender of Iran's nuclear ambitions, especially now. Yes, I think this mess leads to animosity that breeds retribution on many fronts. There are other similar events of a positive nature that will now have less of a chance. Yes, I believe revenge is a strong motivator. One up the other guy, makes the other guy very creative in countering unproductively.

Take a look at the stuff on this board.

[m>s]

You're irrelevant tbh...
keep telling yourself that sweetheart

[Th'Pusher]

Good foreign policy accomplishments are possible given the fortunate change of leaders. Obama and Kerry have the possibility of making some great strides forward along with other countries. IMO torpedoing this could strip Obama of almost anything positive. IMO Republicans would not accept a complete surrender of Iran's nuclear ambitions, especially now. Yes, I think this mess leads to animosity that breeds retribution on many fronts. There are other similar events of a positive nature that will now have less of a chance. Yes, I believe revenge is a strong motivator. One up the other guy, makes the other guy very creative in countering unproductively.

Take a look at the stuff on this board.

I think the animosity and retribution of the Republican Party are at an 11. They're not handing Barry and Kerry any wins. They've made that clear from the day Barry was inaugurated and this rule change is not going to make a difference.

If you want to argue that this rule change makes it easier to change the rules for approving important legislation with a simple majority, which would ultimately negatively effect the Democratic Party, I'll entertain that, but I think that decision would be significantly more controversial than what was passed today.

[Th'Pusher]

keep telling yourself that sweetheart

Explain how you're relevant in any way shape or form.

[pgardn]

I think the animosity and retribution of the Republican Party are at an 11. They're not handing Barry and Kerry any wins. They've made that clear from the day Barry was inaugurated and this rule change is not going to make a difference.

If you want to argue that this rule change makes it easier to change the rules for approving important legislation with a simple majority, which would ultimately negatively effect the Democratic Party, I'll entertain that, but I think that decision would be significantly more controversial than what was passed today.

I understand your argument.

I think the fact that the Democrats pushed the button first emboldens Republican destructiveness. You are saying it could not get any worse. So calling it the Nuclear Option was overdoing it. It was more breaking with tradition that needed changing anyway. I think the Republicans will say look what they did, we don't trust them on health care or anything else. Look what they have done, trump it up.

And we have run this aground. We will see. I very badly want the talks with Iran to move forward. We had one positive thing going, along with cooperation with Syria and Russia on chemical weapons.

[m>s]

Explain how you're relevant in any way shape or form.
For starters you're bothering me when I wasn't speaking to you, I'm obviously important to you. In the end I will be the most influential revolutionary this world has ever seen.

[SnakeBoy]

I'm thinking about flipping on some Fox News tonight just to check out the butthurt tbh.

No butthurt to see, just a little faux outrage and then they went back to hammering Obamacare. Most republicans wanted this change under Bush and right now they are licking their chops thinking about 2014. Pretty weak attempt by the Dems to change the subject tbh.

[Nbadan]

How bad is GOP obstructionism in the Senate? Republican senators are on pace to more than triple the previous record for uses of a filibuster in a Congress. In 2009, there were a record 112 cloture votes (the number of cloture votes is how you measure the use of filibusters). So far in 2010, there have already been more than 40 cloture votes. The previous record was in 1995-1996, when the Republican-controlled Senate required 50 cloture votes.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2010/03/01/gop-set-to-triple-filibuster-record.html

[Nbadan]

No butthurt to see, just a little faux outrage and then they went back to hammering Obamacare. Most republicans wanted this change under Bush and right now they are licking their chops thinking about 2014. Pretty weak attempt by the Dems to change the subject tbh.

Polls show they might have to wait until 2016 or longer...

[Nbadan]

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/arts/explainer/2013/11/131121_EXP_filibuster.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"the animosity and retribution of the Republican Party are at an 11."

they have been there since 5 Nov 2008.

preceded by the VRWC funded witch hunting and non-stop harassment of Clintons 1992-2000, including Gingrich really getting the shitball rollng with govt shutdown.

the bullying, bad-faith, obstructionist Repugs begged for this DEM RETRIBUTION for years, the Repugs got it shoved down their throats. Dems gonna own the DC circuit for decades, and Barry'd gonna install 90 NINETY Federal judges ASAP.

[boutons_deux]

"the animosity and retribution of the Republican Party are at an 11."

and let's not forget the Repugs gutting, weakening, defunding LAWS passed since 2009, with the number one victim being ACA, where the healthcare.gov web site was underfunded, additional funds denied, and continuing, intensifying scorched-earth sabotage of the ACA to spite their own red-state Repug-voting ingnorant, poor, white rural bubbas.

Repugs' actions against Dems since 1992 are essentially saying that the Dems, Dem politicians, and laws are simply not legitimate, trying to deny and negate, totally insulting both democracy and voters, that "elections have consequences".

And you assholes talk about Repug retribution against Dems? :lol

[exstatic]

I hate liars, Republican or Democrat. I hate 99% of all politicians. This move is not good for the country and I don't find any humor in it. Before this congress couldn't get anything done, what happens now when Republicans say fuck it, nothing leaves the House.

What do you mean when? That's what we have right now. I'll answer your question, though. The House will flip in 14, that's what will happen.

[CosmicCowboy]

What do you mean when? That's what we have right now. I'll answer your question, though. The House will flip in 14, that's what will happen.

You really think so? At this point it probably depends on how fast they can get Obamacare fixed and how many tens of millions of voters insurance goes up. I could see 2014 turning into a vote on Obamacare and if it was taken today I think Dems would lose big time in both houses.

[Th'Pusher]

No butthurt to see, just a little faux outrage and then they went back to hammering Obamacare. Most republicans wanted this change under Bush and right now they are licking their chops thinking about 2014. Pretty weak attempt by the Dems to change the subject tbh.

And what are the republicans going to do with an up or down vote on presidential nominees in 2014 assuming they take the senate? Or are you suggesting they'll go ahead with the nuclear option on legislation approval with a simple majority and repeal the ACA? I'm sure Barry will be lining up to sign that...

And :lol at swallowing the republican talking point about this being an attempt to change the subject from the failed rollout of the ACA. This is about the three vacant seats on the dc circuit court.

[Th'Pusher]

What do you mean when? That's what we have right now. I'll answer your question, though. The House will flip in 14, that's what will happen.

The house is way too gerrymandered to flip. Dems got blindsided and were completely unprepared for what the republicans did in the lead up to the redrawing of congressional districts in 2010. That is going to hurt them for a while.

Still, i don't know that the republicans can take the senate. Even with the fucked rollout of the ACA.

[boutons_deux]

TRMS laid out the Obama/Reid case very clearly...http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/bamboozool/federaljudges.gif...http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/bamboozool/waitingtimenominees.gif....http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/bamboozool/obamafilibustered.gif.....http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/bamboozool/TXabortionruling.gif

[CosmicCowboy]

Statistically Republicans have a better chance of flipping the Senate than the Democrats do. There are 33 U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2014. Of those seats, 13 are currently held by Republicans and 20 are held by Democrats.

[boutons_deux]

Statistically Republicans have a better chance of flipping the Senate than the Democrats do. There are 33 U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2014. Of those seats, 13 are currently held by Republicans and 20 are held by Democrats.

not a very deep analysis, more just wishful thinking

what's your analysis state by state?

[TeyshaBlue]

Statistically Republicans have a better chance of flipping the Senate than the Democrats do. There are 33 U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2014. Of those seats, 13 are currently held by Republicans and 20 are held by Democrats.

I dont think so. The Teaparty is the GOP's Obamacare. Those nutbars continue to marginalize anyone approaching moderate.

[Th'Pusher]

Sorry no link. From TNR. My device is fucked...

WAR NOVEMBER 21, 2013
Nuking the Filibuster Is Great. Sanctimonious Beltway Types Just Won't Admit It.
BY ALEC MACGILLIS @AlecMacGillis Share


To understand why Senate Democrats took the historic step they did Thursday to allow a simple majority vote to confirm many presidential appointments, it helps to look beyond Washington, to put what’s been going on here in a national context.


In Texas just recently, Attorney General Greg Abbott, the likely Republican nominee to replace Rick Perry as governor, explained in a court brief that the redistricting plan passed by Texas Republicans had not been racially discriminatory, as alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is challenging on similar grounds the state's new Voter ID law. Rather, Abbott argued, Republicans had simply been trying to crush the state’s Democrats, who, it so happens, are disproportionately non-white:




"In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party's electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats," read a court brief filed by Abbott. Abbott also qualified the tactics, noting that partisan districting decisions are still constitutional, despite "incidental effects on minority voters." The brief cites Hunt v. Cromartie, a South Carolina case in which it was decided that "[a] jurisdiction may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering, even if it so happens that the most loyal Democrats happen to be black Democrats and even if the State were conscious of that fact."


Two years earlier, the majority leader of the Wisconsin state senate, Scott Fitzgerald, explained with equal candor in an interview with Fox News that the move by his fellow Republican, Gov. Scott Walker, to decimate the state’s public employee unions was motivated by a desire to weaken a key pillar of the Democratic Party:


If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.


The Senate Democrats’ 52-48 vote Thursday was met with predictable laments about the resulting loss of bipartisan comity. The vote “ensures an escalation of partisan warfare,” declared the home page of The Washington Post. “So you didn't think partisanship in the Senate could get worse? It just did,” tweeted USA Today’s Susan Page. "Filibuster Vote Marks Escalation in D.C.'s Partisan Wars," frets an NPR.org headline.


But such laments willfully overlook that we have long since entered an era of total partisan warfare that would be difficult to escalate any further – it’s as if a moral philosopher showed up at the Second Battle of the Marne in 1918 fretting about the use of automatic weapons. “I realize that neither party has been blameless for these tactics. They developed over the years,” Obama said after the vote. “But today’s pattern of obstruction, it just isn’t normal. It’s not what our founders envisioned. A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to refight the results of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations we can’t let it become normal.” The laments are particularly curious considering how proudly – almost admirably! – candid Republicans have been in recent years in embracing whatever tactics they can to advance their team’s prospects, whether it comes diluting the influence of Texas’ black and Hispanic voters or eviscerating the organized-labor funding base of Wisconsin Democrats or, yes, maintaining an edge on the crucial D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that lay at the center of the current filibuster showdown.


That, after all, is what set this judicial nomination fight apart from those before it: Republicans’ striking opennness in declaring that they were blocking President Obama’s three judicial nominees not out of any plaint with their qualifications or ideology, but simply because they did not want to give Democrats a majority of appointees on that D.C. appeals bench, which rules on so many key regulatory issues, from the new health care law to carbon emissions standards. As it now stands, the court is split evenly between Republican and Democratic appointees, while Republicans maintain an edge among the pool of substitute judges that are frequently called on to fill in. Some Senate Republicans and conservatives made a half-hearted attempt to couch their blockage of the nominees as a budget matter, arguing that the court’s workload didn’t justify any more judges. But in general, they were as blunt as could be in their motivation: they simply were not going to allow Obama and the Democrats to reap one of the age-old benefits of winning two elections in a row, being able to appoint judges of their choosing to the federal courts and thereby tilt their makeup slightly in their favor. “They want to control the court so it will advance the president’s agenda,” said Mitch McConnell in explaining why Republicans would do everything they could do prevent that control – as if the Democrats’ desire for such influence in the third branch of government was somehow untoward or authoritarian (indeed, they went so far as to equate Obama's filling established slots on the court with Franklin Roosevelt's attempted packing of the Supreme Court by adding extra seats to it.) This followed the equally undisguised attempt to keep Obama from implementing his agenda by simply refusing for months to confirm nominees to head executive departments, such as the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whose actions carried no official weight without a confirmed director. If there was any doubt that such a strategy bore the traces of John Calhoun, the famous father of a famous senator put it to rest with a recent speech (in Richmond!) urging Republicans to adopt, yes, "nullification."


The legal historians note that opposition parties have long been more reluctant to confirm judicial nominees to federal courts that were in close partisan balance. That is, the norm of presidents being able to select qualified people of their choosing to the federal bench had been in the process of being undermined for some time now amid the feints and quailing by both sides regarding this or that nominee’s qualifications or alleged extremity (with good reason, in some cases: among the judges allowed onto the D.C. appeals court as part of the Senate's "Gang of 14" compromise in 2005 -- a deal whose spirit was breached by this fall's filibuster of the three Obama nominees -- was Bush nominee Janice Rogers Brown, who has called liberal democracy a form of “slavery” and post-New Deal regulations “the triumph of our socialist revolution.”)


From the standpoint of this history, the sheer brazenness of the Senate Republicans in laying bare their partisan intent this time around was refreshingly honest, in a way, as was Greg Abbott and Scott Fitzgerald’s acknowledgment of their plans to pulverize the other side. But it also had the clarifying effect of upending the norm around presidential appointments far more completely than all previous rounds of gamesmanship had done. It left Democrats no choice, really, but to upend a norm of their own. You can have unwritten norms in an atmosphere of bipartisan comity, but without the latter, you can't have the former. And bipartisan comity not only left the barn long ago; it had been tracked down and shot behind the woodpile. It’s long past time to stop mourning it and start to reckon with what its absence means for a constitutional system that was not designed for parliamentary-style, ideologically-coherent parties of the sort we are left with today, facing off across a muddy field.

[TeyshaBlue]

Good paste, push. That last sentence is a perfect summation.

[pgardn]

But such laments willfully overlook that we have long since entered an era of total partisan warfare that would be difficult to escalate any further – it’s as if a moral philosopher showed up at the Second Battle of the Marne in 1918 fretting about the use of automatic weapons. “I realize that neither party has been blameless for these tactics. They developed over the years,” Obama said after the vote. “But today’s pattern of obstruction, it just isn’t normal. It’s not what our founders envisioned. A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to refight the results of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations we can’t let it become normal.” The laments are particularly curious considering how proudly – almost admirably! – candid Republicans have been in recent years in embracing whatever tactics they can to advance their team’s prospects,


So when did this destructive partisanship begin and what prompted it? If the system was set up poorly, why has it reached the pinnacle of destructiveness now?

[Th'Pusher]

But such laments willfully overlook that we have long since entered an era of total partisan warfare that would be difficult to escalate any further – it’s as if a moral philosopher showed up at the Second Battle of the Marne in 1918 fretting about the use of automatic weapons. “I realize that neither party has been blameless for these tactics. They developed over the years,” Obama said after the vote. “But today’s pattern of obstruction, it just isn’t normal. It’s not what our founders envisioned. A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to refight the results of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations we can’t let it become normal.” The laments are particularly curious considering how proudly – almost admirably! – candid Republicans have been in recent years in embracing whatever tactics they can to advance their team’s prospects,


So when did this destructive partisanship begin and what prompted it? If the system was set up poorly, why has it reached the pinnacle of destructiveness now?

What's different about our current president than the previous 43?

[TeyshaBlue]

So when did this destructive partisanship begin and what prompted it? If the system was set up poorly, why has it reached the pinnacle of destructiveness now?

Does it really matter?
It has existed in various levels for the centuries (See Civil War). The dynamics behind intractable opposition are temporal and are direct results of specific issues. However, if I had to assign an overly broad definition of "Blame", the Jerry Falwellian Moral Majority movement of the 80's would be a player.
+10 Cloak of intractability....Republicans.

[Capt Bringdown]

Kabuki theater. Both parties pushing TINA neoliberal agenda.

[TeyshaBlue]

Kabuki theater. Both parties pushing TINA neoliberal agenda.

NB4 False Equivalence!!!!! 1111 Repugs!!!!! VRWC!! 111 Human Amercans!!!!! et al....

[pgardn]

Does it really matter?
It has existed in various levels for the centuries (See Civil War). The dynamics behind intractable opposition are temporal and are direct results of specific issues. However, if I had to assign an overly broad definition of "Blame", the Jerry Falwellian Moral Majority movement of the 80's would be a player.
+10 Cloak of intractability....Republicans.

Yes.

It would be nice to know when we might expect a log jam or how to avoid one.
The Civil War... That's a sad statement on your assessment of today's state of partisanship.
And so Obamas statement that this is just not normal is disingenuous?

[pgardn]

What's different about our current president than the previous 43?

So you are saying a black president has illicited this kind of response?
He has followed a very nice Republican line on defending our country (NSA snooping) and the generous use of drones.
Give him some Republican kudos.

[boutons_deux]

So when did this destructive partisanship begin and what prompted it? If the system was set up poorly, why has it reached the pinnacle of destructiveness now?

When the VRWC became well established after its start in the 70s. I remember reading one veteran Senator saying he NEVER saw anything happen so bad as when the Repugs took the House and Gingrich started all his shit, including shutting govt down.

Then there was the non-stop witch-hunting and harassment of the Clintons, financed by 1% asshles like Mellon-Scaife, 1992-2000.

When the Dems, and that n!gg@, won in 2008, the Fox, VRWC, ALEC, US CoC, the right-wing hate machine had advanced tremendously from the 1990's and went nutz on everything Dem AND at every level of govt.

[pgardn]

When the VRWC became well established after its start in the 70s. I remember reading one veteran Senator saying he NEVER saw anything happen so bad as when the Repugs took the House and Gingrich started all his shit, including shutting govt down.

Then there was the non-stop witch-hunting and harassment of the Clintons, financed by 1% asshles like Mellon-Scaife, 1992-2000.

When the Dems, and that n!gg@, won in 2008, the Fox, VRWC, ALEC, US CoC, the right-wing hate machine had advanced tremendously from the 1990's and went nutz on everything Dem AND at every level of govt.

So it basically got its jump start with Nixon?

[boutons_deux]

So it basically got its jump start with Nixon?

earlier than Nixon.

Lewis Powell's famous memo, in my VRWC long thread, formalized the VRWC strategy as "take the 1%'s country back" from the progressive 1960s (VRA, Medicare, Medicaid, killing Jim Crow laws, forced school integration, etc, etc)

The real ignition was when Repug Tricky Dick Nixon was forced out of office (remember it was extreme right wing asshole Bork who accepted to execute the Sat night massacre) and something like 40 lawyers in the Exec being sent to prison, humiliating the Repugs.

[pgardn]

“Congress is broken,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday before holding a party-line vote that disposed of rules that have guided and protected the chamber since 1789.


If Congress wasn’t broken before, it certainly is now. What Reid (Nev.) and his fellow Democrats effectively did was take the chamber of Congress that still functioned at a modest level and turn it into a clone of the other chamber, which functions not at all. They turned the Senate into the House.


From Dana Milbank of WP
I chose this quote because the author, in my estimation, is very hard to pin down.

[boutons_deux]

"If Congress wasn’t broken before, it certainly is now."

it was blatantly broken WILLFULLY by the Repugs' obstructionism.

Repugs don't care about govt, St Ronnie's "GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM" they fix by destroying govt.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes.

It would be nice to know when we might expect a log jam or how to avoid one.
The Civil War... That's a sad statement on your assessment of today's state of partisanship.
And so Obamas statement that this is just not normal is disingenuous?
Again, in the contxet of contemporary politics, his statement is false but not disingenuous.
My assessment of todays political climate, while undeniably cynical, does not include a Civil War scenario. Not sure how you got there. It wouldnt even be a cosideration were it not for the brain dead ideologues such as the Tea Party and the boutons of the world who would rather bask in their tautoligical constructs than engage in rational discussion. Thinking is hard!

[boutons_deux]

As always, Jon Stewart delivers

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/22/jon-stewart-mocks-mitch-mcconnells-warning-to-democrats-someday-you-will-want-to-be-obstructionist-asholes/

[Winehole23]

I dont think so. The Teaparty is the GOP's Obamacare. Those nutbars continue to marginalize anyone approaching moderate.funny how that works sometimes. imagine the 2012 GOP Presidential primary debates as a multi-stage bicycle race in which nearly every rider briefly contends for the lead before flaming out pathetically, leaving the field clear for -- yet again, the establishment Republican next in line for the job -- Romney.

My hunch is that the next in line is Christie and if not Christie, Jeb Bush.

http://chickenhead.com/psychedelic/

[pgardn]

Again, in the contxet of contemporary politics, his statement is false but not disingenuous.
My assessment of todays political climate, while undeniably cynical, does not include a Civil War scenario. Not sure how you got there. It wouldnt even be a cosideration were it not for the brain dead ideologues such as the Tea Party and the boutons of the world who would rather bask in their tautoligical constructs than engage in rational discussion. Thinking is hard!

So you think the inability of our branches of government to function constructively is more of an ebb and flow based on events and a political climate that are not necessarily predictable. It has happened in the past, it will subside, and then happen again? ANd that the rules that Congress plays by are partially to blame? We need a better system (parliamentary? Or modified version) and it could solve some of the problems of any one party's intransigence?

Ahh intransigence is probably too nice. It's more like opportunism for the Cruz type characters.

[pgardn]

As always, Jon Stewart delivers

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/22/jon-stewart-mocks-mitch-mcconnells-warning-to-democrats-someday-you-will-want-to-be-obstructionist-asholes/

There is a clear fear of majority rules type phenomena. This is how the minority gets squashed and has no power. In this particular case I don't know that it's that big a deal. Unless the Republicans rule and push through a judge like an m>s hero.

I am surprised there are not more left left democrats advancing a slippery slope hypothesis like they did with 9/11 patriot act backlash. It is kind of strange that no one seemed to make fun of the phrase "nuclear option" until it happened.

[boutons_deux]

"This is how the minority gets squashed and has no power"

majority rules.

elections have consequences

the Senate Repug asshole minority ABUSED its negative power, and now gets kicked in the balls.

Seems like none of you right wingers whine and bitch about Repugs abusing their majority power to gerrrymander and suppress minority, non-white voters.

[pgardn]

"This is how the minority gets squashed and has no power"

majority rules.

elections have consequences

the Senate Repug asshole minority ABUSED its negative power, and now gets kicked in the balls.

Seems like none of you right wingers whine and bitch about Repugs abusing their majority power to gerrrymander and suppress minority, non-white voters.




Absurd ideologue strikes again.

[boutons_deux]

Absurd ideologue strikes again.

you better believe it, my naive little bitch

[TeyshaBlue]

lol simpleton

[TeyshaBlue]

funny how that works sometimes. imagine the 2012 GOP Presidential primary debates as a multi-stage bicycle race in which nearly every rider briefly contends for the lead before flaming out pathetically, leaving the field clear for -- yet again, the establishment Republican next in line for the job -- Romney.

My hunch is that the next in line is Christie and if not Christie, Jeb Bush.

http://chickenhead.com/psychedelic/

I think the next election cycle will be a good indicator of whether the Tea Party is here to stay or split off into a splinter party (a process I believe is already underway). A Christie nomination might provide the impetus for such a event, IMO.

[TeyshaBlue]

you better believe it, my naive little bitch

Trust me...the entire board thinks you're an absurd idealogue. We definitely believe it.:lmao:lmao

[Winehole23]

I think the next election cycle will be a good indicator of whether the Tea Party is here to stay or split off into a splinter party (a process I believe is already underway). A Christie nomination might provide the impetus for such a event, IMO.echoes of 92 and Ross Perot and the last President to be elected with a plurality?

[Winehole23]

will right-wing populism subvert electoral victories in defense of higher principles again? can so-called conservatism really stand the cost of so many brave defeats?

[boutons_deux]

Trust me...the entire board thinks you're an absurd idealogue. We definitely believe it.:lmao:lmao

how would you, TB :lol, O snarky self-annointed ST spokesman, describe my ideology, without smileys?

[boutons_deux]

Kabuki theater. Both parties pushing TINA neoliberal agenda.

the Dems have certainly moved, been pulled, to the right, but the Repugs and tea baggers are way way ofg in the extreme right. They are both to the right of a majority of Americans in many polled issues, like mj legalization, same-sex marriage, ACA, govt public insurance option, etc.

[pgardn]

how would you, TB :lol, O snarky self-annointed ST spokesman, describe my ideology, without smileys?

Maybe you are not a pure ideologue. This description is too lofty.

I would say you tow what you believe to be the party line around through a sludge of contradictions. You pull that all democrat lever in the booth. You focus fully on a label no matter what resides underneath.

[TeyshaBlue]

how would you, TB :lol, O snarky self-annointed ST spokesman, describe my ideology, without smileys?

Already done this. RIF.

[TeyshaBlue]

echoes of 92 and Ross Perot and the last President to be elected with a plurality?

They would do well to duplicate Perot's run. He had an advantage that the current TP does not enjoy tho.... He was seen as a complete outsider with some skins on the wall.

[boutons_deux]

Already done this. RIF.

TB :lol link?

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225200&page=4&p=6960911&viewfull=1#post6960911

[boutons_deux]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225200&page=4&p=6960911&viewfull=1#post6960911

TB :lol tongue-tied coward :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Trust me...the entire board thinks you're an absurd idealogue. We definitely believe it.:lmao:lmao
No shit.

Only about 97% thing that about me.

[boutons_deux]

Maybe you are not a pure ideologue. This description is too lofty.

I would say you tow what you believe to be the party line around through a sludge of contradictions. You pull that all democrat lever in the booth. You focus fully on a label no matter what resides underneath.

goddam, you're as stupid a fuck as TB :lol

I don't vote Dem, and blame them for letting the Repugs run wild and fuck up the country.

You assholes assume I'm pro Dem because I'm vehemently anti Repug, anti tea bagger, anti libertarian, anti 1%, anti VRWC.

iow, you're stupid fucks.

[xrayzebra]

how would you, TB :lol, O snarky self-annointed ST spokesman, describe my ideology, without smileys?

Your Mother had a blotched abortion.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

lol xrayzebra
lol believing in Dick Morris election predictions
lol "But ma, there's a poll that said Mitt Romney was gonna win!"

[boutons_deux]

Your Mother had a blotched abortion.

were you this dumb and illiterate before you went in the military, or did the military dumb you down this low?

[TeyshaBlue]

goddam, you're as stupid a fuck as TB :lol

I don't vote Dem, and blame them for letting the Repugs run wild and fuck up the country.

You assholes assume I'm pro Dem because I'm vehemently anti Repug, anti tea bagger, anti libertarian, anti 1%, anti VRWC.

iow, you're stupid fucks.

You're anti evetything that isnt Dem, yet claim youre not Pro Dem. IOW, you're the delusional fuck the entire board knows you to be. Nothing new here.

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol tongue-tied coward :lol

Bitch slapped you with two words. Ez-peazy.:hat

[TeyshaBlue]

will right-wing populism subvert electoral victories in defense of higher principles again? can so-called conservatism really stand the cost of so many brave defeats?

The Pendulum says "Yes.".

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

were you this dumb and illiterate before you went in the military, or did the military dumb you down this low?

Probably a combination of the two :lol

[Winehole23]

They would do well to duplicate Perot's run. He had an advantage that the current TP does not enjoy tho.... He was seen as a complete outsider with some skins on the wall.-zing!-

[Winehole23]

@TB, knocked on from the "Pendulum" remark: yes on both counts presumably. the stronger form of liberalism, i.e, the Democratic Party, ain't lookin so hot.

Unfortunately for the weaker form, namely, Republicans, neither are they.

[Winehole23]

Your Mother had a blotched abortion.Hello. I'm still here.

Glad to see you are too, Mister. :tu

[ErnestLynch]

The worm always turns. Remember this day when it doesn't work FOR YOU.

[Winehole23]

totally shortsighted. like the Bush dragnet (and secrecy about the dragnet, and about other things) deeded to Obama as prerogatives of office.

[boutons_deux]

Repug leader and CHIEF SENATE POISONER TEA BAGGER, hated by his own party:

Cruz: Filibuster Rule Change 'Will Poison The Atmosphere Of The Senate'

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-filibuster-rule-change-will-poison-the-atmosphere-of-the-senate

Thanks, all you TX asshole teabaggers!

[boutons_deux]

Fox LYING to all y'all suckered right wingers, yawn.

As Barry would say: "If Y'all Like Fox's LIES, Then Y'all Can Keep Believin' 'em" :lol

Fox's Report On Judicial Emergencies Doesn't Mention They're Caused By Republicans

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2013/11/26/fox_bream.jpg

Fox News correspondent Shannon Bream misleadingly claimed that filling the vacancies on the second-most important court in the country was less pressing than filling seats in so-called "judicial emergency" jurisdictions, while ignoring how Senate Republicans have contributed to those emergencies.

In a November 25 segment on Special Report with Bret Baier, Bream suggested that, because the D.C. Circuit is not classified as a "judicial emergency," there is no reason to quickly confirm President Obama's highly-qualified nominees to that bench, such as Georgetown Law Professor Cornelia "Nina" Pillard (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/25/working-moms-family-planning-is-extreme-and-rad/197053):


BREAM: Critics say there is no reason for the president to insist these nominees, including Pillard, be approved as quickly as possible. Across the country there are four federal appellate courts so lacking in judges that there are, quote, "judicial emergencies." And this court, the D.C. Circuit, it's not one of them.


But the body that determines (http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/02/16-judicial-emergencies-wheeler-binder) these "judicial emergencies," the U.S. Judicial Conference, has recommended (http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/4-5-13-Hogan-to-PJL-re-Federal-Judges.pdf) that the D.C. Circuit retain its 11-judge complement, a capacity the current GOP filibusters are preventing.

Judicial emergencies (http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/JudicialVacancies/JudicialEmergencies.aspx) occur when vacancies persist despite an excessive caseload in a given jurisdiction. What Bream fails to mention in her report is that Senate Republicans have helped to create judicial emergencies by slow-walking (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/05/nation/la-na-obama-judges-20130106) the process.

From denying the scheduling of votes (http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2013/01/empty-courtrooms-obama-s-first-term-slow-start-judicial-nominations-magnified) to outright blocking judicial nominees from their own states through the "blue slip (http://judicialnominations.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Blue-Slips.pdf)" process, the GOP has taken its obstruction to unprecedented levels (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/senate-gops-unprecedented-obstruction-five-charts).

Here's how the obscure but effective "blue slip" blockade works:

each Senator is given an opportunity to weigh in if a judge from his or her state is nominated to the federal judiciary. On a blue slip of paper, the Senator will either approve or disapprove the judge's nomination. According to the non-partisan Alliance for Justice (http://www.afj.org/blog/ed-whelans-misplaced-blame-for-judicial-emergencies-without-nominees),

18 of the 24 vacancies in "judicial emergency" jurisdictions are in states where Republicans have blocked the nominations of their home-state judges, even without the pretense (http://www.afj.org/blog/american-idle-democratic-senators-call-out-gop-obstruction) of legitimate criticisms of the nominees themselves.

Take for example Republican Florida Senator Marco Rubio. When Judge William Thomas and Judge Brian Davis were nominated for federal judgeships in Florida, both Rubio and Democratic Senator Bill Nelson approved. But Rubio, who recommended Thomas in the first place, later withdrew his support because of "concerns (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/politics/rubio-withdraws-support-for-gay-black-judges-nomination-to-the-federal-bench.html?_r=0)" over Thomas' handling of criminal cases, a belated excuse that local court observers condemned as "crass Tea Party politics [] sabotaging Judge Thomas' reputation and aborting the confirmation process (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/23/3646440/fred-grimm-rubio-stomps-on-judges.html)."

Both nominees are African-American, and Thomas would have been the first openly gay black judge (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/marco-rubio-gay-black-judge_n_3996156.html) on the federal bench.

As reported (http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp?id=1202617492454&Marco_Rubio_Blocks_Confirmation_hearings_For_Two_B lack_Judges&slreturn=20130802133254) by local media, bar associations are "perplexed" at Rubio's flip-flop, and critics say it marked a "ratcheting up of Republican efforts to block President Barack Obama's judicial nominees." From The Daily Business Review (http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp?id=1202617492454&Marco_Rubio_Blocks_Confirmation_hearings_For_Two_B lack_Judges&slreturn=20130802133254) of South Florida:

Republican U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, a tea party darling, is blocking confirmation hearings for two black judicial nominees by withholding the formality of submitting what is known as a "blue slip."

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas was nominated 552 days ago for a Miami opening in the Southern District of Florida. Nassau Circuit Judge Brian Davis has been waiting even longer -- 612 days -- for action to fill a Middle District of Florida vacancy in Tampa.
[...]

South Florida bar associations representing black attorneys have gotten no answers about the nominations from Rubio's office. They remain perplexed because Rubio appointed numerous members to the Federal Judicial Nominating Commission, which backed Davis and Thomas.

Rubio interviewed both nominees and recommended them along with Nelson to Obama.

"It's not like he is coming at this blind," Wiley said.

The limbo facing many of Obama's judicial nominees serves as a warning to potential applicants not to try for the federal bench unless they want to become political footballs, she said.
"We try to encourage qualified people to come forward and endure an already arduous process only to be hit with politics like this where it is almost an impossibility to figure what the issue is,"
Wiley said. "It can be quite overwhelming."


In a report about the significance of judicial emergencies, it seems odd that Bream would ignore that the majority of emergencies were caused by Republican Senators.

Now that Senate Democrats have eliminated the use of the filibuster when voting on some judicial and executive branch nominees, it is possible that Senate Republicans will continue their unprecedented obstruction of those nominees through the blue slip process (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-filibuster-liberal-judges).

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/26/foxs-report-on-judicial-emergencies-doesnt-ment/197071

[boutons_deux]

Despite Filibuster Limits, a Door Remains Open to Block Judge Nominees

The decision by Senate Democrats to eliminate filibusters for most judicial nominations only marginally enhanced President Obama’s power to reshape the judiciary, according to court watchers from across the political spectrum, because Republican senators can still veto his nominees to most currently vacant appeals court seats.

The new Senate rule clears the way for eight appeals court nominees who have already had confirmation hearings to win approval with simple majority votes, including three on the powerful Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which reviews federal policies and regulations. But it left unchanged the Senate’s “blue slip” custom, which allows senators to block nominees to judgeships associated with their states.

“It is hard to overstate the change’s importance for the D.C. Circuit, which has a disproportionate impact on the world, but it won’t have overwhelming impact elsewhere,”

Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel, said in an interview. “The blue slip rule for judges has been more problematic than the filibuster, in part because it is a silent, unaccountable veto.”

Twelve more appeals court seats are either vacant or will be by the end of 2014. All but one are in states with at least one Republican senator. As a result, Mr. Obama still lacks unrestricted power to swiftly appoint a flurry of more clearly left-of-center judges than he has done to date, despite the fears of conservatives and the hopes of liberals, specialists said.

The use of the filibuster to require a 60-vote supermajority to confirm an appeals court nominee arose out of the bitter aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential election, when Senate Democrats used the tactic to deny lifetime appointments for several of President George W. Bush’s nominees who were particularly outspoken conservatives.

In particular, the blue slip rule could come under additional scrutiny. Under the prerogative, both home-state senators must sign off on a blue slip allowing a confirmation hearing for a nominee. Facing that obstacle, presidents generally do not make nominations without such senators’ consent.

“The blue slip is still a very powerful tool,” Mr. Whelan said. “Indeed, we may get Republicans, realizing that they no longer have the minority power of the filibuster, becoming more aggressive in using the blue slip.”

The White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, has said that the blue slip rule in the Senate is problematic because “it is a silent, unaccountable veto.”

So far, however, he has enforced the rule broadly, even blocking a Kansas nominee to a federal appeals court because both Kansas senators changed their minds after clearing the nominee.

The Senate change also opened a political window to fill judgeships over which Republicans do not wield blue slip power with the support of just 51 Democratic senators — a window that will close in 2015 if Republicans retake a Senate majority in the midterm elections. That prospect could prompt additional Democratic-appointed appeals court judges who are, or soon will be, eligible for senior status to move up their semi-retirement. It allows judges to keep hearing cases at a reduced workload, while enabling the president to appoint a successor.

There are 18 such judges in seats from states with two Democratic senators, and two more on the District of Columbia Circuit, according to data compiled by Mr. Wheeler.

“Some Democratic appointees may be more attracted to retiring in this window because they have more confidence that Obama will be able to appoint a young successor,” he said.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/us/politics/despite-filibuster-limits-a-door-remains-open-to-block-judge-nominees.html?from=homepage

elections have consequences, eat shit right wingers. Obstructive abuse by the minority Repugs, genetically undemocratic, is worse than Dems getting in their judges by democratic majority rule.

[boutons_deux]

"balless, weak" Reid kickin Repug ass! :lol

Senate all-nighter: Filibuster fallout bogs down chamber's work

The Senate voted to confirm two more of President Obama’s stalled nominations in an unusual all-night session forced by Republican objections to the historic change to the chamber's filibuster rules.

In a vote after 1 a.m. EST Thursday, Nina Pillard became the second nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the nation's second-most powerful court, to win confirmation under new rules that allow most nominees to be advanced by simple majority vote. She was confirmed on a 51-44 vote.

The Senate then proceeded to end debate on Obama’s nominee to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai Rachel Feldblum. Final confirmation came hours later, after the sun rose Thursday on what is technically the still-ongoing Wednesday session.

In the meantime, senators took to the floor to continue the debate that began before Thanksgiving, after Democrats engaged in a controversial procedural maneuver to change Senate rules mid-session, lowering the threshold for cutting off some filibusters from a three-fifths majority to a simple majority.
Democrats began a two-week stint Monday with an attempt to clear a backlog of nominations, some long delayed by GOP filibusters. Pillard and Patricia Millett have now been seated on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, while Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) was confirmed as the top regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

After Feldblum, Democrats are seeking to confirm nine other presidential choices, including lower-court nominees and candidates for deputy secretary of State and secretary of the Air Force. Last on the list is Obama's nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, a choice that does have broad Republican support.

But Republicans, using procedural mechanisms still at their disposal, are insisting on exhausting all time requirements for debate on the choices, as much as 30 hours in some cases (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-senate-nominations-filibuster-20131210,0,7696228.story). Typically, that time has been yielded back through informal agreements between the Democratic and Republican leaders so the Senate can move to other business.

To process the remaining nominees as quickly as possible, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he will keep the Senate in for late nights and into the weekend. As the Senate girded for its all-nighter Wednesday, Reid expressed exasperation that Republicans "are forcing us to waste time on nominees they know will be confirmed." Democratic aides accused Republicans of forcing unnecessary delays out of "bitterness."

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-78523290/

Elections have consequences, eat shit Repugs.

[boutons_deux]

In Rule Fight, Reid Counters Delay With Senate All-Nighter
An all-out procedural war has broken out in the Senate: Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, kept the Senate in session through Wednesday night and into Thursday afternoon, and has vowed to continue calling round-the-clock confirmation votes through the weekend if Republicans continue to delay the process.


Republicans, furious that Democrats changed Senate rules to prevent the minority from filibustering most nominations, say they are intent on drawing attention to what they depict as a power grab, regardless of how strained the final days of the Senate’s 2013 session become.

A long list of nominees for lower courts and executive branch positions are awaiting confirmation, and Mr. Reid plans to call each of them on a continuous basis, no matter the hour, until he works through them all.

The Senate started working through nominations by first confirming Cornelia T. L. Pillard to the country’s most powerful appeals court shortly after 1 a.m. on Thursday by a 51-to-44 vote.


As the morning wore on, two other nominees were confirmed: Chai Feldblum to serve as a commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Elizabeth Wolford of New York to be a United States District Court judge.

Democrats, exasperated by Republicans’ refusal to confirm nominees like Ms. Pillard, voted last month to eliminate the use of the filibuster against all presidential nominees except those for the Supreme Court. Republicans had blocked the nomination of Ms. Pillard, a Georgetown law professor, to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Republicans say that with the new rule against filibustering, they intend to make the confirmation process as unpleasant as possible. Under Senate rules, the minority party can force the Senate to use all of the time required for debate on any given nomination. In the case of Ms. Pillard, the amount of time allotted was 30 hours.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/us/politics/senate-confirms-georgetown-law-professor-to-powerful-appeals-court.html?from=homepage

Repugs tried to bully and bluff the Dems', but the Dems were holding a royal straight flush! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Senate Republicans Block More Obama Nominees

Senate Republicans blocked a batch of mostly minor nominations by President Barack Obama late Monday in the aftermath of last month's Democratic move weakening the minority party's traditional ability to block most presidential appointments.

The action demonstrated that the GOP was intent on exacting a price for the changes majority Democrats muscled through the Senate in filibusters, or procedural delays minority senators can use to delay or kill nominations or bills.

Senate Republicans blocked a batch of mostly minor nominations by President Barack Obama late Monday in the aftermath of last month's Democratic move weakening the minority party's traditional ability to block most presidential appointments.

The action demonstrated that the GOP was intent on exacting a price for the changes majority Democrats muscled through the Senate in filibusters, or procedural delays minority senators can use to delay or kill nominations or bills.

On Monday, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., objected to a request by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., for unanimous approval of more than 30 mostly minor appointees.

"Until I understand better how a United States senator is supposed to operate in a Senate without rules, I object," Alexander said. ( dumb Confederate is also ignorant )

The nominees blocked included posts like an undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness and a pick for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Also included was Deborah Lee James, Obama's choice to be secretary of the Air Force.

The quick approval for those nominees that Reid was seeking required the consent of all senators, so Alexander's objection was enough to stop them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/senate-republicans-obama-nominees_n_4415648.html

[SnakeBoy]

Celebrate while you can


http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110128050245/disney/images/3/34/Wormturns03.jpg

[SnakeBoy]

:toast:downspin::lol:ihit
:toast:downspin::lol:ihit
:toast:downspin::lol:ihit
:toast:downspin::lol:ihit
:toast:downspin::lol:ihit
:toast:downspin::lol:ihit

[Chris]

:lol

[SnakeBoy]

Sure they did. The decision came after much resistance and consideration. They'll live with the consequences if and when the republicans nominate a candidate that can unite the American people and win the presidency and the senate.

This is is a utilitarian decision. I just don't see how this makes anything more polarized than it already is.

Good take :toast

[TeyshaBlue]

it's gonna be great fun watching all the Repugs trying to handle getting fucked, whining and moaning in "OUTRAGED, I TELL YA" by the Dems and Barry :lol :lol :lol :lol

eat shit, Repugs, tea baggers, rednecks, Koch-suckers


how it feel when Y'ALL are the target of HARDBALL KICKASS politics? Feels great, don't it, having Harry Reid's dick up your ass? :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol
Delicious sauce is delicious.

[boutons_deux]

I see TB :lol is still butthurt and providing my rent for free :lol

As a hardcore, right wing extremist, you are undoubtedly thrilled at the "Trash Court's" reliably upcoming solid 5-4 hate and discrimination ruling in all directions, and oligarchy's enrichment by fleecing Americans.

[TeyshaBlue]

Hardcore right wing extremist! :lmao.

Fucking simpleton. I just like watching idealogues eat shit. :lmao :lmao :lmao

[boutons_deux]

Hardcore right wing extremist! :lmao.

Fucking simpleton. I just like watching idealogues eat shit. :lmao :lmao :lmao

so how are you enjoying my shit, My Dearest Landlord!

[CosmicCowboy]

Delicious sauce is delicious.

Lol

Boo is almost as spittle spraying unhinged today as he was the morning after Hillary got trounced.

[spurraider21]

to be fair there's a good deal of hypocrisy all around


Rather than allowing a vote on these nominations, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) called for the vacant seats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/chuck-grassley-dc-circuit_n_4311984.html) to be removed from the court.

after previously calling for the seats to be removed, the republicans ended up claiming democrats are slowing down the justice system by not filling those same seats :lol

but yeah, you can't go nuclear on appointments and then bitch and moan about going nuclear on appointments. tho dems didnt take it as far as supreme court seats. though there's a chicken and egg thing since, as the OP showed, the filibustering if executive nominees really got kickstarted during obama's presidency. it just followed suit when it was trump's turn.

democrats going nuclear was an unusual solution to an unprecedented problem... caused by the republican minority. when the tables turned the democrat minority copied the republican strategy, and the republican majority copied the democrat solution