Not long ago Harry Reid said what he did today was "UnAmerican."

[govols/cc]

Uh huh. Sure thing.

It's what your boy promised. Lol.

 

[BeecherVol]

Careful what you wish for. Numbers for Obama and the Dems are dropping, but they've got a ways to go until they catch up to the GOP.

Might be a little tighter than you think.

Washington (CNN) - A new poll released Wednesday indicates voters are divided on whether they'll vote for Democratic or Republican House lawmakers in next year's midterm elections.
According to the Quinnipiac University survey, 39% of voters say they would choose a Democrat in their congressional district if the election were held today, while another 39% say they would choose a Republican.


In a similar Quinnipiac survey released October 1, Democrats held a 43%-34% advantage over Republicans.

 

[cd12]

I get what you are saying and I understand the point of the old rule. But there ought to be some balance to it. I don't particularly have an alternative idea in mind, but most recently you've had Graham, who is running to the right like he's freakin' on fire, say he's going to stall every single nominee, no mater what, just to try to make his conservative bones by being anti-Obama.

When it gets to the point that Senators are openly admitting they will stop every nominee without the slightest even nod to their credentials, something is more wrong than usual.

Robert Byrd would say that you are full of it...

 

[FLVOL69]

Yeah we hear that every election. Never underestimate the GOP's ability to completely screw up.

Remember how certain it was Obama would be a one term President?

Obama care hadn't been implemented yet or haven't you noticed ?Even the libtards have health insurance.By the time the elections roll around this cf will be in full force.

 

[lawgator1]

Might be a little tighter than you think.

That just means things will pretty much stay the same, which is not surprising considering gerrymandering.

I mean, look at some of these loldistricts.

 

[Weezy]

It just sucks that neither party will ever voluntarily give that power back up. That's why you have these precedents.

 

[lawgator1]

It just sucks that neither party will ever voluntarily give that power back up. That's why you have these precedents.

What sucks is that members of both parties think it is a valid political strategy to block a nominee, regardless of qualifications, for partisan political purposes. These are important positions and they need to be filled. If you don't like a nominee based on something they've said or done, fine. Block it. But don't just do it for the sake of being able to say you rejected all of a president's nominees.

 

[volinbham]

What I'd like to see is a list of today's senators, who were in the Senate in 2005, who have not flip flopped on this issue.

Maybe VOLinthaNATI will furnish such a list, since he appears to be doing research.

I agree in principle but threatening to change the rules and actually changing the rules are two different things

 

[BeecherVol]

That just means things will pretty much stay the same, which is not surprising considering gerrymandering.

I mean, look at some of these loldistricts.

Ah. So in other words the OP I quoted is worthless.

 

[volinbham]

What sucks is that members of both parties think it is a valid political strategy to block a nominee, regardless of qualifications, for partisan political purposes. These are important positions and they need to be filled. If you don't like a nominee based on something they've said or done, fine. Block it. But don't just do it for the sake of being able to say you rejected all of a president's nominees.

I think too they block them to leverage other issues - not just to say you rejected nominees.

Part of this is arises from Senate Leaders blocking bills from even coming to the floor for debate.

I'm not defending the practice but in some cases it's the only alternative a Senator has if Leadership won't allow an issue to be brought forward.

 

[Weezy]

Crossing my fingers that the fence swings back Republican. Not that it would be good for the country. A party having too much power has always resulted in the worst. But because it would be pretty hilariously poorly played by the Dems. They wouldn't be able to complain about much.

 

[Grand Vol]

What sucks is that members of both parties think it is a valid political strategy to block a nominee, regardless of qualifications, for partisan political purposes. These are important positions and they need to be filled. If you don't like a nominee based on something they've said or done, fine. Block it. But don't just do it for the sake of being able to say you rejected all of a president's nominees.

I wouldn't go that far. Saying you're going to block and actually doing it are two different things entirely. Kerry still got confirmed as SecState and Hagel still got confirmed as SecDef even though the GOP wasn't hip to a lot of their policies.

 

[lawgator1]

I think too they block them to leverage other issues - not just to say you rejected nominees.

Part of this is arises from Senate Leaders blocking bills from even coming to the floor for debate.

I'm not defending the practice but in some cases it's the only alternative a Senator has if Leadership won't allow an issue to be brought forward.

Blocking nominees for leverage on something else is how the game is played, I suppose. Its only slightly less obnoxious than doing it just to be able to say you did.

 

[volinbham]

I wouldn't go that far. Saying you're going to block and actually doing it are two different things entirely. Kerry still got confirmed as SecState and Hagel still got confirmed as SecDef even though the GOP wasn't hip to a lot of their policies.

Yep - take for example Rand Paul's filibuster of a nominee. It was the only way to get a discussion of drone policy. Reid would not allow it otherwise.

In the end, they all reap what they sow.

 

[lawgator1]

I wouldn't go that far. Saying you're going to block and actually doing it are two different things entirely. Kerry still got confirmed as SecState and Hagel still got confirmed as SecDef even though the GOP wasn't hip to a lot of their policies.

I think its mostly the judges that are a problem.

 

[n_huffhines]

Great, now unelected officials need even less approval from our representatives. Makes sense.

 

[cd12]

I would assume one day the GOP will be playing the "hey, we're only playing by your rules" game. "you can thank former Majority Leader Reid for the situation you find yourselves in".

 

[Grand Vol]

I think its mostly the judges that are a problem.

Which honestly should be the most vetted positions in the entire government. We aren't talking about someone who can cause a incident because they ate with the wrong salad fork, we are talking about people who's job is to interpret the Constitution and decide what the law means.

And I don't care if you are conservative or liberal, that kind of power needs to be closely scrutinized.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

Which honestly should be the most vetted positions in the entire government. We aren't talking about someone who can cause a incident because they ate with the wrong salad fork, we are talking about people who's job is to interpret the Constitution and decide what the law means.

And I don't care if you are conservative or liberal, that kind of power needs to be closely scrutinized.

100% agree.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

Hey LG, do you think Kagen and Sotomayor were the most qualified of candidates and thus were chosen by President Obama because of that?

 

[BigPapaVol]

To the contrary, the main problem is that the GOP are their own brand of stupid.

can't make up genius like this.

 

[lawgator1]

Which honestly should be the most vetted positions in the entire government. We aren't talking about someone who can cause a incident because they ate with the wrong salad fork, we are talking about people who's job is to interpret the Constitution and decide what the law means.

And I don't care if you are conservative or liberal, that kind of power needs to be closely scrutinized.

Vetted implies that the vote is then based on their credentials. Denying the vote just to score cheap points with mouthbreaters, of either party, hardly seems to serve any noble purpose.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

Vetted implies that the vote is then based on their credentials. Denying the vote just to score cheap points with mouthbreaters, of either party, hardly seems to serve any noble purpose.

Yet both parties do it regularly.

 

[Weezy]

I'm sure this goes both ways...

Their grand design is an all-powerful executive using a weakened legislature to fashion a compliant judiciary in its own image. ... What is involved here is a power grab.

- Al Gore, 2005

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

- Harry Reid, 2005

The nuclear option was not what the Founders had in mind. It will poison Washington.

- Barack Obama, 2005

Republicans are fixing to “blow up 200 years of Senate history” just because they’re not getting their way on a handful of “radical” judicial nominees.

- Howard Dean, 2005

If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it

- Harry Reid, 2005

The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington.

- Harry Reid, 2005

For the temporary gain of a handful of out-of-the-mainstream judges, some in the Senate (search) are ready to callously incinerate each senator's right of extended debate.

- Robert Byrd, 2005

 

[MG1968]

Obama and the democrats need something to distract attention away from the never-ending ACA debacle.

This isn't going to work.