[video=youtube;K1Dacnvjf8A][/video]

"YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE SENATE RULES BY A PURE MAJORITY VOTE...It's the one thing this country stands for, not tilting the playing field to those who control and own the field."

The nuclear option was just enacted today.

No no no Justin, Joe has evolved.

Still unsure how the Senate can up and change its own rules like that. A rule change should require something like 80% of the members to make it official.

Well, the rules call for a 2/3rd vote to change the rules, but if your going to blow up how you've done business forever ...

Can't wait for when the Republicans have the majority again and the Democrats start crying about how it's unfair.

If Dems lose the Senate, that bozo Harry Reid will change the rule back before they seat the new members...and then if Repubs try to pull the same stunt the liberal media and Dems - especially Harry Reid - will cry bloody murder.

Anyway, I couldn't care less as it relates to confirming Presidential appointees. IMO, it should probably take a 60% majority to BLOCK a nominee as I think the POTUS deserves that latitude in selecting people to carry out his agenda.

gut;1540777 wrote:Anyway, I couldn't care less as it relates to confirming Presidential appointees. IMO, it should probably take a 60% majority to BLOCK a nominee as I think the POTUS deserves that latitude in selecting people to carry out his agenda.

Yeah, its not like Barry hasn't nominated communists for czar positions before. He would never nominate unqualified judges, would he? Isn't it possible the filibusters were used correctly to keep moonbats off the federal benches? Hmmm?

tk421;1540769 wrote:Can't wait for when the Republicans have the majority again and the Democrats start crying about how it's unfair.

this

But as gut says if it appears the Repubs are about to retake the Senate, Dingy Harry will change the rules back to where they were.

Harry just bent himself over the arm of the couch big time. : thumbup:

BGFalcons82;1540816 wrote:Yeah, its not like Barry hasn't nominated communists for czar positions before. He would never nominate unqualified judges, would he? Isn't it possible the filibusters were used correctly to keep moonbats off the federal benches? Hmmm?

Is it possible they were used to keep Republicans from being nominated simply because it was Obama doing the nominating? They're filibustering more than anyone ever has.

Still don't know how I feel about the rule change but I like that it doesn't apply to Supreme Court nominations.

I Wear Pants;1542731 wrote:Is it possible they were used to keep Republicans from being nominated simply because it was Obama doing the nominating? They're filibustering more than anyone ever has.

Still don't know how I feel about the rule change but I like that it doesn't apply to Supreme Court nominations.

It doesn't apply until the majority party decides otherwise.

I Wear Pants;1542731 wrote: They're filibustering more than anyone ever has.

It's been trending up for the past 15-20 years, for both parties. And I'm sure some of it does have to do with some appointees probably being too left/radical.

50% really should be good enough if Congress confirmed moderates instead of just voting party lines, effectively rubber stamping the POTUS agenda. Because of that, I think confirmees probably should have bipartisan support otherwise Congress fails as a check & balance. Theoretically the SOH and SML are on equal footing with the POTUS, but instead of being an independent check on power they are basically a subservient tool for carrying out the agenda.

A simple majority vote is basically saying you can't or won't compromise. It's popular to blame the Repubs as being obstructionist, but you have to be an idiot to think the Dems aren't just as polarized and stubborn. This is basically Harry Reid saying definitively Dems aren't willing to compromise or work to find common ground. Only a liberal media could ignore this power grab and make excuses for him "because those mean Repubs just won't let Harry Reid do his job"

Is it fair to say that his statement in the video was a response to someone on the Republican side trying to support the nuclear option?