Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bingo! I've been saying that since the first time I heard a republican say that Reid would regret it when the dems lost the majority. Of course he reverses it before the GOP takes over. Then the media begins it's narrative that the GOP would be setting the wrong tone if they invoked it again. Anybody who's paying attention can see these moves coming from a mile away yet the GOP leadership always seems to miss it.
What purpose would it serve for Reid to reverse it considering he would now need 14 GOP votes for an Obama nominee instead of 4??
"A group of 26 conservative academics, advocates and leaders wrote in a letter that they see “very little upside” to restoring the old rules, which had allowed the minority party to require 60 votes to confirm nominees. They say the rules would help Republicans put “committed constitutionalists” on the bench if the White House changes hands in 2016. “The decision by Senator [Harry] Reid and his Democratic colleagues to deploy the so-called ‘nuclear option’ was transparently designed to facilitate the confirmation of judicial nominees who would insulate ObamaCare and other aspects of President Obama’s agenda from meaningful judicial review,” the letter says."
What do you say Republicans? Should McConnell keep the nuclear option and send Harry Reid a Thank You card? I say YES!
I agree. I am all for keeping the rule as it now applies. Should a Republican become President in 2016, then he or she should be able, with the 'advice and consent' of the Senate, to have their judical nominees approved. A simple majority should be all that is required.
I disagree with that portion of the letter you quoted concerning how Obama's judical nominees would not apply meaningful judical review of those laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is a presumption.
Of course, I am a bit biased since I tend to believe that, throughout the decades I have been alive, those appointed to the bench (District, Appeals, Supreme Court) try, on the whole, to impartially apply the law. Should a Republican be our next president, and the Senate stay Republican, then I would hope that said nominees would be approved as a matter of course.
Our history is replete with examples of Supreme Court justices being nominated by some President who hoped said Justice would be 'conservative' or 'liberal', only to discover that, upon taking up the black robe, said person does not rule as desired. One Justice (I forget who) once stated that the 'view from the top' means that you have to adjust your bearings.
I well recall the Robert Bork hearings: a disgrace. Mr. Bork's nomination should have been approved by the Senate. Mr. Bork (now deceased) held a judicial philosophy I might disagree with, but I still believe the Senate should show deference to the President's selection (in Mr. Borks case, President Reagan). The process Justice Thomas had to undergo was likewise distastefull. It was a case of 'abuse him then approve him'.
I can only enhance the overreach that will seal the GOP's fate in 2016.
When the Dems change the rules so they get their way, it's good politics. When the Repubs keep the changed rules so they can play by them as well, it's overreach.
I agree. I am all for keeping the rule as it now applies. Should a Republican become President in 2016, then he or she should be able, with the 'advice and consent' of the Senate, to have their judical nominees approved. A simple majority should be all that is required.
I disagree with that portion of the letter you quoted concerning how Obama's judical nominees would not apply meaningful judical review of those laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is a presumption.
Of course, I am a bit biased since I tend to believe that, throughout the decades I have been alive, those appointed to the bench (District, Appeals, Supreme Court) try, on the whole, to impartially apply the law. Should a Republican be our next president, and the Senate stay Republican, then I would hope that said nominees would be approved as a matter of course.
Our history is replete with examples of Supreme Court justices being nominated by some President who hoped said Justice would be 'conservative' or 'liberal', only to discover that, upon taking up the black robe, said person does not rule as desired. One Justice (I forget who) once stated that the 'view from the top' means that you have to adjust your bearings.
I well recall the Robert Bork hearings: a disgrace. Mr. Bork's nomination should have been approved by the Senate. Mr. Bork (now deceased) held a judicial philosophy I might disagree with, but I still believe the Senate should show deference to the President's selection (in Mr. Borks case, President Reagan). The process Justice Thomas had to undergo was likewise distastefull. It was a case of 'abuse him then approve him'.
One important note, Bork wasn't filibustered, he was rejected outright 42-58.
When the Dems change the rules so they get their way, it's good politics. When the Repubs keep the changed rules so they can play by them as well, it's overreach.
Ahh, spoken like a true lib.
Nope. I said nothing about it being good politics. I'm a moderate-- Not a liberal.
Obviously the Dems couldn't get their message across and govern effectively. They deserve to lose the senate.
So now the Republicans will take a turn-- And they are within their rights to keep the rule. However, the last few times they controlled both houses the overreach was palpable... They don't need the nuclear option to overreach. Historically they'll do it anyway.
I hope they govern well and move the nation forward. However, the talk in here is about retribution-- which is never good politics.
One important note, Bork wasn't filibustered, he was rejected outright 42-58.
You are correct. However, I was stating that Mr. Bork should have been approved by the full Senate (he was likewise voted down in the initial judiciary hearing). There was nothing in his character that made him unfit for the Supreme Court. Senator Ted Kennedy (speaking of unfit character) set the tone for the hearings, which many then followed. Those voting against Mr. Bork included both political sides.
I will note that back in those days, the thought of filibustering Mr. Bork's nomination was never even considered, as explained in this Washington Post article when Mr. Bork died:
The change in the filibuster rule for nominations was the correct thing to do then, its the correct thing now. I would not object if the GOP went further and said all filibusters must be talking filibusters. We've allowed the minority party to obstruct too much, it damages our government.
Leftists can't anticipate the consequences of their actions. It's part of their mental disorder. Republicans should keep the nuclear option as an ongoing demo of that.
I can only enhance the overreach that will seal the GOP's fate in 2016.
Did you feel it was a good thing when the democrats did it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
