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.
Greywar, do you understand that the Democrats blocked many more judicial nominations than the current Republicans? The issue wasn't the Senate rules, which a majority can change at any time, but hypocrisy.
Do you understand that the nuclear option refers to more then judicial nominations? Or are you cherry picking a specific type?
Nevertheless.....
In the history of the United States, there have been 168 filibusters of presidential nominees, 82 filibusters under President Obama, 86 filibusters under all other presidents.
What has that got to do with Democrats changing the Senate rules after the election but before the new Congress is seated?
The filibuster change was only for Presidential and Judicial appointments. The Democrats in the Senate are not going to filibuster Obama's Judicial Appointments, nor are they going to filibuster his Presidential appointments.
Not to mention if the GOP takes the Senate, all the Democrats would need is a GOP vote or two to get a nominee past the Senate (Susan Collins), if the rules go back they would need 8-9 GOP votes to get a nominee approved,
I seriously doubt the Republicans will do anything to take the Senate in 2014, it will basically stay similar as today. Though if we are lucky we will see more Tea Party members lose their seats.
Republicans don't have to DO ANYTHING. The dems have already done that for them.
1. Obamacare
2. poor economy
3. record number of citizens unemployed
4. record number of citizens on foodstamps
5. lower incomes
6. record number of citizens on social security
7. higher gas and electric rates
8. Beghazi
9. IRS scandal
The 2014 election (like that in 2008) will not be an election FOR the challenging party, but more so a rejection of the incumbent party.
Republicans don't have to DO ANYTHING. The dems have already done that for them.
1. Obamacare
2. poor economy
3. record number of citizens unemployed
4. record number of citizens on foodstamps
5. lower incomes
6. record number of citizens on social security
7. higher gas and electric rates
8. Beghazi
9. IRS scandal
The 2014 election (like that in 2008) will not be an election FOR the challenging party, but more so a rejection of the incumbent party.
Didn't you say the same thing in 2012?
How'd that turn out?
The facts are that the GOP almost certainly WILL make gains in 2014 because of the particular seats that are up for re-election combined with the fact that traditionally older voters (who tend to favor the GOP) turn out in larger numbers on off-year elections - though it's still not clear that they will gain the Senate (personally I think they'll fall short in that regard). Reading more into it than that is pretty risky and likely reflects your HOPES rather any real analysis.
Will Senate Democrats repeal the measure they passed, that forbids filibusters of judicial nominees etc., when it becomes clear in early November that THEY will be the ones in the minority, and needing filibusters, for the next XX years?
Great question. I've said from the beginning that the Dems will live to regret this.
Even if you're unhappy don't mess with the process. The fickle finger of fate could soon be pointing at you.
Will Senate Democrats repeal the measure they passed, that forbids filibusters of judicial nominees etc., when it becomes clear in early November that THEY will be the ones in the minority, and needing filibusters, for the next XX years?
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Now, pay close attention and try to understand this:
Whether or not the Republicans win the Senate in November, it will still be easier to get President Obama's non-Supreme Court judicial nominees and executive branch appointments thru the Senate with the current rules in place than with the old rules. Example: If the Democrats control only 49 Senate seats, it would still be easier to need only 50 Senators (with Vice President Biden, as President of the Senate, casting a potential tie-breaking vote) under the present rules than it would be to have to muster 60 votes in the Senate under the old rules.
But since Republicans would then control committees, they wouldn't need a filibuster to stop nominees, anyway - they could just kill them in committee. So, your notion is nonsensical on multiple levels.
In your eagerness to portray the Democrats as self-serving, you failed to actually comprehend that what you suggest the Democrats might do would, in fact:
a) be to their detriment as far as filibusters, and
b) probably not matter anyway, because of committee control
There never even passed the nuclear option. Other wise we'd have true single payer right now.
Obama said he didn't support single payer...........
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.
