(11-21-2013 03:42 PM)mlb Wrote:  Just as when the Republicans have done this in the past, it is complete BS. Both parties need to work to find someone in the middle that is acceptable to all.

Get real. The dems were salivating at the prospect with packing the courts with yet more radicals. Now, they can.

168 presidential nominees have been filibustered in the history of the United States. 82 of those filibusters have been since 2008. If you don't think that's an abuse of the system, then you're a complete partisan hack.

(11-21-2013 04:19 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:10 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Payback is gonna suck, you know that, right?

It's a more fair system for both sides. This is what the founding fathers intended.

It just guaranteed they will lose the Senate. The Democrats are going to hate that rule when it comes time to block one of their nominations.

Remember the Patriot Act? Republicans loved it when Bush was in office and they hate it now.

It's par for the course.

Presidents shouldn't have to go through years of filibuster to get their people in though. It's about making government work.

It's been misused and abused to spy on every U/S citizen. Of course we hate it. You should too.

The difference however is that I hated it from the start. Many people didn't hate it until recently.

when you abuse something ==> you lose it

republicans have no one to blame but themselves for this.....

they left the democrats no choice when they used this process to quite literally destroy senate procedure.

(11-21-2013 05:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The difference however is that I hated it from the start. Many people didn't hate it until recently.

It just may have something to do with the recent Snowden revelations that our intelligence agencies (and NSA specifically) has a very poor record of staying within the bounds of their allowed power. People realizing that their every move is being recorded tends to make them not like things like this. Minor details, Fit.

(11-21-2013 05:48 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  168 presidential nominees have been filibustered in the history of the United States. 82 of those filibusters have been since 2008. If you don't think that's an abuse of the system, then you're a complete partisan hack.

Hey genius, which party perfected using the filibuster against nominations? Hint: starts with d.

(11-21-2013 05:56 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 05:48 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  168 presidential nominees have been filibustered in the history of the United States. 82 of those filibusters have been since 2008. If you don't think that's an abuse of the system, then you're a complete partisan hack.

Hey genius, which party perfected using the filibuster against nominations? Hint: starts with d.

82 of 168 have come since 2008. Deal with the fact rather than offering weak equivocations.

(11-21-2013 05:53 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 05:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The difference however is that I hated it from the start. Many people didn't hate it until recently.

It just may have something to do with the recent Snowden revelations that our intelligence agencies (and NSA specifically) has a very poor record of staying within the bounds of their allowed power. People realizing that their every move is being recorded tends to make them not like things like this. Minor details, Fit.

But this was what people like me who hated it from the start warned against.

Those in favor of the Patriot Act assured everyone that everything was going to be okay.

Gee, what significant event(s) have transpired since GWB got that legislation passed? Hmmmm?

Two Presidential elections and an administration that has no problem using the many agencies of government to "punish our enemies" according to the Prez. No accountability anywhere. Seems the perfect time for mission creep, no?

Obamacare will give the Republicans a 51 to 49 majority come 2014 then the fun will begin.

Quote:SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about. For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country."
-Senator Harry Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)

Quote:For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”

It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They
established a government so that no one person – and no single party –
could have total control.

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.

They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington.

They want to do away with the filibuster.

They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers.

I doubt that’s true.

-Senator Harry Reid, Floor Speech on Use of Filibuster, 2005

(11-21-2013 05:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The difference however is that I hated it from the start. Many people didn't hate it until recently.

(11-21-2013 05:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But this was what people like me who hated it from the start warned against.

Those in favor of the Patriot Act assured everyone that everything was going to be okay.

You hated it and warned others of its consequences, so now you're a fervent supporter of the guy who radically expanded its powers, overseeing the most expansive spying program in the history of the world. That makes sense.

(11-21-2013 05:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  when you abuse something ==> you lose it

So you'd support efforts to dismantle the NSA and strip Obama of his power to call for drone strikes?

This door swings both ways. Democrats opened up Pandora's box and paybacks gonna be a b*tch. I'm amazed the retards in this forum don't see that.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

Immigration/Amnesty Proponents are already demanding this be extended to cover their Legislation.

Game On

The Democrats haven't "finished themselves off" with this procedural change. Most people could care less. It will not be an issue in senate elections. The ACA might or might not be an issue that tips the scales. Things shift quickly.

Democrats have a history of filibusters themselves.

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.

(11-21-2013 08:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Democrats have a history of filibusters themselves.

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.

True but you have to admit that the GOP has taken it to a whole new level.

(11-21-2013 08:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 08:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Democrats have a history of filibusters themselves.

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.

True but you have to admit that the GOP has taken it to a whole new level.

They are also taking the Senate in 2014.

(11-21-2013 08:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 08:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Democrats have a history of filibusters themselves.

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.

True but you have to admit that the GOP has taken it to a whole new level.

For a very long time, a president would temper who he sent as nominees to the Senate due to the Super Majority Rule - in other words, he didn't nominate the most radical because he knew he had to get some votes "from the other side".

This dbag president has said "Hell with that" and nominated as radical as he could - that's why so many filibusters have occurred - because Obumble didn't send moderate democrats - he wants the radicals.

Like everyone else has stated - payback will be a ***** - and there will come a time with a majority senate and a Republican president.

Reap what you sow.