(11-22-2013 01:58 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 01:19 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 09:40 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Dems know they're time is almost up so this was passed to get whatever they can get passed during the next year. Why else would Reid pass something that only a few years ago he was vehemently against and called a "slippery slope"?

Dems know they are time is almost up? I think you have it all wrong tea bag boy- including not using the correct "their".

lulz. Good try.

So, how do you explain Reid doing a 180 on this topic? Not that long ago he was dead set against what he just did. What changed?

Probably because he knows damn well that the Democrats won't lose the Senate anytime soon?

Then why do it in the first place? Geez. This isn't rocket science.

The republicans miscalculated on this one. They thought that if they filibustered Obama on everything, that the Democrats wouldn't fight back.

Now because of this, the Democrats will likely appoint over 80 progressive judges.

Looks like the republicans over played their cards again.

(11-22-2013 02:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The republicans miscalculated on this one. They thought that if they filibustered Obama on everything, that the Democrats wouldn't fight back.

Now because of this, the Democrats will likely appoint over 80 progressive judges.

Looks like the republicans over played their cards again.

(11-22-2013 02:16 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 02:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The republicans miscalculated on this one. They thought that if they filibustered Obama on everything, that the Democrats wouldn't fight back.

Now because of this, the Democrats will likely appoint over 80 progressive judges.

Looks like the republicans over played their cards again.

And one day Republicans will retake the senate.

Reid will then go back to crying about protecting the minority party, like he did the last time they held it.

I don't know what they call that in Nevada, but where I come from, it's blatant hypocrisy, and I hope he gets hammered for it.

(11-22-2013 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 09:40 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Dems know they're time is almost up so this was passed to get whatever they can get passed during the next year. Why else would Reid pass something that only a few years ago he was vehemently against and called a "slippery slope"?

Dems know they are time is almost up? I think you have it all wrong tea bag boy- including not using the correct "their".

Umm, errr, forget it

I just find myself incredibly exasperated over this whole thing. You can't tell me....... you can't get 5 Dems together and 5 R's together and with a binder full of judges find 80 ok with both parties. Find 80 centrist judges that both parties can tolerate.

(11-22-2013 02:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I just find myself incredibly exasperated over this whole thing. You can't tell me....... you can't get 5 Dems together and 5 R's together and with a binder full of judges find 80 ok with both parties. Find 80 centrist judges that both parties can tolerate.

Exactly the case. Another example of a failed congress.

Uhhhh, except it's the President who makes the nominations.

And how many times have I used "vicious partisan hack " to describe that angry old man, Reid? This action alone pretty well sums it up. They have NO interest in anyone working across the partisan divide, it is a power grab to consolidate as much power in their hands as they can between now and next November. Then they're TOAST.

But it may not work quite as cleverly as they'd hoped either. They do this and many of the Senators already in trouble over the zerOcare disaster may find themselves deciding to vote against some of the more radical statists that are put up for confirmation.

They may not get them in afterall and they've still done the damage. Typical progs, over playing their hand once again.

(11-22-2013 02:44 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 09:40 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Dems know they're time is almost up so this was passed to get whatever they can get passed during the next year. Why else would Reid pass something that only a few years ago he was vehemently against and called a "slippery slope"?

Dems know they are time is almost up? I think you have it all wrong tea bag boy- including not using the correct "their".

Umm, errr, forget it

lol, yeah, saw that but just let it go.

(11-22-2013 02:30 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 02:16 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 02:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The republicans miscalculated on this one. They thought that if they filibustered Obama on everything, that the Democrats wouldn't fight back.

Now because of this, the Democrats will likely appoint over 80 progressive judges.

Looks like the republicans over played their cards again.

And one day Republicans will retake the senate.

Reid will then go back to crying about protecting the minority party, like he did the last time they held it.

I don't know what they call that in Nevada, but where I come from, it's blatant hypocrisy, and I hope he gets hammered for it.

I don't disagree.

It should be noted however that the republicans attempted to filibuster an astoundingly larger number of nominees.

If I recall correctly, they filibustered more nominees than all other Congresses combined.

The gov't is headed toward another shutdown, and the GOP can point to this Reid and Zero and call it all their fallout.

(11-22-2013 03:49 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The gov't is headed toward another shutdown, and the GOP can point to this Reid and Zero and call it all their fallout.

I certainly hope so.

Government shut downs have proven to be very entertaining.

(11-22-2013 03:09 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Uhhhh, except it's the President who makes the nominations.

I fully agree that the Democrats are toast.

That being said, I also fully agree that there is no excuse why the heads of both parties can't sit down, find some people whom are acceptable, and work from there instead of going through these theatrics from both parties. It is what continually pisses off the people, IMO.

I think it's by design.

Statistics show that low voter turnouts tend to favor Republicans.

The more government shut downs, the more apathetic voters get.

(11-22-2013 03:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't disagree.

It should be noted however that the republicans attempted to filibuster an astoundingly larger number of nominees.

If I recall correctly, they filibustered more nominees than all other Congresses combined.

It should also be noted that Obama has tried to push through more FAR left wing candidates than any previous President. With the GOP having no real power in the Senate, they used the only tool they had to stop them.

(11-22-2013 05:11 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 03:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't disagree.

It should be noted however that the republicans attempted to filibuster an astoundingly larger number of nominees.

If I recall correctly, they filibustered more nominees than all other Congresses combined.

It should also be noted that Obama has tried to push through more FAR left wing candidates than any previous President. With the GOP having no real power in the Senate, they used the only tool they had to stop them.

But if there is an unusual amount of vacancies that isn't his fault.

(11-22-2013 05:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 05:11 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 03:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't disagree.

It should be noted however that the republicans attempted to filibuster an astoundingly larger number of nominees.

If I recall correctly, they filibustered more nominees than all other Congresses combined.

It should also be noted that Obama has tried to push through more FAR left wing candidates than any previous President. With the GOP having no real power in the Senate, they used the only tool they had to stop them.

But if there is an unusual amount of vacancies that isn't his fault.

If they remain vacant it certainly could be. Nominate someone not as controversial. His "elections have consequences" arrogance has served him very poorly. Other than the first 23 months where he had willing accomplices in the House and Senate, what has he been able to get done? He's campaigned for office effectively, I'll grant that, but govern? Hardly.

Those pesky elections have consequences both ways.

By whose criteria are we using that these nominations judged so far left? I read where 167 nominations have been held up in our nations history. 85 of them in the last 8 years. You two yahoots think this is all on Obama??? Typical.

(11-22-2013 05:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  By whose criteria are we using that these nominations judged so far left? I read where 167 nominations have been held up in our nations history. 85 of them in the last 8 years. You two yahoots think this is all on Obama??? Typical.

Yes it is... The process supports nominations that are more acceptable to both parties. Zero could give a sh!t less, and does not mind if his nomination are DOA. Obama is transforming the Senate to a body of majority rule. So the minority party does not even need to show up.

Thank that prickZero.

(11-22-2013 02:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I just find myself incredibly exasperated over this whole thing. You can't tell me....... you can't get 5 Dems together and 5 R's together and with a binder full of judges find 80 ok with both parties. Find 80 centrist judges that both parties can tolerate.

How can you be this blindingly ignorant? The dems DON'T WANT centrists. They sense a chance to stack the courts, esp. the D.C. Court of appeals. It would be his legacy, since Obamacare's shine is wearing off and the turd that it is can now be seen.

When you do as many things that are blatantly illegal as this administration has done, the last thing you want is a court that might over-rule you. Centrist judges might do that. Far lefties won't.

This doesn't even mention the fact that the courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes btw the two other branches of government.