I remember posts on this board by the board libs really enjoying Reid using the 'Nuclear Option'. Well....

Quote:In 2013, Reid invoked the “nuclear option,” a historic move that changed a long-standing Senate rule, dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority for executive appointments and most judicial nominations — a decision he justified because of trouble getting through court confirmations in the latter half of the Obama Administration.

At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republicans warned Reid that he would regret implementing the nuclear option.

“What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority,” Republican Sen. John Thune warned.

Well, it’s come around. Democrats are in the minority and many are pointing to Reid’s tweet as evidence of the folly of changing the Senate rules.

Reid was warned that removing he filibuster could come back to bite the Dems.

Keep reading here...

I frankly think Supreme Court appointments should require 2/3 majorities, just like treaties. It would force the court to the middle of the road, where it belongs.

(06-30-2018 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I frankly think Supreme Court appointments should require 2/3 majorities, just like treaties. It would force the court to the middle of the road, where it belongs.

Yes, in a perfect world.

(06-30-2018 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I frankly think Supreme Court appointments should require 2/3 majorities, just like treaties. It would force the court to the middle of the road, where it belongs.

I could go along with that.

The problem, of course, is that ReidSchumer etc. want GOP judges to require 2/3, but their own judges to only require 50% plus VP to break the tie.

Any meaningful, enduring reform in the realm of judicial appointment will have to be implemented via constitutional amendment. Any other type of “agreement” will just be broken once either side has the political strength to do so.

(06-30-2018 02:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I frankly think Supreme Court appointments should require 2/3 majorities, just like treaties. It would force the court to the middle of the road, where it belongs.

I could go along with that.

Any meaningful, enduring reform in the realm of judicial appointment will have to be implemented via constitutional amendment. Any other type of “agreement” will just be broken once either side has the political strength to do so.

But it has come to that. You don't really think the Demons are so fair-minded that they wouldn't go atomic? Just don't forget who implemented the rule in the first place.

(06-30-2018 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I frankly think Supreme Court appointments should require 2/3 majorities, just like treaties. It would force the court to the middle of the road, where it belongs.

i agree...and it should be implemented as soon as the marxist democrat party has a majority.

There is no middle of the road with the court. You are either interpreting a law based upon the constitution, or you are making sh*t up.

Harry Reid has left a great legacy to the Senate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dingy Harry really screwed the Democrats.

(06-30-2018 05:08 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  Dingy Harry really screwed the Democrats.

Harry Reems(ed) them, lol....

Ironically, Harry Reems became a Born Again Christian, left porn, and sold real estate in Nevada while driving a bus for his church - and kept using his stage name.

(06-30-2018 02:18 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I frankly think Supreme Court appointments should require 2/3 majorities, just like treaties. It would force the court to the middle of the road, where it belongs.

Yes, in a perfect world.

yes.....and he's right.....

I made a prediction we would see at least 1 amendment if "don't underestimate the Donald" was elected......

time will tell if this court forces the legislature to start thinking again.....

(06-30-2018 02:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  There is no middle of the road with the court. You are either interpreting a law based upon the constitution, or you are making sh*t up.

EXACTLY!