Booker, Menendez vote yes on historic “nuclear option”
Booker, Menendez vote yes on historic “nuclear option” (via NJ.com)
New Jersey’s two senators were among 52 votes in the upper chamber today in favor of the so-called “nuclear option” eliminating the filibuster and allowing a simple majority to approve executive and judicial branch appointments. The ‘majority rules’…
More from my site
Booker, Lonegan call each other ‘extreme’ during first U.S. Senate debate
Cory Booker, Rand Paul and a Festivus miracle
Three things that have to happen for Steve Lonegan to walk away with a win
Does Pallone have the fortitude to run for U.S. Senate?
Quinnipiac Poll: New Jersey Voters Approve Of Christie More Than Obama, Menendez or Booker
The Auditor: Christie to help Lonegan retire campaign debt, Buono loses Metuchen and more
Highlands Couple Represents Sandy Victims Cheated By Flood Insurance Adjusters
Project Veritas Video Exposes SEIU Leader Claiming That Menendez Would Blindly Fund Make Work Jobs
Speaking to parties’ bases, Booker and Lonegan propose unlikely ideas
Lonegan pokes fun at Booker with red carpet affair in Newark
I am glad that these two bozos have put their names on this legislation (incidentally that goes back to 1918).
It shows two things; 1) they have a fear of the Constitution and the tried and true workings of the government as envisioned by our founders and those who have gone before and, 2) the abject hypocracy of the Dems who squealed like stuck pigs when the R’s halfheartedly threatened the same thing when they had control of the Senate.
Hopefully people will voice their disdain for these petty politicians (who, incidentally will never be considered “Statesmen”) and the “low information voters who elected them.
I see no sign of integrity in either of them! Do you?
These are long standing Senate internal rules not a constitutional issue. It involves the comity of the Senate and ramifications on conducting regular business could be catastrophic or the Republicans can be bluffing.
I dont think anyone wanted it to come to this but there was no other choice when the Republicans choose to block almost as many appointments by Obama as was done with almost all of the previous Presidents combined. Note that in almost all cases, there was never an arguement as to whether the person nominated was considered qualified or not.
It is a fight-to-the-death for the future direction of the USA…and about time Rs recognize it and act accordingly.
Bob, Dems filibustered dozens of appointments when Bush was in office. In 2009, there were spots that had been vacant for over 8 years, due to the Dems refusing even a vote on them.
And when Republicans suggested the nuclear option, there was widespread media outrage.
This is Senator Obama in 2005:
“Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster – if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.”
Bob continues to ignore facts and hypocrisy.
In 2005 Despicable Reid opposed a change to filibuster rules. As a matter of fact, almost ALL of the Democrats opposed it in 2005.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/96499-hypocrisy-face-watch-senate-democrats-obama-opposed-stripping-filibuster-2005/
This is nothing more than a power grab and a distraction from Obamacare.
The difference between the present day and 2005 is that the Republicans, who have been in the minority in the Senate, (once Obama was elected) started to use the fillibuster to obstruct policies/programs/laws they did not agree with. Most of the time they admitted that the person nominated was/is fully qualifed for the position. So the Senate D’s had two choices…either let the people who are in the minority get their way and leave numerous posiitons unfilled or do what they should have done long ago and let the nominees have straight up or down votes. There is a unique concept…majority rules!!!!
If the shoe where on the other foot and say Romney was President and the R’s had the majority in the Seante. If the D’s were blocking appointments at historic rates (like the R’s have been), I doubt the R’s would have waited five years to do what the D’s just did.
The way the system used to work was not perfect but in the end it usually worked out pretty well in the end. The Republican absue of the filibuster since Obama was elcted changed all of that.
JUST STOP
The Republicans decided NOT to do it in 2005.
“If Romney: means NOTING because it is a canard to distract people away from the facts that the Democrats actually did it….
Here’s more hypocrisy for you
http://www.caintv.com/harry-reid-goes-nuclear-someth
From Sen. Joe Biden’s remarks, May 23 2005:
“Isn’t what is really going on here that the majority does not want to hear what others have to say, even if it is the truth? Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said: You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. And I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. But I am afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons.”
Your getting into delusional now Bob.
Signed,
Silence Dogood, Redux
Bob: The Dems were blocking nominees for the same reason: to block people they disagreed with. During Bush’s 8 years, there were 23 judicial appointments blocked by the Dems. During Obama’s term so far, Republicans blocked 5 appointments. So who’s blocking at “historic rates” again??
Btw, there’s also 3 vacancies on NJ’s Supreme Court because the Senate Dems refuse to bring the nominees to a vote.
@Chris…Note that some of the judges blocked under Bush were because the R’s had refused to vote on judges nominated by Clinton to fill the same positions.
Bottom line though, the R’s dramatically changed the past use of the filibuster in 2009 when the minority (41) in the Senate was able to block bills that had majority (59) support from coming to a vote, bills that that had already passed the House (many with broad bipartisan support.) That is what eventually led to the so called nuclear option (not to mention the R’s refusing to allow votes on people they admit are highly qualifed to positions which they were nominated for.)
And in NJ whether you agree with Christie or not, the past practice had always been for the party that controls the Gov’s office to have 4 of the 7 slots on the State Supreme Court. The Legislature has confirmed two of Christies nominees but he is basically trying to make the bench 5-2 in favor of Republicans. As mentioned in my Romney President/R controlled Senate example, if a D Governor was trying to pack the court 5-2 in favor of the D’s, it would be R’s that were screaming.
What I find totally revolting is that less than a 60 vote margin (a simple majority) decided that the 60 vote thresh-hold is obsolete. What kind of rules are these? Reid & co. are lawless, heathen barbarians. Looting and pillaging a nation and her governoring bodies. Anything and everything they say to justify themselves is “AN OBAMA”, i.e a bold faced lie.
Chris,
Your ‘facts’ are way off the mark. Bob appears to be the most informed on the subject. This is 2013 not 2005. During Obama’s administration there have been more filibusters than in the entire history of our country. The filibuster is not law, it is an element of the many rules that the Senate has developed to control its proceedings. The GOP abused the rules (and the interests of the people) repeatedly, so the rules were changed. Reid and company should have changed the rules sooner. It is the people of the country first, followed by state interests and then party interests. The GOP has it backwards.
Mark F.,
A simple majority is all that the U.S. Constitution requires. As a true American, do you support and agree with the Constitution?
All Mark said was that he found it revolting. He didn’t say it was against the Constitution. Are you against people having an opinion?
I agree it is revolting and wish the Constitution were not written in such a way.
While it was legal, you; like Bob English disregard the fact that the very same petulant Democrats who voted FOR the the rules change this time were VERY vehement in their opposition in 2005.
So, they were “against it before they were for it.” That smacks of a raw grab on power.
This administration has proven itself to be the definition of hypocrisy and power hungry.
So, “As an American,” do YOU support such hypocrisy?
No equivocating, no parsing now…
It’s either a yes or no answer to that question.
JCG