Harry Reid's Nuclear Hypocrisy

[Keukasmallies]

Harry Reid has adapted the NASCAR approach to politics: If'n things ain't how you want 'em, make up/delete a rule to fix it.

 

Unfortunately, Harry can't see that there is a tomorrow right around the corner; OR he may have sensed the impact of the 2014 elections and decided to put as many POTUS nominees in place as possible before the "schit" storm hits.

[Nanker]

When the Republicans retake the Senate they should change the rules so the minority party doesn't get to use the Senate gym and cafeteria.

[Tiberius]

Obama said that, in the six decades before he took office in 2009, only 20 nominees to executive jobs had to overcome filibusters. Since he took office, Obama said, "nearly 30 nominees have been treated this way."

As for judicial nominees, Obama said his picks have waited "nearly two-and-a-half times longer" than those of predecessor George W. Bush.

"This isn't obstruction on substance, on qualifications," Obama said. "It's just to gum up the works."

 

The Party of No

[B-Man]

Having it both ways, pundits say historical move was justified......... but wrong..........lol

 

 

Senate Dems curb filibuster, risk future problems

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SENATE_NOMINATIONS_CLASH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-22-03-12-04

 

 

 

The Democrats’ naked power grab

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-the-democrats-naked-power-grab/2013/11/21/60ef049a-5306-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.htm

 

 

 

 

REASON TV: Daisy Ad 2013: Senate Filibuster Nuclear Option Remix.

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Adler: Senate Goes Nuclear, Expect Fallout.

 

 

 

.

[Koko78]

Harry Reid has adapted the NASCAR approach to politics: If'n things ain't how you want 'em, make up/delete a rule to fix it.

 

Unfortunately, Harry can't see that there is a tomorrow right around the corner; OR he may have sensed the impact of the 2014 elections and decided to put as many POTUS nominees in place as possible before the "schit" storm hits.

 

I think he figures he's done after this term - after he only won re-election due to is last challenger being a complete moron and assclown - and doesn't really care about the long-term damage he does for short-term political gain.

[IDBillzFan]

The Party of No

 

As in No Obamacare? Gee, welcome to 60% of America, a majority, which, according to progressives, is all you need.

[B-Man]

Reid’s Filibuster Power Play Is a Blow to American Constitutional System

by John Yoo

 

Democrats just made the next Miguel Estrada a Supreme Court justice.

 

Republicans will remember that in 2003 Democrats filibustered a Senate vote to confirm Miguel Estrada to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. Commonly known as the second most important court in the land because of its jurisdiction over the seat of the federal government, that court serves as a farm team for the Supreme Court. Estrada was superbly qualified: Columbia College, Harvard Law School, Harvard Law Review. Sound like anyone?

 

But unlike our current president, Estrada also had the very best of legal experience. He clerked for top federal judges, including Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court, held elite positions in the Justice Department (where he argued many times before the Supreme Court and lower courts), and co-headed the appellate practice of a major national law firm. In the interests of full disclosure, he also represented me in my successful battles with the Obama Justice Department, but that’s another story.

 

What could Democrats possibly have against Estrada? His problem was his skin color. Not only was he a smart conservative lawyer, but he was also Hispanic. Liberal groups urged Democratic senators to block him because he was a “Latino” who would be difficult to block for future elevation to the nation’s highest court. Democrats publicly admitted that he was “politically dangerous” because he was an “attractive candidate” without a judicial record.

 

With the support of only 44 senators, Democrats used the filibuster seven times to stop any vote on Estrada. Without that procedural device, Estrada would almost certainly have become the nation’s first Hispanic judge on the D.C. Circuit and then the Supreme Court. Yet yesterday Senate Democrats changed the rules that allowed them to hide their racial reasons for opposing Estrada. Upending a rule almost as old as the republic, Majority Leader Harry Reid led the Democratic caucus in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster rule for the confirmation of federal judges and cabinet officers.

 

There will be, and should be, accusations that Senator Reid and his fellow Democrats are hypocrites. Some of the very same Democratic senators, most notably Reid and Senator Dick Durbin, who manned the ramparts to defend the filibuster to block George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, have flipped 180 degrees without any sense of shame

 

 

 

 

Keep reading this post . . .

[Tiberius]

As in No Obamacare? Gee, welcome to 60% of America, a majority, which, according to progressives, is all you need.

 

Ummm...you do realize that the whole point of the Senate is to stop popular passion from overwhelming elected officials. Sure, unpopular now, but it won't be overturned.

[Chef Jim]

Ummm...you do realize that the whole point of the Senate is to stop popular passion from overwhelming elected officials.

 

And one fo the tools they use to do just that is........the filibuster.

[B-Man]

"The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

 

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

 

Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.

 

Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.

The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.

 

And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

 

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties."

 

 

-- Senator Harry Reid, (D - NV) May 18, 2004

[Koko78]

And one fo the tools they use to do just that is........the filibuster.

 

Wasn't he the idiot who yesterday was claiming that the filibuster was rooted in racism and slavery?

[IDBillzFan]

Sure, unpopular now, but it won't be overturned.

 

 

You keep telling yourself that, Skippy.

[DC Tom]

You keep telling yourself that, Skippy.

 

Even if it is overturned, it's not going to matter much. With the patchwork of changes, exchanges, and regulations promulgated at the state and federal level, damage has already been done, some of it irreparable.

[B-Man]

Reid Flings Open Pandora’s Box

by Senator Jeff Sessions

 

Majority Leader Reid’s decision to exercise the so-called nuclear option — using a bare majority of Senators to rewrite senate rules and eliminate the filibuster for presidential nominations — may forever change how the Senate operates, transforming George Washington’s “cooling saucer” into another majoritarian up-or-down legislative body where the party in power rubberstamps the agenda of their party’s leader in the White House.

 

Reid and his majority justify their actions by citing a series of fabricated statistics regarding the filibuster. Reid says Republicans have filibustered legislation or nominations more than 400 times......................... The truth?

 

All but two of the President’s court nominees were confirmed. The Senate has confirmed no less than 215 lower court judges.

 

And what about legislation? Reid incorrectly counts as a filibuster each time he himself has cut off debate (i.e., files cloture) after “filling the tree” and refusing to allow Republicans to exercise their right to offer amendments. These bills are not being blocked by the minority, but rammed through to passage by the majority. Simply put, Reid’s false statistics do not show how many times Republicans have filibustered, but rather his own suppression of Senators’ rights. By filling the tree, every Senator must ask his permission to have a vote on their amendment. If he refuses to allow an open process, and files cloture to cut off amendment and debate, the only recourse the minority has is to vote against ending debate. Thus, it is plain to any student of the Senate that the increase in cloture votes — what he calls a filibuster – is a direct product of his dictatorial actions.

 

We are witnessing a fundamental and potentially lasting alteration of the Senate. Each state is entitled to equal representation under the Constitution. But when Reid “fills the tree” and files cloture, he is blocking the duly-elected representatives of each state from having a say. Reid, in effect, is turning the Senate into Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives. He can introduce and pass laws without allowing any meaningful input from the minority party.

 

 

 

 

.

[boyst]

Notfernuthin', but I'm pretty sure most of America has come to realize that absolutely nothing said by Barack Obama has truth to it.

 

Dude's a straight up liar, and dismissing blatant liars is a bi-partisan concept.

Remember a time when someone was a liar was the worst thing you could call someone and the wost thing you could be? Sad, not many remember.

[DC Tom]

Remember a time when someone was a liar was the worst thing you could call someone and the wost thing you could be? Sad, not many remember.

 

Obama's not a liar. Honest He just misspoke. He wasn't clear. You inferred incorrectly. He spoke incompletely. He didn't know the truth when he said that. It was a minor overstatement! He oversimplified! It's not his fault, I swear to God!

[boyst]

Obama's not a liar. Honest He just misspoke. He wasn't clear. You inferred incorrectly. He spoke incompletely. He didn't know the truth when he said that. It was a minor overstatement! He oversimplified! It's not his fault, I swear to God!

This is one of those times where someone speaks the truth, makes a good point or is anything but off and you just want to smack that person for reminding you how bad the situation is. What politician is any better then Obama at the whole lying bull **** game? I do not know but I don't know any worse

[DC Tom]

This is one of those times where someone speaks the truth, makes a good point or is anything but off and you just want to smack that person for reminding you how bad the situation is. What politician is any better then Obama at the whole lying bull **** game? I do not know but I don't know any worse

 

Then you're really going to flip when I point out that I took every single one of those except for "You inferred incorrectly" directly from actual "explanations" of "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it."

[boyst]

Then you're really going to flip when I point out that I took every single one of those except for "You inferred incorrectly" directly from actual "explanations" of "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it."

I knew this and for pointing it out again you deserve a kick in the shin.

[B-Man]