Patterico's Pontifications

11/21/2013

Reid to Go Nuclear

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:41 am



Harry Reid is once again talking about going nuclear:

For at least the third time this year, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid is threatening the “nuclear option” to filibuster reform after he extracted minor victories in January and July employing the same tactic.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told TIME that he has been in discussions with the Democratic leadership, a role revisited multiple times from at least 2005 through this year. Reid rejected an offer by McCain Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussions, since the proposal did not allow the Senate to move forward to allow a vote on all three of President Obama’s nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Over the past three weeks, Republicans have filibustered the nominations.

MEMO
TO: HARRY REID
FROM: PATTERICO
RE: YOUR NEED TO TREAD CAREFULLY

Mr. Reid:

Y’all filibustered Miguel Estrada. I for one will never forgive you for it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I argued against the filibuster when we were in the majority. Those (like me) who argued against the filibuster of judicial nominees lost. Now you have to live with the consequences of what you did.

Take away this tool from us, and we will take it away from you. There will be no more playing by different rules when we are in the majority again. This is your final warning. That is all.

176 Responses to “Reid to Go Nuclear”

  1. There will be no more playing by different rules when we are in the majority again. This is your final warning. That is all.

    lol — like the GOP has the ruthlessness, and non-Bambiesque stupidity — to do this.

    Would be nice, but ….

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  2. OK, I think the second part of that didn’t make a lot of grammatical sense, but you get the point. The left is utterly ruthless. The right’s powers that be are not.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  3. This is the thing, Reid, obama, Biden, were all promoted because they were as obstinate as a large mule,

    narciso (3fec35)

  4. he can’t suck enough
    an incompetent arrogance
    permeates the scene

    Colonel Haiku (399c43)

  5. I’m ready for a revamped American Gothic painting with Reid and Elizabeth “0/32 Cherokee” Warren as the dour old farm couple.

    Colonel Haiku (eb4f5f)

  6. Reid has been obama’s Mengele. Our children need help.

    mg (31009b)

  7. The Gang of 14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14#Members McCain and Graham still there and as trustworthy as black widow spiders under the outhouse seat. Don’t ask them what their double-cross got them — they’ll tell you “What we wanted”.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. The other nuclear option: Yucca Mountain. Payback will be a bit*h.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  9. Remember back when the R’s had a one vote majority and they split committee assignments equality, for comity’s sake? Never ever again. Reid will go down in history as the worst ever majority leader of the worst ever Senate.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  10. nk, Reid is doing this because the Gang of 14 told him to eff off.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  11. Kevin, I’d never say that McCain doesn’t have balls. He’s got them and to spare. But he uses them for his own agenda. Ok, we’ll see.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. nk, from what I glean, McCain was willing to go with one of the 3, but not all 3. But now it’s an impasse. Let’s see who blinks.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  13. Anyone confirmed by the this process is illegitimate and should be subjected to a pro forma impeachment, if and when.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  14. Reid wants to go nuclear, he should head home to Nevada, drive on out to Yucca Flats, insert three sticks of dynamite up his demented ass, light the fuse and do the world a favor.

    Colonel Haiku (1d6084)

  15. When it comes to spite and vindictiveness, McCain makes Obama look like Little Orphan Annie. McCain invested a lot in military intervention in Syria, and he cannot be happy with Obama for the way Obama let Putin take over.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. The first judges confirms with less than 60 votes should be immediately impeached with a charge of illegitimacy and with a proviso that they never again serve in any position of trust.

    Yes, the Senate will acquit, but the point needs to be made and other appointees need to be put on notices that if the Republicans get back in control the deal made back in the Jefferson administration not to impeach judges for political reasons will be over.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  17. *confirmeD … notices

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  18. MEMO
    TO: PATTERICO
    FROM: MAJORITY LEADER
    RE: NEED TO TREAD CAREFULLY

    Am proceeding to tread carefully all over your face. Thx. HR

    Harry Reid (425f40)

  19. That is all.

    OOOOOooooo…..

    shimmy-shimmy coco-puff.

    Them’s serious words, Pilgrim.

    gilgamesh (1fbd99)

  20. Harry Reid just might have lighted the fuse that Teh Won has been stringing out, that will set off the next Civil War in America.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  21. I think that was a Captain Tupolev move, my self,

    narciso (3fec35)

  22. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/21/2013 @ 10:06 am

    When you start breaking deals, and the “Gang of 14″ did put in place a “Gentlemen’s Agreement” on this, no previous deal is safe.
    Every judge who is confirmed using this new procedure should be impeached by the House after the GOP takes control of the Senate next year – and they should be put on notice during their confirmation hearings that it will happen unless they withdraw.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  23. Reid don’t tread, he be mincin’…

    Colonel Haiku (86ce72)

  24. The House should impeach Ms Millett before the end of the day.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  25. Perhaps also the next Senate should pass a rule that 51 votes to convict on an impeachment will be “deemed” to amount to a 2/3rds majority.

    Alternatively, anyone who loses in one of the illegal courts should sue, asserting that the judge was never confirmed.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  26. The first judges confirms with less than 60 votes should be immediately impeached with a charge of illegitimacy and with a proviso that they never again serve in any position of trust.

    They left off SC judges. Everyone else gets confirmed with a majority vote. They’re too scared of a pro-life court to risk it.

    So, why doesn’t the GOP do likewise when they retake the senate, and push through pro-life judges?

    Wait. I covered why not in the first comment on this thread here.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  27. Not O/T.

    This is precisely why the GOP is not obligated to fix Obamacare. Reid changed the rules then so that Obama could get everything he wanted on a simple majority vote.

    Fine. They want the dictatorship of a one party state, they can live with the results of the dictatorship of a one party state.

    The GOP congresscritters need to go out and get in front of every TV mike they can find and tell them that their refusal to fix Obamacare is not partisanship. It is the opposite. It is because Reid’s move shows that the Democrats intend to produce more partisan Democrat disasters.

    Remember, the GOP didn’t shut down the government. Reid and Obama did because they would not negotiate. They shut down the government because the House GOP funded everything but Obamacare, and their final negotiating position was a one year delay of either the law or the individual mandate. Something that has bipartisan support now that the Democrats have gotten the dogmess scared out of them by the monster they created.

    When Obama said he would not negotiate with a gun to his head, what he meant is he would not acknowledge the legitimacy of our system of three separate co-equal branches of government.

    Mark Steyn reminds us that the liberals long to be “China for a day.” I recall DiFi wistfully saying during a hearing on CAFE regulations that she wishes we could be more like China so she could just tell the automakers to do as they were told. Mirroring her wish that she could just tell mom and pop America to turn all their guns in.

    Aside: it’s funny how the the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land, and indeed ruled by the SCOTUS to be an individual right, yet they still try to repeal it.

    What produces these messes is that the masters of the world in DC think they know so much better then everyone else. Self-government is too messy; what we need is a bunch of enlightened, brilliant whiz kids ruling by decree and everyone else to get out of the way. So, no, the central planners in DC shoved Obamacare down America’s throat against its will, without a single GOP vote. And now the central planners want to be able to shove more crap down America’s throat. No, the GOP will not fix their messes.

    When the Democrats try to blame the GOP for hurting people by not fixing their messes, the GOP needs to point out they tried to stop the Dems from hurting people in the first place.

    Blaming the GOP for any of this is like blaming the people who refused to buy tickets because they saw the ship didn’t have enough lifeboats for the sinking of the Titanic.

    Steve57 (338553)

  28. I heard a clip of some news show (CNN?) where the questioner was going after Cruz for not doing more to fix ObamaCare…
    seriously.

    We need to promote a “Sanity Check Clearinghouse”, that when people realize something sounds crazy, but is supposedly true, they know where to go.
    A real one, not a pseudo-fact-checker site that is just less overtly biased than the norm.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  29. Lol, like Republicans need an excuse to pervert the rules of governing to serve their narrow minority agenda.

    Your post reveals a thought pattern strikingly similar to terrorists.

    Caligularity (bdffdf)

  30. Yes it was Cuomo the younger, lord love a waterfowl.

    narciso (3fec35)

  31. The response on Obamacare ought to be: you broke it, you fix it.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  32. RE: NEED TO TREAD CAREFULLY

    Be careful. The Ben Howe’s of the world interpret “tread carefully” as a threat and will threaten legal action in the form of lawsuits and other harassment. I’m sure Harry Reid is of the same character.

    But really – and I may be completely wrong – Reid isn’t this stupid, is he? Reid knows he is likely to lose the Senate next year. He has to know to this. Maybe he is banking on Republicans playing nice as usual, but I don’t know. I see this as a threat to get concessions from McCain.

    Or, it may be a squirrel. Oprah claimed Obama’s critics were racist a few days before receiving the freedom medal. Further down in the Time article Patterico linked is Randel claiming Republicans are racist and that is why they are blocking appointments of black judges. I smell a narrative to distract from Obamacare.

    ratbeach (477e41)

  33. oh, a new troll, just like the old troll.

    “lol” is a clue.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  34. And he/she comes tagged with a name reminiscent of one of the “bright” points of Roman history.

    JD, is there an alias ID known?

    I would like a job posting comments of reason on Leftist sites. Although, it actually might get discouraging pretty quickly.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  35. 30. Lol, like Republicans need an excuse to pervert the rules of governing to serve their narrow minority agenda.

    Your post reveals a thought pattern strikingly similar to terrorists.

    Comment by Caligularity (bdffdf) — 11/21/2013 @ 11:17 am

    It’s telling that someone who bases chooses a Roman emperor for his name accuses the GOP of perverting the rules of governing.

    Steve57 (338553)

  36. Caligularity, your comment reveals the vacuous nature of your thought.

    For the last five years, Democrats have demonstrated a thorough contempt for rules, constitutional principles and even the laws they themselves passed.

    SPQR (354ab5)

  37. Well they put up a horse as secretary of state, so who’s doing what now.

    narciso (3fec35)

  38. SPQR;

    Of course you have no idea what your talking about, just like the rest of you whiny little titty babies.

    Majority rules beeatches.

    Caligularity (457168)

  39. I was wrong. Not even a troll, but a simple namecaller. Why is he here?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  40. And it’s “you’re” not “your”

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  41. The liberals have been declaring the Constitution a dead letter for years.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/ezra-klein-constitution-old-and-confusing

    Ezra Klein: Constitution old and confusing

    December 30, 2010

    While appearing on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown on Thursday, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein mocked Republicans for wanting to start the 112th Congress with a reading of the Constitution.

    Klein told Norah O’Donnell, “The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.”

    So, in Klein’s view, the Constitution is old and therefore confusing and apparently should be ignored, or translated in a way that supports liberal policy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted%253Dall&_r=0

    Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

    By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN
    Published: December 30, 2012

    AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

    And along comes a Roman dictator/noted pervert to accuse the GOP of perverting the rules of government.

    Not nearly as badly, little boots, as Obama did, say, when he made his recess appointments when Congress wasn’t in recess. He’s lost every case because he perverted the rules of governance so badly.

    Or as perverted as badly as Obama, who had Holder ask a court in San Antonio to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on the VRA and keep Texas in preclearance anyway. Or when he had Holder send out letters to universities telling them to ignore the SCOTUS ruling in Fisher v. Texas and continue using race as the dominant factor in their admissions policies.

    And then there’s Obamacare. Which is the law of the land. Except when Obama wants to issue administrative rules contrary to the letter of that law for partisan political purposes.

    But thanks for showing up, little boots, and demonstrating that when you scratch a liberal an authoritarian bleeds.

    Steve57 (338553)

  42. You see, in Patsy Pattericos world, filibustering one Repug appointed judge justifies filibustering dozens of Dem appointed ones.

    That’s some Al Qaeda math for “y’all”.

    Caligularity (d906e4)

  43. 39. Majority rules beeatches.

    Comment by Caligularity (457168) — 11/21/2013 @ 11:39 am

    Funny, we have a Constitution that says otherwise.

    But then you hate the Constitution. Like every liberal, you progect. As you pervert the rules of governance you accuse the people who aren’t of doing the same.

    But as I said, you want the dictatorship of the one party state, you live with the catastrophes of the one party state.

    The majority wanted ObamaCrash, then you can now live with ObamaCrash. Don’t come to the GOP and whine that they now need to fix your TitaniCare.

    Steve57 (338553)

  44. He does ‘remove all doubt’ when they show up,

    narciso (3fec35)

  45. 43. You see, in Patsy Pattericos world, filibustering one Repug appointed judge justifies filibustering dozens of Dem appointed ones.

    That’s some Al Qaeda math for “y’all”.

    Comment by Caligularity (d906e4) — 11/21/2013 @ 11:46 am

    Fuggin’ idjit little boots thinks if Patterico cites one example of a judicial nominee the Dems filibustered, that’s the only judicial nominee the Dems filibustered when they adopted their scorched earth policy under Bush.

    Steve57 (338553)

  46. Kevin M has apparently never heard of autocorrect or suffered the consequences of a poorly designed web site that doesn’t allow preview.

    And if name calling were to disappear so would this site and you all swirling down the toilet with it.

    Caligularity (2d46f7)

  47. This “new” troll appears to be of sub-normal intelligence… the lowest common denominator effect strikes again.

    Colonel Haiku (101cd9)

  48. 44

    Not funny since not true.

    Republicans hate democracy and therefore America as well.

    You think the constitution belongs to you alone, laughably.

    Caligularity (2d46f7)

  49. 45. He does ‘remove all doubt’ when they show up,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 11/21/2013 @ 11:48 am

    Yeah, that’s why I don’t mind when they show up.

    To paraphrase Albert Camus, all evil comes from ignorance. Which is why good intentions can do as much damage as malevolence. Ignorance therefore is a vice. And since Ignorance is a matter of degree, the greatest vice is the kind of ignorance that thinks it knows everything.

    Lil’ boots demonstrates that vice. He knows nothing, but thinks he’s smarter than everyone else.

    Steve57 (338553)

  50. They filibustered one of the most accomplished figure in Miguel Estrada, so they could put in a cipher like Sotomayor, who did her job like a good apparatchik.

    narciso (3fec35)

  51. Flush teh Turd!

    Colonel Haiku (101cd9)

  52. Lil’ boots continues to remove all doubt.

    Steve57 (338553)

  53. Anyway who the frig elected Patsy to congress? Who are the WE it is referring to in its petulant little (and of course completely empty) threat??!!

    You all???? Bwahahaha!

    Caligularity (a5e793)

  54. Well deriving insight from the comedy stylings of Klein, Yglesias, Sargent, genius.

    narciso (3fec35)

  55. So well phrased narcissist. You be very smart peoples.

    Caligularity (a5e793)

  56. 56 referring to 51 of course. 55 is just, well, dumb.

    Caligularity (a5e793)

  57. The Dems are quaking in their Buster Browns… they’ve seen the polling data, both external and internal. They feel they must change subject… race card pulled, the weak, mincing sucks.

    Colonel Haiku (ee5253)

  58. 55 is the number of Democrats, there the troll is right, they are dumb.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  59. 48

    Like all truly ignorant people, you seem to define intelligence as “agreeing with my (highly subjective and warped) point of view.”

    Liberals are dumb, you see, because we can’t see how evil Obama is and do not therefore also hate him. Or take the religious ideologies of morons like Paul Ryan as fact.

    Man oh man, what a sad and pathetic bunch. You don’t deserve democracy.

    Caligularity (843ad8)

  60. Seeya later suckas. Or at least I hope not.

    Caligularity (843ad8)

  61. Sheesh, what a lame ass troll.

    Democrats filibustered more than on Republican appointee, silly twit.

    Paul Ryan is a religious ideologue? More vapid nonsense.

    SPQR (354ab5)

  62. “You don’t deserve democracy.”

    The real Obama philosophy.

    SPQR (354ab5)

  63. 44

    Not funny since not true.

    You know what’s not true? This, lil’ boots:

    43. You see, in Patsy Pattericos world, filibustering one Repug appointed judge justifies filibustering dozens of Dem appointed ones.

    That’s some Al Qaeda math for “y’all”.

    Comment by Caligularity (d906e4) — 11/21/2013 @ 11:46 am

    Here’s a wikipedia article to get you started.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies#List_of_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees

    It’s a looong list of filibustered nominees stretching from the 107th Congress through the 110th Congress. Dozens? More like over a hundred.

    But you think there was just one, lil’ boots.

    Steve57 (338553)

  64. 63. Seeya later suckas. Or at least I hope not.

    Comment by Caligularity (843ad8) — 11/21/2013 @ 12:09 pm

    Typical. He can spout meaningless venom like “Republicans hate Democracy and therefore America,” an unsupportable and unfalsifiable matter of liberal faith.

    But when confronted with the fact of his demonstrable falsehoods he runs for the tall grass.

    Steve57 (338553)

  65. Obama and the so-called “Democrat leadership” show their contempt for their mouth-breathing low/no info supporters AND the sentient half of the country through the constant barrage of blatant lies they tell.

    Colonel Haiku (59727e)

  66. If only President Obama paid any attention to Senator Obama …

    Obama Says “Nuclear Option Not What Founders Had In Mind, Will Poison Washington”…

    SPQR (354ab5)

  67. 47- Strange, preview works for me….but then, I’m not a 7th-grader.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  68. Statement from retiring Democratic Sen. Levin against the nuclear option: “Today, we once again are moving down a destructive path.”

    SPQR (354ab5)

  69. Well he didn’t mean it then, just as with the debt ceiling,

    narciso (3fec35)

  70. Lil’ boots demonstrates that vice. He knows nothing, but thinks he’s smarter than everyone else.
    Comment by Steve57 (338553) — 11/21/2013 @ 11:54 am

    Could it be that our troll uses a Blackberry?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  71. Comment by SPQR (354ab5) — 11/21/2013 @ 12:17 pm

    But, did he vote Yeah, or Nay?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  72. To answer my own question, this from the WaPo:

    Three Democrats — Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) — joined 45 Republicans in opposing the measure.

    OMG, Live Preview worked! How did that happen?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  73. It is going to be a giggle when Republicans take back the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016.

    SPQR (354ab5)

  74. Welcome to the new age.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  75. Oh no, did I miss the opportunity to banter with our new witless troll? Wonder if he’ll come back.

    JVW (709bc7)

  76. Mr. Obama has provided this wonderful new health law that is improving everyone’s lives, and all that you conservatives do is complain about it !
    Or something.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  77. Filibusters of executive nominees:

    Bush I, II….7
    Clinton, Obama…25

    And Obama still has 3 years in office (LOL!).

    Truth hurts beeatches.

    Caligularity (612b4f)

  78. Still making up stuff, that’s the dishonest lame trolls we get.

    SPQR (354ab5)

  79. 67

    Yeah, clearly that is the only explanation for why someone might decide to leave the ODS and idiocy to all you inmates and depart a thread on this Patterthetic site.

    See 61, and enjoy breathing in your own stench. For my part I prefer the oxygen of the real world.

    Caligularity (18f161)

  80. SPQR thinks facts that puncture it’s fragile warped world view MUST be made up.

    It’s a given.

    See 61.

    Caligularity (18f161)

  81. Emperor Caligula made his horse a god….
    and all we get is the horse’s a$$!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  82. For my part I prefer the oxygen of the real world.

    And yet, here you are.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  83. Caligularity, your troll act was original … in the great AOL invasion of USENET in 1993 … the “Eternal September”.

    SPQR (354ab5)

  84. Well that’s the whole tragedy first, then comedy bit, from the 14th Brumaire.

    narciso (3fec35)

  85. 87

    At no small cost to my health or sanity to be sure.

    Caligularity (18f161)

  86. One would think team republican will sit down and come together over this abortion.
    No more in house name calling.
    Show the American people your plan, and explain in simple terms why it is better.
    Be on the same gosh darn page when interviewed by the press minions.

    mg (31009b)

  87. Going up for air, enjoy your stench down here fools.

    Caligularity (18f161)

  88. And again, not a single item of discussion from the troll, just saying this or that is “dumb” and word he projects well.

    Why is he here?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  89. Is Caligularity a new laxitive product excluisvely for Californians? Nobody tells me anything.

    elissa (c37a48)

  90. There are quite a few vulnerable Democrat Senate seats up for election in 2014. I know that we have a good chance with Mark Udall in Colorado as his cheerleading for incompetent Obama policies has dragged down his polling to where he’s below 50% against any GOP opponent.

    The Senate will be ours in less than a year.

    SPQR (354ab5)

  91. He’s like a fly:
    All he does is eat, $hit, and bother people.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  92. Return of teh Turd!

    Colonel Haiku (42710d)

  93. Caligularity is a floater!

    Colonel Haiku (eb4f5f)

  94. Float, float on…
    float on and on

    Colonel Haiku (eb4f5f)

  95. I’m going out on a limb by guessing that the troll is likely a sycophant of the Brett Kimberlin Sicko Axis of Evil.

    The troll has disappeared momentarily because his Aunt Martha called down to him in the basement to let him know that his grilled cheese sandwich and Mountain Dew are awaiting him in the kitchen.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  96. Actually, he only posts during recess.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  97. ES, good chance you are right.

    SPQR (354ab5)

  98. SPQR,

    So far: West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota, Alaska, North Carolina, Lousiana & Arkansas are tossup or better. Running those would give 52-48 R and not a single judge or other nominee would be confirmed. Not one. Michigan and Iowa are within reach and there is hope for Colorado, and New Hampshire if Brown runs.

    Then again, 2012 should have been better.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  99. Carpetbagging NH is not a very smart move.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  100. askeptic–

    Why, besides the fact that Brown’s a centrist? Coming from California, all those little NE states look like counties to me. People must cross state borders all the time.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  101. Scott Brown has owned a vacation home in NH for a number of years.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  102. Well the influx from Massachussetts was weakened it’s ‘live free or die’ spirit.

    narciso (3fec35)

  103. 96. He’s like a fly:
    All he does is eat, $hit, and bother people.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/21/2013 @ 1:12 pm

    Punctuation, dude, punctuation.

    Those two commas do not belong in that sentence.

    Steve57 (338553)

  104. Caligularity is like his namesake. When Harry Reid sits down behind his desk in the Senate, lil’ boots has favorite horse’s ass filling that seat.

    Steve57 (338553)

  105. 108- Ha!
    Next time, in this context, I’ll put it in quotes.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  106. ageing pederast
    Harry Reid loves young boys teh
    lying hypocrite

    Colonel Haiku (2bcc2f)

  107. Not only is Hairy Reed going nuclear, but so, too, will Iran.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  108. If you like Obama’s promises, he won’t keep them.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  109. Watch what judges get put up now for every conceivable position. All the crazy-left law professors possible and there are lots to choose from.

    Revoking the nuclear option is going to come up during the debt-limit talks, I’m thinking, along with changing the Senate rules to prevent back-door rule changes.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  110. Irregularity was a lying MFer, spouting weak-suck Dim talking points. Nearly 1600 Obama nominations have been approved, less than 20 have been rejected

    Colonel Haiku (89b580)

  111. You were expecting truth from a Leftist?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  112. Judge Michelle Obama, 9TH District Court of Appeals.”

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  113. Judge Bill Ayers, just a guy in the neighborhood 6TH District Court of Appeals.”

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  114. Not surprisingly, the MSM is already trying to paint the Republicans into a corner by asking if they will “repeal” Uncle Harry’s Nuclealixir should the GOP regain the upper hand in the Senate.

    Whitey Nisson (aa99c0)

  115. No, askeptic, just going on the record to show what a dishonest POS this particular floating troll was.

    Colonel Haiku (fcc20b)

  116. 51 votes to impeachment/2017

    mg (31009b)

  117. This is a special squirrel designed to divert peoples’ attention from Obamacare. The R Senate Leadership needs to answer every question the media asks about today’s vote with a delicious quote about Obamacare.

    elissa (c37a48)

  118. Sharia law with the upcoming appointees.
    Lock and Load Americans

    mg (31009b)

  119. Not surprisingly, the MSM is already trying to paint the Republicans into a corner by asking if they will “repeal” Uncle Harry’s Nuclealixir should the GOP regain the upper hand in the Senate.
    Comment by Whitey Nisson (aa99c0) — 11/21/2013 @ 4:03 pm

    The answer is, “The Democrats Dingy Harry make a mess and we’re supposed to clean it?”

    nk (dbc370)

  120. the Brennan center has been pushing this move, what they dubbed ‘the constitutional option’ for some time now,

    narciso (3fec35)

  121. If I am POTUS and R next time, I go all in and literally vote to destroy every Liberal Institutions living off Govt money.

    Destroy Unions
    Ban Union money from elections
    Ban Unions in Fed Gov.t
    Shut down EPA, DOE, DOE, Commerce, etc….
    Ban Welfare for those except elderly and handicap

    It would take Liberals 50 year to rebuild if you scatter the parasites and force them to get real jobs. And they will never hold on to power.

    Takes longer to rebuild than tear down.

    Republicans have been given the Golden Goose by the D Party.

    Rodney King's Spirit (5c6cbf)

  122. Good-bye Roe vs Wade.

    mg (31009b)

  123. Video is there for Biden, Obama and Reid saying no to what they just did.

    Impressive level of dishonesty.

    But, I am telling you, this is a golden goose for Republicans.

    Democrats making Govt big takes years.

    Tearing it all down takes a year.

    Great news if Republicans can win and simply go 51/50 and dismantle the welfare state.

    The parasites will scatter and it will take Liberals another 100 years to put humpty back to together again.

    Rodney King's Spirit (5c6cbf)

  124. This is good news guys so long as the Cocktail Republicans know how to use power.

    Rodney King's Spirit (5c6cbf)

  125. Can you imagine the gnashing of teeth, when even the first thing passes, they will go all Annapolis.

    narciso (3fec35)

  126. 51/50.

    SNAP goes poooof.

    EPA goes poooof.

    .
    .
    .
    .

    If you know how to use power, this is great.

    In 1 year we can destroy 100 years of Woodrow Wilsonism.

    Rodney King's Spirit (5c6cbf)

  127. Veto.

    nk (dbc370)

  128. Takes longer to build the welfare aparatus then it does to destroy.

    The minute the checks stop …. it scatters.

    Rodney King's Spirit (5c6cbf)

  129. #133 I am assuming POTUS is (R) along with Congress.

    Rodney King's Spirit (5c6cbf)

  130. Only nuclear apocalypse will end SNAP.

    nk (dbc370)

  131. Uh oh does this mean the GOP is going to bring back Harriet Miers?

    danny (c770a7)

  132. So cool. Post vote Democrat press conference poster fail– glaring spelling errors.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/democrats-boast-filibuster-reform-typo-filled-poster-article-1.1524898

    Calling Arne Duncan!!

    elissa (c37a48)

  133. I think they probably also meant to say “In the history of this nation”, and transposed it. LOL.

    elissa (c37a48)

  134. It is interesting that the Democrats limited it to executive branch appointments (which sometimes are for fixed terms) and federal judges EXCEPT for Supreme Court nominees (and maybe a replacement Vice President.)

    Sammy Finkelman (fe8737)

  135. Comment by mg (31009b) — 11/21/2013 @ 4:09 pm

    51 votes to impeachment/2017

    That can’t be done.

    There are few things where a higher than 50% majority vote is written into the constitution, and there it is 2/3. (66.66 or 67/100 or 66/99)

    They are:

    1) To send an amendment to the Constitution to the states, where a majority of 3/4 of the legislatures must ratify – but state recissions of ratiofication are probably not possible. Most recent amendements have a 7-year ratification limit written into the text

    A 2/3 majority in the House is also required to send it to the stgates, and specially elected conventions can be used instead of the state legislatures. This happened with the 21st amendment.

    2) To remove a president, or a federal judge, or a Vice President from office – and even officers who serve at the pleasure of the president, like a Secretary of State, although that’s never been done.

    Only a majority in the House is required to impeach – the technical term for sending it to the Senate for trial.

    3) To ratify a treaty (the House of Representatives has no role at all in this.)

    Sammy Finkelman (fe8737)

  136. Also a two thirds majority of both houses of Congress is required to override a presidential veto.

    129. Comment by Rodney King’s Spirit (5c6cbf) — 11/21/2013 @ 4:29 pm

    Great news if Republicans can win and simply go 51/50 and dismantle the welfare state.

    They didn’t apply this to legislation, and most Senators wouldn’t want to make it so easy to change laws – it reduces their individual power.

    But of course now that a precedent has been set, and the rule has been changed by majority vote, it can be again.

    If the Republicans try anything drastic the public doesn’t want, they’ll be gone in 2 years.

    Sammy Finkelman (fe8737)

  137. 140-It would never happen, but thanks, for the correction, Sammy.

    mg (31009b)

  138. Where would we be without Sammy to correct hyperbole.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  139. Sammy… at teh end of the day, have you no shame, sir?

    Colonel Haiku (795383)

  140. There is more video showing Democrat dishonesty and disingenuousness than all of the Budweiser, E-Trade, and GEICO Super Bowl commercials combined.

    Just a whole bunch of split screen shots of then and now, then and now, then and now, with many ObamaCare in the mix.

    It would be great for Ted Cruz, especially; then and now, the same; warning about ObamaCare and trying to prevent the tragedy before, still wanting to end the tragedy now.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  141. Sammy, after today’s vote, which used a process never, ever used before and somewhat suspect, why do you think those old white-slaveholder rules apply anymore?

    If they can change a rule, which requires a 2/3rds vote under the Senate Rules by means of appealing a ruling, why can’t they pass a rule by the same method that “deems” a majority vote for conviction to be the required 2/3rds? Courts are usually loath to reach into congressional procedure (and I suspect they won’t in the ratification cases to come), so what makes you think they’ll do it here?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  142. Gingrich’s plan for unmaking federal circuits in order to unmake judges is looking better all the time.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  143. #141 In two years in office, if I was President the entire Democrat Party would be scattered in the ashes.

    The entire infrastructure they use to fund their crazy crap would disappear. 51/50, I would do anything I want and destroy the very institutions they use to fund their crazy.

    Education is gone. Outsoruced to all 50 states. Good luck getting it back.

    Taxes? All consumption and the IRS would disappear. Good luck building that up again.

    EPA? Bye bye.

    PBS? Bye bye.

    …… Liberals have unleashed a monster.

    You don’t need the Constitution altered to destroy the very institutions Liberals have been building over the last 100 years.

    And lest you think the American People would rebel on this, you pass a 4 weeks before the election two time tax refund, $500 for every flier before and $500 afterwards.

    LOL, Liberals don’t get it. They need these rules to hold on to their gains. Easier to tear done than build up.

    Rodney King's Spirit (5c6cbf)

  144. … $1,000 tax refund paid $500 4 weeks before and $500 4 weeks after …

    Rodney King's Spirit (5c6cbf)

  145. Wow. I was grossly mistaken. Reid really is this stupid. I hope the Republicans do not back down when they get the Senate back and shove this in the Dems’ faces.

    ratbeach (477e41)

  146. Perhaps also the next Senate should pass a rule that 51 votes to convict on an impeachment will be “deemed” to amount to a 2/3rds majority.

    What does that mean? The constitution requires a 2/3 majority; how can you convict with less?

    Alternatively, anyone who loses in one of the illegal courts should sue, asserting that the judge was never confirmed.

    In what way will their confirmation have been deficient? They will have had a majority of the senate confirm them; that’s all the constitution requires.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  147. You see, in Patsy Pattericos world, filibustering one Repug appointed judge justifies filibustering dozens of Dem appointed ones.

    Not that that’s what happened, but supposing it were what happened then yes, it does. Either filibustering judges was right or it was wrong. Their doing it to Estrada is enough to demonstrate that they think it’s right, even if they had never done it to anyone else. And if it’s right to do it once, then how can it be wrong to do it many times?

    It’s not as if they had any actual grounds to object to Estrada. The only reason they blocked his nomination was his ethnicity. Nothing else. It was blatant and explicit; they would not allow a Hispanic Republican to sit on the DC Circuit. Any Hispanic Republican. Hell, if Bush had nominated Sonia Sotomayor they’d have blocked her. So yes, that itself, without anything else, would be enough to justify blocking every single 0bama nominee without any grounds.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  148. Is it sinking in yet? Each day, every day, the LIBTARDS go a step further beyond. They do not intend to relinquish power AT ALL. If they lose elections, courts will run the country. This is what Communists do.

    Gus (70b624)

  149. They will have had a majority of the senate confirm them; that’s all the constitution requires.

    The Constitution is mute on how the Senate complies with the requirement “with the advice and consent”.
    The Senate, being responsible for its own rules, can pass a rule defining anything as “consent”.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  150. I checked and found that caligularity is a previously banned troll and serial liar using the names: True American, Dry Powder, Powder Dry, elephantiasis, and Rational Republican (probably others as well, it was a quick scan as I am currently in the hospital.)

    Stashiu3 (e784b3)

  151. If they lose elections, courts will run the country.

    Actually, the plan is to make us like Europe, where the legislatures only hold petty powers and all real power is in interlocking cross-appointed commissions. Obama has done that already with the Medicare cost-setting panel and the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, both with immense power and both highly insulated from Congress.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  152. Is Caligularity a new laxitive product excluisvely for Californians? Nobody tells me anything.

    Comment by elissa (c37a48) — 11/21/2013 @ 1:11 pm

    No elissa! The product of a laxative he is!

    Yoda (c1890a)

  153. The Senate, being responsible for its own rules, can pass a rule defining anything as “consent”.

    Yes, the only real question today is whether what the Senate Leader asserts to have done is a valid rule change, and if not, whether the courts will get involved.

    I’m actually surprised the Republicans participated.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  154. In what way will their confirmation have been deficient? They will have had a majority of the senate confirm them; that’s all the constitution requires.

    The Constitution allows the House and Senate to set their own Rules. It is not all that much of a stretch to say that it requires them to follow these rules when producing a given outcome. The Speaker of the House cannot simply announce a bill has passed, for example, without ever bringing it to the floor — unless the rules say he can, of course.

    What Reid and the Democrats did was change the Senate rules under a procedure not available for changing rules — rule changing is spelled out as requiring 2/3rds in those same rules, and they did not get that number.

    So, any confirmation done by a process outside of the Senate rules, which have not changed, is not legitimate. You could argue this is a political problem and not justiciable, but it is not at all clear that such a nomination would be OBVIOUSLY valid.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  155. What does that mean? The constitution requires a 2/3 majority; how can you convict with less?

    As long as it is a “2/3rds majority” as defined under the Senate rules, who are you to say it is not? Nothing actually requires the rules to recognize “Nays” as valid votes.

    Sure this is an absurd position, and certainly the political repercussions would (should) be extreme, but what the Senate did by changing the rules in a way that has never ever been done, and contrary to the published method(s) is also absurd and extreme, so what’s your point?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  156. Suggestion to Republicans:

    When discussing filibusters, point out that the Democrats didn’t mind the filibuster when their own members were blocking Republican attempts to stop Klan lynchings.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  157. 155-Stashiu3, hope your better.

    mg (31009b)

  158. Where o where are the upset republicans?
    They should be lined up at the podium making the democrats the losers in this debacle.

    mg (31009b)

  159. Get well, Stashiu. And look out for the nurses! http://imgur.com/mExhyRk

    If you want to, that is.

    nk (dbc370)

  160. why can’t they pass a rule by the same method that “deems” a majority vote for conviction to be the required 2/3rds?

    Because the constitution requires 2/3, not a majority. And the Chief Justice is there to see it done. He doesn’t care what rules the Senate made. Especially this Chief Justice, who’s already ruled that Congress’s word is worth nothing, and the courts must look at what something is, not at what Congress chose to call it. If Congress can’t deem a tax to be a penalty, then it can’t deem a bare majority to be 2/3.

    Milhouse (82b1e0)

  161. The entire infrastructure they use to fund their crazy crap would disappear. 51/50, I would do anything I want and destroy the very institutions they use to fund their crazy.

    Education is gone. Outsoruced to all 50 states. Good luck getting it back.

    Taxes? All consumption and the IRS would disappear. Good luck building that up again.

    EPA? Bye bye.

    PBS? Bye bye.

    …… Liberals have unleashed a monster.

    They didn’t do that today. 0bama did that when he waived immigration enforcement, then the employer mandate, and now the individual mandate. If the president can unilaterally decide not to enforce certain laws, not because he believes them to be unconstitutional (he always had that power) but simply because he doesn’t think enforcing them is in the public interest, then the next Republican president can and should go wild. Tell the EPA to stop enforcing 99% of what it does. Tell the IRS to only enforce 80% (or whatever) of the current taxes, or not to enforce the death tax, etc.

    With less money coming in, you will find that you can’t spend all the money Congress has appropriated, so you’re forced to prioritize. Force majeure overrides Train v. City of New York. Sorry, PBS, NEA, NEH, Head Start, and all the other useless money sinks, we’d like to fund you as Congress has directed, but we just don’t have the money, and we have to direct the little we do have to things that Congress has also appropriated, and that actually do some good.

    None of this requires changing the senate rules.

    Milhouse (82b1e0)

  162. The Constitution allows the House and Senate to set their own Rules. It is not all that much of a stretch to say that it requires them to follow these rules when producing a given outcome.

    It’s not just a stretch, it’s outright absurd. It’s a fundamental principle, so deep it doesn’t need to be stated, that no congress can bind its successors. The senate can always change its rules, including the rule that a 2/3 majority is required to change the rules. Not doing so is merely a convention. The Republicans should have done it when they had the chance.

    Milhouse (82b1e0)

  163. the Senate did by changing the rules in a way that has never ever been done

    This is not true. It’s been done before, though never for something so major.

    Actually there is no rule requiring 2/3 to change the rules. US v Ballin says there can’t be such a rule; it would be automatically invalid. What the rules do say is that cloture on a motion to change the rules requires 2/3. The vote itself, once held, only requires a majority. So even if it was invalid to close off debate, what’s done is done. The vote itself was perfectly valid, and nobody can honestly say otherwise.

    Milhouse (82b1e0)

  164. The vote itself, once held, only requires a majority

    Oh. Never mind. Endless reports stated that differently.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  165. This is not true. It’s been done before, though never for something so major.

    Oh, come on. Sure, rule interpretations have been clarified where vague by failure to sustain the chair, but when you say “nothing so major” you mean “nothing substantive as a rule change“. There is a difference between changing the interpretation of some wording, and changing the bald meaning of a basic rule.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  166. So, Milhouse, how does Senate Rule XXII.2 now read? Clearly the Rule has not been amended and still says that:

    And if [cloture] shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn — except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting — then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

    The difference between the 3/5ths and 2/3rds came about when they reduced cloture to 3/5th way back when. It was a carefully crafted compromise, to prevent a further reduction the the cloture requirement by a mere 3/5ths vote on the rules vote cloture. The majority here asserted that they did not need what he rules plainly said they needed, so the Senate Rules were plainly not followed.

    The Constitution mentions that the Senate shall have rules. They probably meant for that to mean something. Can you show me a case where the Court says that Congressional rules don’t matter? The one you cited above says that rule changes cannot have supermajority votes, but anything else can, and this barrier was erected in the rules to prevent EXACTLY (and ONLY) the thing that happened.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  167. Oh, and cloture is defined in Rule XXII to mean: “to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate” [italics mine]

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  168. Comment by Milhouse (82b1e0) — 11/22/2013 @ 7:42 am

    If the president can unilaterally decide not to enforce certain laws, not because he believes them to be unconstitutional…then the next Republican president can and should go wild. Tell the EPA to stop enforcing 99% of what it does. Tell the IRS to only enforce 80% (or whatever) of the current taxes, or not to enforce the death tax, etc.

    Obama has been pretty careful to limit this (at least as far as officially stated policy is) to things that probably would get, in some cases certainly would get Congressional approval.

    This is true about all of his Obamaare changes but he didn’t want legislation in the case of Obamacare because he was afraid any bill would carry other changes he wouldn’t like.

    He’s done it with immigration laws, but only for the Dream Act, which probably could gte a Congressional majority, although some want it paired with other things, and, just now, with an exception for relatives of U.S. soldiers, and he’s done it with not enforcing marijuana laws where what’s being done is legal under state law.

    Nothing like telling the EPA to stop, or unilaterally reducing taxes, defunding PBS, NEA, NEH, Head Start. (Nixon actually tried something like that)

    Since a majority in Congres, or close to a majority, actually wants these things to happen, nobody’s likely to try to impeach Obama for it, but something like that could happen with a Republican president who tried something that had no or little support in Congress.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cd742)

  169. Well, he has (more quietly) ignored the law about a nuclear waste repository, and the Wall Street Journal in its weekend edition argues that the secret as to why Harry Reid changed the Senate rules in Yucca Mountain.

    The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has been giving him a lot of trouble on this issue, and the republicans said they flatly wouldn’t agree to the appointment of any more judges, although 3 are provided for in law. That would tilt the balance a little bit away from an even split.

    And Harry Reid needs to keep work on Yucca Mountain shut down, not for any good reason, because this has been demagogued in Nevada. He;s not particularly interedsted in trying to find any substitutes which would make trouble for some other member of Congress annd maybe come back to bite him.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cd742)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7335 secs.