-
Comment -
From Wiki-
And...In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" (or "constitutional option") allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the argument that the Constitution requires that the will of the majority be effective on specific Senate duties and procedures. This option allows a simple majority to override the rules of the Senate and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes (out of 100) to end a filibuster. The new interpretation becomes effective, both for the immediate circumstance and as a precedent, if it is upheld by a majority vote.
Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the nuclear option is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion by Vice President Richard Nixon and was endorsed by the Senate in a series of votes in 1975, some of which were reconsidered shortly thereafter.[1] Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) first called the option "nuclear" in March 2003.[2][3] Proponents since have referred to it as the constitutional option.[4][5][6]
The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.
Source-Clinton appointments: 1993–2000
Main article: Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies
In 1995, Democrats held the White House. The New York Times editorialized, "The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This (is a) relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition … Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which Senators held passionate convictions, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, dooming any measure that cannot command the 60 required votes."[14] There was no attempt to rewrite Senate rules for cloture at that time.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Republicans held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in a failed March 8, 2000 filibuster. Only 14 Republicans approved it. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) was among those who voted to filibuster Paez.[15][16] Paez was ultimately confirmed with a simple majority.
In addition to filibustering nominations, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold hearings for some 60 Clinton appointees, effectively blocking their nomination from coming to a vote on the Senate floor.[17]
Last edited by Tully Mars 63; 06-23-12, 08:56 AM.Comment -
If Obama was who he said he was four years ago he would certainly deserve another term. But in hindsight, he was simply a marketing gimmick. He had no plan to be a moderate or unite us or reach out and find compromise like he promised. I wouldn't mind that he didn't cut the budget deficit by half or lower unemployment like he promised. He doesn't deserve another term because he is not a moderate or a uniter and he has no plan to fix the economy besides blame Bush. He is over matched with the job. He doesn't understand business hence he has no clue what to do to get business moving and lower unemployment.Comment -
^Like I said in another thread John,
If Obama was true to his word he would be 6 foot under along side of JFK..........Comment -
Clinton appointments: 1993–2000
Main article: Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies
In 1995, Democrats held the White House. The New York Times editorialized, "The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This (is a) relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition … Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which Senators held passionate convictions, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, dooming any measure that cannot command the 60 required votes."[14] There was no attempt to rewrite Senate rules for cloture at that time.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Republicans held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in a failed March 8, 2000 filibuster. Only 14 Republicans approved it. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) was among those who voted to filibuster Paez.[15][16] Paez was ultimately confirmed with a simple majority.
In addition to filibustering nominations, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold hearings for some 60 Clinton appointees, effectively blocking their nomination from coming to a vote on the Senate floor.[17]
In 1995, 1996, and 2000, the Republicans controlled the Senate and no filibuster would have been necessary.Comment -
Yes let's reelect him, after he says and brags about how many new medicaids and food stamp people he has added to the rolls.
REAL SMART
FOOD STAMP NATION
Comment -
I disagree with him not trying to compromise or be a moderate. I think the GOP has blocked a ton of things he's tried to do. The job situation has improve, the Dow has gain back a lot, I know my 401K is nearly back to where it was when the market nose dived at the end of Bush's last term.
The GOP currently finds itself in the same place the Dems were in 2004. Only 2004 the issue was the wars and the current issue is the economy. In 2004 the Dems needed the war to be seen as going poorly and being mismanaged, literally rooting for the US to fail. How very American. The GOP is stuck there now with the economy. Every jobs reports that comes out the GOP is hoping for poor numbers, they're hoping for higher gas prices. Issues like this, in my opinion, show neither party gives a fukk about anything other then being in power.
I haven't seen anything from Romney that makes me think he's going to do much different then what Obama's currently doing. Though honestly I can't figure out what side of many issues he's on, it seem to change.. a lot. But Romney would have more support from Congress as it's all but certain the GOP will have more seats then the Dems. But I'm not certain that's a good thing. In my lifetime every time one party has controlled things it hasn't gone well. But unless the GOP pick's off Senate seats by surprise Romney will be in almost in the same situation Obama is currently.
I look at the 2012 election as a contest to pick the best looking turd in the septic tank.Comment -
Wow
Comment -
Guy can't be better if the unpatriotic right won't let him do anything. All they care about are their selfish tax breaks. Repubilicans aren't interested in making sure all sick people are taken care of in our country. Or that kids get a decent education at an affordable price.
It's just buy futures and sell futures when their probably won't be much of a future at all.Comment -
best looking turd in the septic tank. Conveys my thoughts exactly.
Comment -
I honestly can't figure out why anyone would get behind either one of these guys. Obama's been a huge pussy at times when he had the chance to stand up and really do something. I think the health care act that was shit out of congress he should have vetoed. Much of it was written by and for the big pharma. People bitch about Bush and Cheney having Enron and big oil write energy policy in secret, the health care act isn't much different.
Romney changes his stance on just about every issue depending on who or where he's speaking. So far other then stating he's going to undo much of what Obama's done he hasn't given much if any answers on specifically what he would do. His latest answer on immigration where he waffled is a good example of his inability to say anything other then "I'd do it differently then Obama." "Different how?" "Mmm, different different." Ok, what ever that means.
Over the last few months, particularly in the past several weeks my in box has been filled with e-mails from both Romney's and Obama's teams. My spam filter has correctly identified each one and warned me with-
Ha! "Might be a scam." There's no "might" about it in my opinion and I'm certainly not sending any of my cash to either one of these guys.This message might be a scam, do you wish open it?Last edited by Tully Mars 63; 06-23-12, 10:40 PM.Comment -
Some democrat once said "It's the economy, stupid."Comment -
Obama deserves lots of things.
Being elected isn't one of those things.Comment -
Tully, there are 23 senate democrats and only 10 republicans facing re-election this time around. Its the democrats who are underdogs to hold onto senate control:But unless the GOP pick's off Senate seats by surprise Romney will be in almost in the same situation Obama is currently.
From Intrade.com:
Trade SENATE.DEM.2012 2 28.1 31.8 2 32.0 2519 0 Last edited by sbr.rodrigo; 03-10-15, 03:08 PM.Comment -
Until you're willing to step up to the plate and pay your fair share of the tax burden required to pay for all of these things you want, you have no right complaining about it.
Let me guess, we should raise taxes on the millionaires, right?
Liberals love to spend other people's money but when it comes to parting with a red cent from their own wallet, FORGET IT!!!
Instead of spending $13/shot to get hammered, why don't you send all that extra money to the IRS to pay for all of these socialistic programs you support?Comment -
Andywend you are my favorite poster! Yeah let's reelect him 4 more years because he's not done cleaning up after Bush. SmhComment -
Not gonna read this thread, but hey asshat
You want to talk 'talking points'? Obama was not just a 'community organizer'. He was a US F'N Senator. Prior, he served in the Illinois state legislature. He also was a constitutional teacher. Maybe your facts are coming from bad sources. I about figure you remove your head from your butt, un-hug your teddy bear, and actually do research before you remove all doubt you're a fool.
Also, as a non sequitur, Bush never 'actually' funded the wars - those things were 'kicked down the road'. It doesn't take an economics degree to figure out who got stuck with the bill as a POTUS - as well as the American people.
One final point. If you want to talk about the death tax, it was focused on those that died with over more money than your entire family in it's existence has earned. They called it the 'Paris Hilton' tax, as a way of slowing down legacy corruption - another topic you should look into, since you obviously didn't even learn how to think on your own in your education.
Am I voting for Obama? NOPE. Why? I know how to read - not how to be a meat puppet and pretend I know something by a communistic news intelligencia, scrub.
At least be fair and learn history and facts. Thanks.Comment -
-
Tully:
1. NO chance of the republicans having a 60 seat senate majority.
2. No republicans are in favor of war as it takes someone with a really sick mentality to want war.
To all the liberals who believe that its every American's right to have unlimited, free health care:
Its impossible to have unlimited amounts of a limited product.Comment -
History will mark Obama as the king of excuses. Reagan inherited a mess farrrrr far greater than Obama did. By re election time he was on his way to the greatest landslide victory in US history, not blaming the previous president.
Even if you lean to the left you should recognize what Obama is doing to the Democratic party. In 2008 the Democrats had the full faith of the US public, sweeping them into power in all three chambers. Less than 4 years later the public has thrown them out of the House, preparing to throw them out of the senate and made the presidential election a toss up. He is poison to the democrats.Comment -
What about the other industrialized countries that have health care for all? Oh that's right, they're broke dik fcks too.Comment -
RKelly, those other countries don't have our kind of healthcare and its certainly NOT unlimited.
Imagine having to wait 18 months for a hip replacement or orthoscopic knee surgery. In all of these socialized medicine countries, those that are connected to the right people get better medical care than those that don't.
In the U.S. the 85% of us with medical insurance receive higher quality medical care than 99% of the world population.
What it boils down to is if you favor Washington bureaucrats dictating the medical care you receive? Do you feel comfortable putting your health and your family's health in their hands?
I sure as hell do NOT.Comment -
Had this discussion with you before MrWend , you really have no clue how it works elsewhere ... certainly in the UK, UNLIMITED healthcare is available to anyone and everyone.
I have waited longer here in the US for an appointment with a specialist than I would have waited for the same appointment in the UK, treatment was as good, if not better in my opinion in the UK.
Anyone that doubts the statements should ask people who have experienced more than one type of healthcare which they prefer .. 99.95% of people who have experienced healthcare service in the UK and then in the US will pick the UK healthcare system every single time ...
Don't take MrWends biased, uneducated, uninformed comments as facts, go ask the people that have been there, visit expat forums, go to your local UK pub or retail store (most major cities have one) ... MrWend is delusional ... the UK healthcare setup is FAR superior to anything I have ever experienced here in the US... by a MASSIVE margin.Comment -
Obama is fine. He has all the traits you want in a President....(aka - someone who serves the people). He wants medicare for all rich or poor. How is that a bad thing? Those who argue against it are only either (a) selfish (b) ignorant or (c) both.
He is well spoken too and intelligent too.
The only downfall is he uses the shady game of talking like a politician to get his point across like the Republicans have always mastered and do. Once he stops doing that and starts getting real and reaching out to all American voters....and also gets the right wing to stop trying to d!ck him over just because he makes them looks useless (they really are)....then he will be fine.
But as far as policies goes he is already on the right track. It's just fighting the petty little other "children" that are too insecire to tip their cap to him (ie -right wing and big corporations).Comment
