20 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Today the Senate enacted a rule change eliminating filibusters for judicial nominees.  This is one of those seemingly minor political events that will have huge repercussions.  All of Obamas stalled nominees can go through now, putting the administration more firmly in control of federal agencies, greasing the wheels of government, and filling the numerous vacancies on the federal bench.  Majority rules, mothafuckas!

 

With this one act the balance of power in Washington has shifted, and not in a way that favors Republicans.  They have the Tea Party to thank for that. 

 

This is gonna get ugly.

[rotty]

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Heh.  Progressives are calling it a major win, and for the short term it is.  I wonder how they'll feel about it if they get a Republican majority and President Chris Christie, however.

[Manoka]

More evidence that the tea party was created by the democrats to get them elected. 

[CeltSoldierKev]

You beat me to it!  Yesterday was a madhouse at work and I didn't have time to post it.  I guess there is no such thing as minority rights in the U.S. Senate anymore.  Gone are the days of checks and balances on slim majority rule.

 

Funny how just 8 years ago then-Senator Obama blasted the mere notion of this historic rule change.

 

And, for those that what to shed a tear for the loss of an America with ideals and principles, here you go:

 

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Things have gotten worse even in those eight years.  Since Obama took office Republicans have filibustered 30 of his nominees for the federal bench, for example, more than in the previous six decades combined.  They were abusing their power for political reasons, and now it has blown up in their faces.  It was only a matter of time.  The Democrats won't like it when they're in the minority, but that's down the road.  Besides, the Republicans were planning to do this the moment they regained control anyway.

[CeltSoldierKev]

Hmmm, so you are admitting that it was Obama being in office that made things worse?  So maybe, just maybe, those nominees were so far outside of the American mainstream that it was a good thing they were filibustered?  Now, I do realize that it is the President's perogative to nominate whomever he desires for those positions.  However, it is also the Senate's DUTY to properly vet them and decide whether they are worthy or not.  The Senate is not simply (well, it kinda is now) a rubber stamp for whatever the President desires.  You realize that each Senator has his own constituents that he/ she must remain loyal to as well, correct?  If they want to hold up nominations until they hear answers from the Administration about Benghazi, then they are well within their rights to do so.  It has been there job since the founding to restrain the power of the Executive.  So no, it was not abuse of power, simply the exertion of their power.

 

Either way, it was a shady trick by Harry Reid, and we'll see what the Republicans have to say about it if they ever re-take the Senate.  And no, the Republicans were not planning on doing it.  It was mentioned as an option, but was never planned.  The reason it was never planned or executed was too many within the Republican caucus did not agree with the precedent it would have set, or the imbalance of power it created.

 

But, as we all know, The Obama has no qualms with imbalances of power.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

You realize that each Senator has his own constituents that he/ she must remain loyal to as well, correct?  If they want to hold up nominations until they hear answers from the Administration about Benghazi, then they are well within their rights to do so.

 

 

No, they're not.  The Senate's confirmation role was never intended as a political litmus test.  They're job is to determine whether someone is qualified, not to hold them up because a senator or their constituents don't like the nominee's politics.

 

Things have definitely gotten worse since Obama took office.  But that's because Republicans are more spiteful than Democrats.  They're not really conservative, they're just mean.  No less a conservative icon than Henry Fairlie once described them as the "booboisie," and described them thusly:  "Narrow minded, book banning, truth censoring, mean spirited; ungenerous, envious, intolerant, afraid; chicken, bullying; trivially moral, falsely patriotic; family cheapening, flag cheapening, God cheapening; the common man, shallow, small, sanctimonious."  That was in 1980; it's only gotten worse since then.

 

And so here we are, in the so-called "greatest democracy in the world," and our choices boil down to two, Republicans or Democrats — evil or incompetent.  Nice, huh?

[CeltSoldierKev]

Article II, Section 2: 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

That leaves it pretty vague and up to the individual Senator to determine whether such a person is qualified or not.  It is not our role to say yes or no, but our Senators.  Our power then comes at the ballot box.

 

As for who is more spiteful, I believe it was a close, personal friend of the President's who said, "Not God bless America, God damn America!"  And, Fairlie was a classical Conservative, not the same thing as a modern American Conservative... but nice try.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Call him what you will, his interpretation was spot on.  

[CeltSoldierKev]

Wait, who are you talking about?  Fairlie or the Rev. Wright?  If you want to agree with either one of them, it's your call.  However, simply because a blowhard spouts off insults on a group of people, doesn't make it true, even if you personally feel the same way.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I meant Fairlie.  The Rev. Wright thing is a non-issue to me, because I understand that sometimes people use hyperbole as a rhetorical device.  Besides, if we're going to start holding politicians accountable for what their friends and associates say, no one is going to be safe.

[CeltSoldierKev]

Fair enough.  I just hope eveyone will remember that the next time a devoutly Evangelical Christian candidate from somewhere in the Bible Belt says something that he and his constituents truly believe.  Hopefully there will be no posts about how "all Republicans are crazy Bible-banging zealots" or something.

[the rebel]

...and they say the British like to moan over trivial stuff

[Redezra]

Wait, I thought republicans being bible-banging zealots was a given xP

[Shokkou]

I thought our options were evil and evil, just by two different names. Which is why I make it a point not to vote for either of them.

[PrinceVegeta]

I thought our options were evil and evil, just by two different names. Which is why I make it a point not to vote for either of them.

 

If anything, do a write in for Jorost, hear he's got some "plans". 

 

Other than that, I'm all for not voting for either side because they're both fucking the world over.

 

Or hey write me in. Think about it...Think of the possibilities with a Saiyan of my caliber leading the US. You'd actually become the greatest country on Earth, and all would flock to merge within us, and then, my dreams of leading the Imperium of Man to glory would become a reality. 

 

Huge space ships, Invincible soldiers, the average life span of a human being ranging into the hundreds or thousands of years, no more disease, no more crime, and last but not least...the bitches. 

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The fact that all we can do is choose between the lesser of two evils sucks, but it's what we've got.  By not voting at all, the asshole you hate more might benefit.  And make no mistake, there will be one who is worse than the other, no mater your politics.  Odds are that one or the other will agree with you on at least some things that are important to you.

[Shokkou]

The fact that all we can do is choose between the lesser of two evils sucks, but it's what we've got.  By not voting at all, the asshole you hate more might benefit.  And make no mistake, there will be one who is worse than the other, no mater your politics.  Odds are that one or the other will agree with you on at least some things that are important to you.

 

There are people you can vote for other than Republicans and Democrats you know. I make the effort to vote for a third party candidate. Are they likely to win? No. Am I making a statement? Yes. Is it a loud statement? Not on it's own, but if enough people get fed up and take their votes elsewhere then things happen. If everyone buys into the "oh voting third party is a waste of your vote" bullshit, then of course it's going to seem that way. If everyone sits around and waits for other people to do it, it'll never get done. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. I am stopping now before I go into full on angry rant mode.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Sometimes voting for a third party candidate helps the guy you hate most.