Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats end Senate tradition, trigger ‘nuclear option’ to ram through Obama’s judicial nominees
Washington Times ^ | November 22, 2013 | Stephen Dinan and Jacqueline Klimas

Posted on 11/22/2013 2:40:00 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

Senate Democrats triggered the “nuclear option” Thursday, using a shortcut to undercut the chamber’s filibuster rules and giving President Obama a clear path to stack the federal judiciary with ideological allies.

In a tense 52-48 vote, Democrats overturned decades of precedent and reduced the number of votes needed to cut off the filibuster of a nominee from 60 to a simple majority — and in the process tinkering with a tool that has made the Senate unique.

Republicans were hinting at retaliation and said the move further poisoned the atmosphere on Capitol Hill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said he didn’t fear retaliation. He said he reached a tipping point after Republicans filibustered three of Mr. Obama’s nominees to serve on the federal appeals court in Washington, which is considered the second most important court in the country because it hears cases involving key federal agencies.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aca; fedcourtofappeals; federaljudges; harryreid; nuclearoption; obamacare; packingcourt
Rush Limbaugh - November 21, 2013:

RUSH: I have a brief question for Senator McCain, Senator Susan Collins, and the rest. How is that “working across the aisle” thing working out for you now with this nuclear option thing? You stuck your hand out across the aisle to shake hands with ‘em, and now you gotta somehow reach around and take a knife outta your back.

1 posted on 11/22/2013 2:40:01 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

It took lies:

“................Some see these nominees as an effort to pack the court after a series of decisions Obama did not like.

The issue was similar last July when Reid and company convinced the Republicans to capitulate on President Obama’s terrible nominees to the National Labor Relations Board. In tricking the Republicans into approving numerous nominees the Democrats promised they were “not touching judges.”

Harry Reid (D-NV): “We’re not touching judges. That’s what they were talking about. This is not judges.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 7/14/13)

Reid didn’t stop there. He made a similar promise at a Press briefing:

Harry Reid (D-NV): “We’re not talking about changing the filibuster rules that relates to nominations for judges. …this is not about judges.” (Sen. Reid, Press Briefing, 7/11/13)

Reid wasn’t alone in making such representations. Senators Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar also offered similar assurances:

Sherrod Brown (D-OH): “…I think any president should have the ability to put people in place for the — at the pleasure of the president. These are not judges. That’s a whole another issue.” (MSNBC, 7/9/13)

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): “…I don’t understand why for these nominees, I’m not talking about judges here, I’m talking about the president’s team, of which there are currently over 180 people that are just pending right now before the Senate for the Executive Office nominations. Why we can’t just do 51 votes is beyond me.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 7/14/13)......

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3094125/posts?page=1


2 posted on 11/22/2013 2:40:27 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“...As Majority Leader Harry Reid orchestrated the change in the rules governing executive nominations and lower-court appointments, his opponents cried tyranny, though they also promised that when they took power they would go further, applying the new standard to Supreme Court nominations. In other words, tyranny—but we promise we’ll give you more of it. The new rules fit with that kind of Senate.

...Whoever is ultimately at fault for the rule change—the Democrats who forced it or the Republicans who blocked the nominations requiring the new rules—the result is that the minority will have less power. That means elections will matter even more than they did before. Every Republican campaign now has more incentive to fight harder to win the six seats needed to take back the Senate in the 2014 election. Presidential elections now mean more, too. Reid’s move will secure Obama’s legacy because the new nominees to the appeals court will be in a position to protect his achievements. Moderate senators will hold more power. Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor and Joe Manchin voted against the rule change. In the future, in a closely divided Senate, they are the kind of senators who will be the key vote to give or deny the majority their nominee. Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat, also voted against the new rules, but he’s retiring, making way for another rookie. If the rookie is a Republican, one of his or her first tasks may be changing the rules again.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3094239/posts


3 posted on 11/22/2013 2:41:49 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

During the Bush-era Republican-controlled senate, when the Dems were the minority, and were holding up judicial nominations (sometimes for years), much was made of how terrible it would be for the Republicans to resort to this “nuclear option”.

“...the Democrats who forced it or the Republicans who blocked the nominations requiring the new rules”

Blocking a nomination DOES NOT *REQUIRE* that they change the rules, any more than it did when the Dems were doing the blocking.


4 posted on 11/22/2013 2:57:13 AM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
If Mitch McConnell doesn't think that the democRats will switch the rules back at some point, He is a bigger FOOL than I thought.
5 posted on 11/22/2013 2:58:15 AM PST by Falcon4.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig; All
Cruz: Dems want to pack court with judges to protect O-Care

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the Senate’s leading critic of the Affordable Care Act, denounced a vote Thursday to prohibit filibusters against appellate court nominees as a scheme to save the health law.

“The heart of this action is directed at packing the D.C. Circuit because that is the court that will review the lawless behavior of the Obama administration implementing ObamaCare,” he said.

“President Obama and the administration refuse to follow the plain text of the law, and the D.C. Circuit is the court of appeals that has been holding the administration accountable."

Cruz said the rule change, which passed Thursday with 50 Democratic votes, “was designed to pack that court with judges that they believe will be a rubber stamp.”

The vote to pass the rules change was 52-48, with the two independents, Sens. Angus King (Maine) and Bernie sanders (Vt.), voting with the Democrats and three Democrats voting against the change.

The addition of three Democratic-appointed judges to the 11-seat court will shift its ideological balance, which had been tilted to the right. This could have significant implications for the new healthcare law because the court has primary jurisdiction over many federal regulatory matters.........."

6 posted on 11/22/2013 2:58:54 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
“The holding of all powers - legislative, executive, and judiciary - in the same hands, whether by one person, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, is the very definition of tyranny.” James Madison.

Who among us think semiannual elections will wrest tyrannical power from Washington, DC?

7 posted on 11/22/2013 3:00:14 AM PST by Jacquerie (Obamacare forces slaves to buy their chains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Time to talk Revolution


8 posted on 11/22/2013 3:01:23 AM PST by Broker (Never submit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Even FDR couldn't survive the threat to 'pack' the Supreme Court!

The next election saw the New Deal dead with many of them thrown out.

9 posted on 11/22/2013 3:05:37 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; All

MAKE DC LISTEN: TELL YOUR SENATORS, ESPECIALLY THE DEMOCRATS !

State .... Senator .... Party .... Phone

AK Mark Begich D (202) 224-3004
AK Lisa Murkowski R (202) 224-6665
AL Jeff Sessions R (202) 224-4124
AL Richard C. Shelby R (202) 224-5744
AR John Boozman R (202) 224-4843
AR Mark L. Pryor D (202) 224-2353
AZ Jeff Flake R (202) 224-4521
AZ John McCain R (202) 224-2235
CA Barbara Boxer D (202) 224-3553
CA Dianne Feinstein D (202) 224-3841
CO Michael F. Bennet D (202) 224-5852
CO Mark Udall D (202) 224-5941
CT Richard Blumenthal D (202) 224-2823
CT Christopher Murphy D (202) 224-4041
DE Thomas R. Carper D (202) 224-2441
DE Christopher A. Coons D (202) 224-5042
FL Bill Nelson D (202) 224-5274
FL Marco Rubio R (202) 224-3041
GA Saxby Chambliss R (202) 224-3521
GA Johnny Isakson R (202) 224-3643
HI Mazie K. Hirono D (202) 224-6361
HI Brian Schatz D (202) 224-3934
IA Chuck Grassley R (202) 224-3744
IA Tom Harkin D (202) 224-3254
ID Mike Crapo R (202) 224-6142
ID James E. Risch R (202) 224-2752
IL Richard J. Durbin D (202) 224-2152
IL Mark Kirk R (202) 224-2854
IN Daniel Coats R (202) 224-5623
IN Joe Donnelly D (202) 224-4814
KS Jerry Moran R (202) 224-6521
KS Pat Roberts R (202) 224-4774
KY Mitch McConnell R (202) 224-2541
KY Rand Paul R (202) 224-4343
LA Mary L. Landrieu D (202) 224-5824
LA David Vitter R (202) 224-4623
MA Edward Markey D (202) 224-2742
MA Elizabeth Warren D (202) 224-4543
MD Benjamin L. Cardin D (202) 224-4524
MD Barbara A. Mikulski D (202) 224-4654
ME Susan M. Collins R (202) 224-2523
ME Angus S. King I (202) 224-5344
MI Carl Levin D (202) 224-6221
MI Debbie Stabenow D (202) 224-4822
MN Al Franken D (202) 224-5641
MN Amy Klobuchar D (202) 224-3244
MO Roy Blunt R (202) 224-5721
MO Claire McCaskill D (202) 224-6154
MS Thad Cochran R (202) 224-5054
MS Roger F. Wicker R (202) 224-6253
MT Max Baucus D (202) 224-2651
MT Jon Tester D (202) 224-2644
NC Richard Burr R (202) 224-3154
NC Kay R. Hagan D (202) 224-6342
ND Heidi Heitkamp D (202) 224-2043
ND John Hoeven R (202) 224-2551
NE Deb Fischer R (202) 224-6551
NE Mike Johanns R (202) 224-4224
NH Kelly Ayotte R (202) 224-3324
NH Jeanne Shaheen D (202) 224-2841
NJ Jeff Chiesa R (202) 224-3224
NJ Robert Menendez D (202) 224-4744
NM Martin Heinrich D (202) 224-5521
NM Tom Udall D (202) 224-6621
NV Dean Heller R (202) 224-6244
NV Harry Reid D (202) 224-3542
NY Kirsten E. Gillibrand D (202) 224-4451
NY Charles E. Schumer D (202) 224-6542
OH Sherrod Brown D (202) 224-2315
OH Rob Portman R (202) 224-3353
OK Tom Coburn R (202) 224-5754
OK James M. Inhofe R (202) 224-4721
OR Jeff Merkley D (202) 224-3753
OR Ron Wyden D (202) 224-5244
PA Robert P. Casey D (202) 224-6324
PA Patrick J. Toomey R (202) 224-4254
RI Jack Reed D (202) 224-4642
RI Sheldon Whitehouse D (202) 224-2921
SC Lindsey Graham R (202) 224-5972
SC Tim Scott R (202) 224-6121
SD Tim Johnson D (202) 224-5842
SD John Thune R (202) 224-2321
TN Lamar Alexander R (202) 224-4944
TN Bob Corker R (202) 224-3344
TX John Cornyn R (202) 224-2934
UT Orrin G. Hatch R (202) 224-5251
UT Mike Lee R (202) 224-5444
VA Tim Kaine D (202) 224-4024
VA Mark R. Warner D (202) 224-2023
VT Patrick J. Leahy D (202) 224-4242
VT Bernard Sanders I (202) 224-5141
WA Maria Cantwell D (202) 224-3441
WA Patty Murray D (202) 224-2621
WI Tammy Baldwin D (202) 224-5653
WI Ron Johnson R (202) 224-5323
WV Joe Manchin D (202) 224-3954
WV John D. Rockefeller D (202) 224-6472
WY John Barrasso R (202) 224-6441
WY Michael B. Enzi R (202) 224-3424

- See more at: http://tedcruzforsenate.org/tell-your-senators-to-oppose-cloture-on-h-j-res-59/#sthash.CvqYzXvd.s4d7EOIg.dpuf


10 posted on 11/22/2013 3:18:55 AM PST by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Dingy Harry Reid never would have tried this if Robert KKK Byrd were still breathing in the Senate!


11 posted on 11/22/2013 3:19:11 AM PST by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Broker

Bad idea.


12 posted on 11/22/2013 3:20:09 AM PST by Jacquerie (Obamacare forces slaves to buy their chains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

When you can’t get any more socialist/communist bills destroying America through the legislative process and you know you’ll lose big in 2014 because of the socialist/communist legislation like Obamacare... you need to pad the courts with socialist/communist.


13 posted on 11/22/2013 3:27:02 AM PST by maddog55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
It's a distraction folks!

Obama could have always recess appointed these judges.

14 posted on 11/22/2013 3:29:07 AM PST by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Too bad all GOP Senators don’t just head home and leave it to the Democrats. Now that they have the nuclear option, no Republican’s vote will count anyway. Wouldn’t a walkout be great!!! (Of course the GOPe Senators would stay to try for moderation...so I guess most would stay anyway).


15 posted on 11/22/2013 3:34:29 AM PST by ThePatriotsFlag (Repeal Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Pandora’s box has been opened


16 posted on 11/22/2013 3:36:09 AM PST by Java4Jay (The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

More ‘Uniparty’ shenanigans...


17 posted on 11/22/2013 3:39:13 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Even more dangerous, Obama can now set up his Death Panel of 15 amoral thugs uninhibited by opposition. That’s one way to eliminate your political opponents.


18 posted on 11/22/2013 3:57:06 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee; Java4Jay; All

“............As Jamie Glazov, a student of the left, has observed in an article about the middle-class defenders of recently captured Seventies terrorist Kathy Soliah: “if you can successfully camouflage your own pathology and hatred with a concern for the ‘poor’ and the ‘downtrodden,’ then there will always be a ‘progressive’ milieu to support and defend you.” Huey Newton, George Jackson, Angela Davis, Bernardine Dorhn, Sylvia Baraldini, Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, Mumia Abu Jamal, H. Rap Brown, Rigoberta Menchu and innumerable others have all discovered this principle in the course of their criminal careers....

...But they are lying. When they defend racial preferences now, for example, a principle they denounced as “racist” and fought against as “civil rights” activists then, even they must know it.

The first truth about leftist missionaries, about believing progressives, is that they are liars. But they are not liars in the ordinary way, which is to say by choice. They are liars by necessity, and often, therefore, without realizing that they are. The necessity for lying arises because it is the political lie that gives their cause its life. ...

...If you believed that others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as part of a “vanguard.” You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the same horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the army of the saints.

That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a redeemer. To feel anointed. To be among the elect. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism of all.

That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in the process. That is why they don’t care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than any injustice they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their “mistakes,” why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth.

If you were active in the so-called “peace” movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you concede – even long afterwards — that no, you were never really a “peace activist,” except in the sense that you were against America’s war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that you didn’t oppose the Communists’ war, and were happy when America’s enemies won?

What you were really against was not war, but American “imperialism” and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America’s democracy, which you knew to be a “sham” because it was controlled by money in the end. That’s why you wanted to “Bring The Troops Home.” Because if America’s troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be another step closer.

But you never had the honesty – then or now — to admit that. You told the lie then to gain influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason.

Why would you admit that, despite your tactical support for civil rights, you weren’t really committed to civil rights as Americans understand the meaning of the term – as rights granted not to groups but to individuals, not by government but “by their Creator”)? What you really wanted was to overthrow the very Constitution that guaranteed those rights, based as it is on private property and the autonomous person – both of which you despise.

Since America is a democracy and the people endorse it, the left’s “progressive” agendas can only be achieved by lying to the people. The unenlightened must be kept ignorant until the revolution transforms them. The better world is only reachable through deception of the people who need to be saved............” - David Horowitz

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Progressive%20Narcissism.htm


19 posted on 11/22/2013 4:00:54 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Yet the establishment Republicans consider the Tea Party to be the enemy.


20 posted on 11/22/2013 4:53:15 AM PST by logic101.net (How many more children must die on the altar of "gun free zones"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
If, by some chance, the other party takes control of the senate in 2014 (or 2016) these SAME democrats will DEMAND, in the name of "fairness and justice", that the rules be changes back.
21 posted on 11/22/2013 4:56:50 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th (and 17th))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

I believe it’s triggered on re-set.


22 posted on 11/22/2013 5:01:12 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Reid’s move will secure Obama’s legacy because the new nominees to the appeals court will be in a position to protect his achievements

Wow. Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. The Judiciary role defined as to protect the achievements of Presidents.

23 posted on 11/22/2013 5:04:27 AM PST by IamConservative (The soul of my lifes journey is Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The Senate Dems are risking civil war.


24 posted on 11/22/2013 5:04:35 AM PST by Daveinyork (IER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Broker

I’m thinking this is not just a stepping stone in that direction, but the whole friggin’ Golden Gate Bridge.


25 posted on 11/22/2013 5:05:37 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Did FDR have the IRS, EPA, DEA, FBI, OSHA, the Census Bureau, the FEC, et al

rigging the election for him?


26 posted on 11/22/2013 5:06:32 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Should the conservatives EVER regain control of both houses, this move by Reid may come back to haunt him and the rest of his ilk.


27 posted on 11/22/2013 5:13:45 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Progov

The ‘rats will whine and complain and the RINOs will cave and change the rules back...

IF IF IF IF

there is ever a fair election again.


28 posted on 11/22/2013 5:16:13 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

By far, the absolutely most important part of this is that Reid has finally done what Julius Caesar did when he crossed the Rubicon river, he was quoted as saying “The die (dice) is cast”. Forbidden to bring his armies into Rome, he did so, a de facto declaration that he was now the dictator of Rome.

A little more than five years later, Julius Caesar found himself stabbed to death on the steps of the Roman senate.

While I don’t think that Harry Reid will face the same fate, other than rhetorically, unless perhaps John McCain, that expert backstabber who can’t seem to resist backstabbing anyone, is standing behind him, Reid may still face a huge political downfall.

That is, all the Republicans have to do to enact “bloody vengeance” on Reid and the Democrats, is to *maintain* the Nuclear Option once they have returned to power.

The RINOs were always more than willing to “play fair” when the Democrats had cheated, lied, stolen, betrayed, and otherwise did them dirt. But for once, finally, the RINOs have been, and continue to be, so weakened by the Tea Party, that the Republicans will *finally* give the Democrats a dose of their own medicine.

And you can imagine that both the Democrats will squeal like stuck pigs at this, and the MSM will act like the Republicans started the Nuclear Option from scratch, and that the Democrats would never, ever do anything so “unfair”, so the Republicans shouldn’t, either.

But the Republicans can and should ignore the complaints of both. Why? Because with a Republican controlled congress and a Republican president, it is likely that the POTUS can appoint two, or even three, Supreme Court justices!

Imagine that, instead of a 5-4 Supreme Court, with justice Kennedy always willing to join the liberals when it matters, having a 6-3 conservative majority!

This would mean that congress and the POTUS could rapidly start the disassembly of enormous chunks of the federal government. A massive reorganization to correct over a hundred years of destructive progressivism.

All thanks to Harry Reid and his arrogance.


29 posted on 11/22/2013 7:16:10 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (War on Terror news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

For now, the rule change doesn’t apply to Supreme Court justices, but if Obama should get a chance to replace one of the solid conservatives (Alito, Thomas, Scalia) they will change the rule so that Obama can pick a hard-line young leftist to the seat.


30 posted on 11/22/2013 8:37:45 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Did you forget we retook the House in 2010?

2014 is going to be even worse for the Democrats, Obama was still popular in 2010!

31 posted on 11/22/2013 9:41:51 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson