Democracy Returns to the Senate

New York Times ^ | November 21, 2013 | Editorial Board

[Oldeconomybuyer]

For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president’s nominees.

Democrats made the filibuster change with a simple-majority vote, which Republicans insisted was a violation of the rules. There is ample precedent for this kind of change, though it should be used judiciously. Today’s vote was an appropriate use of that power, and it was necessary to turn the Senate back into a functioning legislative body.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Tyranny.

[GeronL]

If a GOP majority did this the headline would be

“Democracy ends in the Senate”

[a fool in paradise]

Really, then why does the rule “revert” if the Democrats lose control of the Senate?

This is a rigged deck and the corporate socialist shill media is selling Bullstalin.

[Starboard]

This editorial would have a totally different view if Republicans had pulled this stunt. No question about it.

[Repeal 16-17]

The federal government is corrupted beyond repair. We need to call for an Article V Convention so we can replace the current federal government with one that is much more limited and easier to control.

[goodnesswins]

Hey...no times editors...your game is getting old...and patience is thinning

[capydick]

There is ample precedent for this kind of change, though it should be used judiciously

In other words, only when Democrats are in charge as they are the only party who can be trusted with this responsibility.

[jag.drafting]

“then why does the rule “revert” if the Democrats lose control of the Senate?”

It does?

[jimbo123]

Walking in the Opposition’s Shoes (NYT filibuster flashback 2005)

NY Times ^ | March 29, 2005 | NY Times Editorial Board

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3094059/posts

[jwalsh07]

Pretty close.

[onyx]

Today Democrats in the Senate led by Harry Reid changed the rules so that now all Presidential nominations and most importantly Judges can be confirmed on a mere party line vote. This has never been done in 225 years.

They will use this power to stuff the courts with radical judges that are appointed for life. This forever changes our country.







PLEASE Support Free Republic by Making Your Donation Today!
We Need FR Now, More than Ever
PLEASE Help Complete this FReepathon BEFORE Thanksgiving.

Today Democrats in the Senate led by Harry Reid changed the rules so that now all Presidential nominations and most importantly Judges can be confirmed on a mere party line vote. This has never been done in 225 years.

They will use this power to stuff the courts with radical judges that are appointed for life. This forever changes our country.







PLEASE Support Free Republic by Making Your Donation Today!
We Need FR Now, More than Ever
PLEASE Help Complete this FReepathon BEFORE Thanksgiving.

[John S Mosby]

NewSpeak— Democracy=Tyranny (what they call democracy, pure dictatorship). Only libs can come up with this. And Ted Cruz was terrifying their power grab— and will continue to do so.
It is 1984 Orwellian this editorial, twisting on a pinhead with pretzel logic and false definition. The People have no voice in the Senate. 17th Amendment repeal is only way to return it to the People and the States.

[VRWCmember]

For five SIX years, Senate Republicans DEMOCRATS have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama George W Bush for government positions....

Who else remembers when the NY Slimes published the above statement in an editorial?

[GeronL]

bump

[John S Mosby]

In 225 years, one has to ask the Times morons... WHAT precedence exists for this most essential element in the Senate Rules. When has there ever been this change— as a “precedent”. Answer there has been none. The Socialists are stealing for the Statist power grab. All that remains is a Reichstag fire to be blamed on TEA party or such. RINOs to be the mensheviks or von Papen’s horde of establishment stoolies.

[Sopater]

...why does the rule “revert” if the Democrats lose control of the Senate?

I have not been able to find this "clause".

[Sopater]

Today’s vote was an appropriate use of that power, and it was necessary to turn the Senate back into a functioning legislative body.

If by "functioning", you mean "appointing radical liberals", you're absolutely correct.

[Viennacon]

“perfectly qualified”

Read: malcontents and people who should be in prison.

[Repeal 16-17]

17th Amendment repeal is only way to return it to the People and the States.

Amen.

[Washi]

Really, then why does the rule “revert” if the Democrats lose control of the Senate?

Does it? I don't disbelieve you, but can you post a citation?