Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Did Senate Democrats do the right thing by voting to curb filibusters on appointees?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(57)

Peeweepeterson

Nov-22-13 7:56 AM

Before Obama took office there was only 31 filibusters on appointees in the history of the USA. 5 years since Obama took office, 35 filibusters on appointees. What other option do they have? Who is holding the government hostage? The last person he tried to appoint was the most qualified, ever, for her position.

People should be sick of how filibustering has been used and become. But no, they aren't because they only see republican and democrats.

Guess they should have done what the republicans did in texas when a dem tried to filibuster. Cancel the proceedings then only called the republicans in and passed the motion.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

animal

Nov-22-13 8:10 AM

Another blatant power grab by the libs! Now they can do whatever they want and no one can stop them! Funny how A H harry ried can simply refuse to even consider a house bill, and that's just fine, but let the opposition try stop the libs from furthering their ajenda and they are said to be holding America hostage. More one sided lies by the liberal commies!!

10 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

realwildchyld

Nov-22-13 8:10 AM

Peeweepeterson Obama is the most inept president in history and WE need to limit the damage he does to this country. The man has not made a wise choice in his presidency so WE have to limit them any way WE can.

11 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ovomitlied

Nov-22-13 8:52 AM

Have any of you liberals RESEARCHED the candidates Obama is trying to bring into offices?

No you have not.. Look at the Tax cheat he assigned to the treasury, look at the attorney general eric holder.. claims the 5th, mishandled fast and furious, look at Seiblius.. cannot find her toot with both hands.. look at Hillary Clinton..lets people get killed because she doesnt do her job.. the list goes on and on.. and you wonder why the Republicans are trying to hold the country together?????

The memory of the righteous is blessed, But the name of the wicked will rot. Proverbs 10:7

8 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ovomitlied

Nov-22-13 8:53 AM

Catch a break leftwing..

Obamacare failed..

7 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Nov-22-13 9:06 AM

I have a bad 'feeling' that this may come back to bite my Democrat Party in the rear....but then, if and when those Republicans do gain control, we can DEMAND it goes back to pre-'Nuclear'....we always do have that option, and the Republicans MUST compromise...to do that...

Come Together

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MattRothchild

Nov-22-13 9:38 AM

And here we go with yet another overtly partisan issue; the only thing that matters is which party is in the majority and you can expect the opinions to follow accordingly.

I remember a few short years ago when the Republicans were in the majority in the US Senate and were considering doing the exact same thing. And the Democrats there, who were threatening to filibuster a number of Bush's various nominees, howled bloody murder over it.

Nobody really has anything approaching moral high ground on this matter because none of it is based on any principles beyond "what's good for my party".

It was wrong to change it back then and it was wrong to change it now.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Nov-22-13 9:50 AM

"It was wrong to change it back then and it was wrong to change it now."

Agreed, Matt, and if you'll pardon the slight edit to your comment, I'll say this...

It was a power grab to change it back then and it is a power grab to change it now.

'Cuz it's all about the power.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

polidork

Nov-22-13 10:13 AM

I'm sure you constitution-worshipers are aware that it's a presidents responsibility to fill judicial vacancies. Republicans in the senate have repeatedly used the filibuster to prevent Obama from executing this duty; thus, the Democrats changed the rules to end the filibuster - a construct which is NOT a senate rule or power outlined in the constitution. Thus, if you're upset about this rule change, then answer this question: why do you hate the constitution?

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Nov-22-13 10:19 AM

If we're going to talk constitution, why does the President only enforce those laws with which he agrees and doesn't enforce those laws with which he disagrees? Is it his perogative to pick and choose?

7 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DakotaBorn

Nov-22-13 10:27 AM

This has gotten a lot of media coverage. Too bad there wasn't as much coverage when the House changed its rules on September 30 so that government shutdown would be guarantee.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ovomitlied

Nov-22-13 10:31 AM

The trust of the POTUS is gone.

He lied to people knowing that he was lying.

He lied to people NOT know ing anything about what he was talking about.

So how will people feel when he steps up and speaks agin..

He either will be lying or he will "not have been informed" or "no one told me"

How can you put your trust in a leader who is so ignorant he doesnt know how to find his toot with both hands..

The trust of the POTUS Is gone..

This latest power grab is just him clawing with his fingernails trying to salvage the remaing three years.

His credibilty at telling the truth is gone. Only the die hards are hanging on becasue they have no one else to lie to them.

Moving the sign up date for Obamacare is just another feather in the Republicans cap. The Government was Shut Down becasue Obama refused to move the date..

Hummm looks like he FUBARed the whole thing..

All great advertising clips for 2014..

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ovomitlied

Nov-22-13 10:34 AM

Goes to show Obama not only brought himself down with his Obamacare but now he has got Reid to go ahead and bring down all the rest of the Democrats that had some credibility. Many of the Democrats in the Senate were in on their 1st terms.. Interesting when they get "dumped" becasue they followed the leader instead of being smart enough to think for themselves. 33% of the Senate is up for grabs in 2014.. Looks like a bloodbath.. Bring on the Obamacare nurses to patch up the bleeding..

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ovomitlied

Nov-22-13 10:37 AM

I guess the good thing is Obama and the Democrats have gone ahead and set new law in place.. Which means it will be exceptable for the Republicans to follow or not follow laws just as Obama has done..

Obama is the biggest liar ever to sit in the oval office.. surrounded by Joe Biden Liar, Harry Redi Liar, Nancy Pelosi..Liar.. and the list goes on and on..

I suspect gun sales will once agin rise.. in preperation for an Obama take over of America..

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ovomitlied

Nov-22-13 10:43 AM

locomotive Nov-22-13 10:19 AM Agree | Disagree

If we're going to talk constitution, why does the President only enforce those laws with which he agrees and doesn't enforce those laws with which he disagrees? Is it his perogative to pick and choose?

Loco I believe in the world of lawyers its called setting a precedence. So I guess when the Republicans come back in office they can Govern the same way and it will be OK with the Democrats right?

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ovomitlied

Nov-22-13 10:44 AM

Turn about is Fair Play!!!!

2014..

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MattRothchild

Nov-22-13 11:38 AM

Read between the lines, people. The name of the game is "Stick it to 'those people'". If you dislike someone, find every way possible to establish domination over them. After all, the 'other side' is entirely subhuman and undeserving of enjoying their own lives without fear of your interference.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ovomitlied

Nov-22-13 11:48 AM

Now why would the liberals hit disagree??

So I guess when the Republicans come back in office they can Govern the same way and it will be OK with the Democrats right?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees

Tell me Libs why would you hit disagree on that comment? Isnt fair fair or is it only fair when you have the ball??

Shows what kind of greedy people you are. You want to change the rules when you have the ball but when the Conservistives have the ball you don't want to play by your rules.. ' Just shows what kinf of people you REALLY are.. Greedy Needy and selfish..

Just as we Conserves have said all along..

Your showing your True Colors by hitting disagree...

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Nov-22-13 12:06 PM

Veritas, I looked up "filibuster" at wiki (I know, not the be-all and end-all of sources) before I read your post. Those folks at wiki are sure up to date...

"As of November 2013, President Obama’s nominees had faced 79 votes to end debate (called "cloture" votes), compared to just 38 during the preceding eight years under George W. Bush. However, most of those cloture votes successfully ended debate, and so most filibustered nominees cleared the hurdle; for example, Obama won Senate confirmation for 30 out of 42 federal court nominations, compared with Bush's 35 out of 52."

Now if we hear any more whining about Pres. Obama's appointees being more unfairly treated than Pres. Bush's, history will prove otherwise.

Who's all happy with Sen. Heitkamp's vote to go with the nuclear option?

More to read here...

online . wsj . com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304607104579211881413579404

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Nov-22-13 12:11 PM

From wsj online...

"The result, a major change in how the Senate has operated for decades, is the culmination of accelerating partisanship in Washington and mounting frustration among Democrats in the face of GOP delaying tactics during the Obama years. The rule change could alter the balance of power in the current Congress by stripping Republicans of a lever for extracting concessions from Democrats.

"In the future, if the same party controlled the White House and the Senate, as Democrats do now, presidents would have greater latitude to pick more-ideological nominees because they will not have to build support among the minority party."

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Nov-22-13 12:27 PM

Just one more from wsj online (too good not to post)...

"The debate brought a role reversal for the parties from 2005, when Republicans held the majority and threatened to impose their own rules change. At the time, Democrats had blocked a set of judicial nominees chosen by President George W. Bush.

"Mr. Obama, as a senator in the minority, had opposed the rule change when Republicans were considering it. He said neither party should "change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet." Under such a change, "the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse."

"Mr. McConnell, then a member of the majority, also saw the issue differently than he does today, arguing that the rules change wasn't a break from tradition. "Despite the incredulous protestations of our Senate colleagues, the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictate,"

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Nov-22-13 12:27 PM

The worm has indeed turned...

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Nov-22-13 12:42 PM

All this leftwing/rightwing talk draws a picture in my mind of a majestic powerful eagle sitting on the ground with both wings flapping in turn, one flaps awhile then the other flaps awhile.What the eagle needs is both wings to flap in unison to ever fly again.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Running

Nov-22-13 1:32 PM

Just remember that Sen. Heitkamp blindly followed Harry Reids orders and did not vote as the majority of her ND constituency would want. The vote changed over 200 years of tradition and allows the Obama administration to pack the courtrooms with ultra liberal anti gun, pro abortion, pro big government judges. That is what will haunt us for many years to come. Sen Heitkamp must be limited to one term as her token opposition to more gun control was just negated by her vote to limit debate which will do so much more long term damage to this great country by the appointment of the liberal judges that will be a certainty now.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Nov-22-13 3:28 PM

locomotive

Nov-22-13

"If we're going to talk constitution, why does the President only enforce those laws with which he agrees and doesn't enforce those laws with which he disagrees?"

Do you ever talk about anything else?

Ever?

Your entire psyche is wrapped up in one man -- and it's a man who you'll never meet and who does not even know you exist.

LET GO. MOVE ON FOR GOD'S SAKE.

MOVE ON WITH YOUR LITTLE LIFE.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 57 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web