Wingnutties out of control!

[O Really]

.... "Half of them have occurred during the Obama administration — during the last four and a half years," ...

I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

[Roland Deschain]

Serious question, seeing as how ya'll are so happy that over 200 years of precedent has been pitched out......elections have consequences....ya'll won, the GOP lost. What happens when the GOP takes back the senate? I'm not saying when but it will happen. Just as Joe Biden said in 2005 "you may have the field now, but you won't have it forever" What then????

[O Really]

OK, here's a serious answer. Changing that rule wasn't the first choice of anybody, and the Dems know that sometime in the future, another party will have the majority. But as noted above, out of 168 times everrrr that filibusters have been conducted against nominees, half of them have been in the last four and a half years. Something had to be done to curb that level of abuse of protocol. But since all Republicans were against the change, I'm sure if they do get back into office, they'll reinstate the rule immediately. (that's not part of the serious answer). Overall, however, Presidents will continue to appoint who they want, and the Senate will vote a simple majority. I don't think anybody actually able to get elected President is going to intentionally appoint crazies to the bench. Cruz might, but he won't be being elected, nor will Palin, Santorum, or Dopey. Christie would likely appoint responsibly.

[Roland Deschain]

OK, here's a serious answer. Changing that rule wasn't the first choice of anybody, and the Dems know that sometime in the future, another party will have the majority. But as noted above, out of 168 times everrrr that filibusters have been conducted against nominees, half of them have been in the last four and a half years. Something had to be done to curb that level of abuse of protocol. But since all Republicans were against the change, I'm sure if they do get back into office, they'll reinstate the rule immediately. (that's not part of the serious answer). Overall, however, Presidents will continue to appoint who they want, and the Senate will vote a simple majority. I don't think anybody actually able to get elected President is going to intentionally appoint crazies to the bench. Cruz might, but he won't be being elected, nor will Palin, Santorum, or Dopey. Christie would likely appoint responsibly.

Yet all but 2.6% of obama's nominees were approved and in less time than nominees given my Bush. The Senate is supposed to be the slowing down point, so what was REALLY the problem if this was not just a blatant power grab. In addition talk is that this will not stay just with lower court/regulatory nominees, what happens if this spills over to SCOTUS nominees or legislation?

[Roland Deschain]

Serious question, seeing as how ya'll are so happy that over 200 years of precedent has been pitched out...

The GOP did that:

..."The need for change is obvious," Reid, of Nevada, said in remarks on the Senate floor. He said that in the nation's history, there have been 168 filibusters against presidential appointees. "Half of them have occurred during the Obama administration — during the last four and a half years," he added...

Don't be a hypocrite about it.

...elections have consequences....ya'll won, the GOP lost. What happens when the GOP takes back the senate? I'm not saying when but it will happen.

Irrelevant. What you mean to ask is, "What happens when the GOP takes back the WH?"

Just as Joe Biden said in 2005 "you may have the field now, but you won't have it forever" What then????

I suspect the GOP will throw a revenge tantrum. I would only feel this is justified if the Dems had shown themselves to be as outrageously unpatriotic and obstructionist as the GOP has been in equaling over 200 years of appointment filibusters in just 4 1/2 years. But, we all know that it is so ugly and spiteful these days that they'll whine, "But the Dems did it," even if the Dems aren't abusing the filibuster the way the GOP has been.

You really are incapable of a civil debate aren't you? How do you get that the GOP taking back the senate is "irrelevant" when the senate is exactly what we are discussing? You are also incapable of truth in that the GOP has NOT equaled the number of appojntment filibusters. Depending on the source it is at most HALF those that had already happened. Not to mention that as of right now Obama is 30 for 42 in confirmation while Bush was just 35 for 52. So, please, don't YOU be a hypocrite about it as well.

[O Really]

I don't know the source or accuracy of the "all but 2.6%" of nominees approved, but regardless, does anyone find it a reasonable use of protocol to reject nominee(s) without even formally reviewing their credentials? Or to decide to reject otherwise lawful nominees because "there are already too many judges"? Or to use the process to result in a more than 6-month backlog on what historically has been pretty much routine review?

[Roland Deschain]

You really are incapable of a civil debate aren't you?

Civil or not, your conversation rarely reaches the level of actual debate. Plus, your whining about not being able to take what you dish out gets old. Grow up.

How do you get that the GOP taking back the senate is "irrelevant" when the senate is exactly what we are discussing?

Point proven. We are discussing POTUS appointments. The ONLY comparison would be if the Dems filibuster a GOP POTUS's appointments and the majority GOP Senate then uses the "nuclear option". Don't whine at me because you forgot to include half the scenario. It's really adorable how easily you confuse yourself.

Yes it really is adorable how you twist when you ass is in the sling. You know full damn well I was referring to what happens in the senate with EVERYTHING when the GOP takes it back. Apparently you were too busy patting yourselves on the back to think about that and caught a bit of the "oh shit factor"

You are also incapable of truth in that the GOP has NOT equaled the number of appojntment filibusters. Depending on the source it is at most HALF those that had already happened.

As usual, claims without citation. As we've seen, they almost always blow up in your face.

Not to mention that as of right now Obama is 30 for 42 in confirmation while Bush was just 35 for 52.

As usual, claims without citation. As we've seen, they almost always blow up in your face. For example, I'm quite sure you're including votes where confirmations were rejected. We're discussing the cowardly GOP preventing votes from even occurring.

So, please, don't YOU be a hypocrite about it as well.

Because you say so without offering anything to back it up? That's a laugh, you routinely lie or screw up then run away when it's proven.

~snip~

From 1967 to 2012, Senate majority leaders have sought to cut off debate over an executive nominee 55 times, with 23 instances occurring during the Obama presidency, according to the Congressional Research Service. During that same period, cloture was invoked 67 times for judicial nominees, 31 of those during the Obama administration. (roughly HALF)

Mr. Reid’s frustration with gridlock in the Senate is based in part on the number of times Republican senators have threatened to filibuster rather than conducted actual talking filibusters, which are relatively rare. But this past March, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) took to the Senate floor for 13 hours, delaying a vote on John Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA.

The Congressional Research Service released a report in May analyzing the fate of Mr. Obama’s first-term judicial nominees compared to the fates of those nominated by other presidents. A look at the confirmation rates for district court nominees picked by the past four presidents shows a mixed bag: For Mr. Obama, the Senate approved 143 of his 173 nominees; for President George W. Bush, 170 of 179 nominees; for President Bill Clinton, 170 of 198 nominees; and for President George H.W. Bush, 150 of 195 nominees.

For federal appeals court nominees, President George W. Bush saw 35 of his 52 nominees confirmed, and, so far, 30 of Mr. Obama’s 42 nominees have been confirmed. (as sited) Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all saw significantly higher confirmation rates for their appeals court nominees.

Mr. Obama is also the only one of the five most recent presidents whose average and median waiting time for circuit and district court nominees from confirmation to nomination was more than six months.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/2 ... pposition/

[Roland Deschain]

I don't know the source or accuracy of the "all but 2.6%" of nominees approved, but regardless, does anyone find it a reasonable use of protocol to reject nominee(s) without even formally reviewing their credentials? Or to decide to reject otherwise lawful nominees because "there are already too many judges"? Or to use the process to result in a more than 6-month backlog on what historically has been pretty much routine review?

By using the numbers in the article posted above the rate of approval for Obama's district court and federal appeals court nominees combined is closer to an even 2%. I will say that if a nominee was going to be approved anyway then a more expedient process should have been taken. However, the senate was intentionally designed to be the more deliberative chamber and the cooling point for things from the house. Did we get spoiled to things going faster in the 70's and 80's when today's speeds are actually more the norm??

[Roland Deschain]

Do you really not get that the thrust of her article backs up Reid? Wow. It's fine to let children have hot dogs and ice cream on occasion but when they become gluttons limits must be set.

I never made a claim that the article backed or refuted anyone. You asked for a citation of my numbers.....you got them that was all.

As usual, claims without citation. As we've seen, they almost always blow up in your face.

Point proven.
Nothing to blow up all I did was quote numbers. However, your incessant need to constantly think yourself correct will allow you to dream up all kinds of fantasies and that is OK.

[O Really]

Deliberation over legislation is one thing - and that process is still in place. Obstruction and deliberate sabatage of routine appointments is something else. I'd say the votes (or refusal to allow) has to be looked at in the context of intent, as expressed so eloquently by the Senate Minority Leader... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

[Roland Deschain]

So the checks and balances of government are not supposed to apply to democrat appointments, on those made by the GOP? I would say that you could have a legitimate argument had large numbers of obama's nominees failed to be confirmed. However, that has not happened and his actual confirmation numbers run very close to other recent presidents.

[O Really]

Speaking of checks - you follow hockey? Body checks are legal; cross check is usually a minor penalty; muggings get players ejected. McConnell was leading a bunch of goons, in hockey terms.

[O Really]

Cloture votes, by President...
Lyndon Johnson: 1
Richard Nixon: 1
Jimmy Carter: 3
Ronald Reagan: 6
George Bush 41: 1
Bill Clinton: 18
George Bush 43: 38
Barack Obama (through five years): 80-plus

[Roland Deschain]

Cloture votes, by President...
Lyndon Johnson: 1
Richard Nixon: 1
Jimmy Carter: 3
Ronald Reagan: 6
George Bush 41: 1
Bill Clinton: 18
George Bush 43: 38
Barack Obama (through five years): 80-plus

Not true. According to senate.gov there were 112 cloture votes in 2007-2008 congress alone. Really, o'really at least try to stay honest.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/refere ... Counts.htm

I now see why we are in the mess we are. You numb nuts compare our form of government to a hockey game. Things make a little more sense now.

[O Really]

Cloture votes, by President...
Lyndon Johnson: 1
Richard Nixon: 1
Jimmy Carter: 3
Ronald Reagan: 6
George Bush 41: 1
Bill Clinton: 18
George Bush 43: 38
Barack Obama (through five years): 80-plus

Not true. According to senate.gov there were 112 cloture votes in 2007-2008 congress alone. Really, o'really at least try to stay honest.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/refere ... Counts.htm

I now see why we are in the mess we are. You numb nuts compare our form of government to a hockey game. Things make a little more sense now.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Presidential nominees. That's what those numbers are, counting executive and judicial, from the Congressional Research Service. Go tell them they're not honest, or re-define your "112 in 2007-2008"

[O Really]

I now see why we are in the mess we are. You numb nuts compare our form of government to a hockey game. Things make a little more sense now.

Yeah, that was a bit of a cheap shot. Hockey games are way more orderly and civilized than the current Congress. Sorry, eh.

[Roland Deschain]

Cloture votes, by President...
Lyndon Johnson: 1
Richard Nixon: 1
Jimmy Carter: 3
Ronald Reagan: 6
George Bush 41: 1
Bill Clinton: 18
George Bush 43: 38
Barack Obama (through five years): 80-plus

Not true. According to senate.gov there were 112 cloture votes in 2007-2008 congress alone. Really, o'really at least try to stay honest.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/refere ... Counts.htm

I now see why we are in the mess we are. You numb nuts compare our form of government to a hockey game. Things make a little more sense now.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Presidential nominees. That's what those numbers are, counting executive and judicial, from the Congressional Research Service. Go tell them they're not honest, or re-define your "112 in 2007-2008"

To quote the resident know it all ass wipe..."citation needed"

[O Really]

To quote the resident know it all ass wipe..."citation needed"

(sigh) I should send you a bill for doing your research for you. But here... http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-pu ... P%20%20%0A

[Ombudsman]

To quote the resident know it all ass wipe..."citation needed"

Just out of curiosity, why are you homo, and B such angry people?

[O Really]

Republican role models...http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... cials?lite

Armed men burst into voting stations in the region of Timbuktu in northern Mali and carried off ballot boxes, preventing voters from casting their ballots in Sunday's legislative elections, officials said.