Senate Dems Go Nuclear

Senate Democratic leaders on Thursday moved to fundamentally alter the rules governing the filibuster after Republicans repeatedly rejected one of President Obama's nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court.

"Under the precedent set by the senate…the threshold for cloture on nominations, not including those of the Supreme Court of the United States, is now a majority," The Senate's President Pro Tempore, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced after a 48-52 vote to alter the rules.

The move, which Senators refer to as the "nuclear option," came after the GOP rejected by a vote of 57-43 to confirm Patricia Millett to the D.C. Circuit Court. Confirmation required 60 votes to stop a GOP filibuster, and Democrats control only 55 votes.

The GOP, appeared resigned to the change after continued threats by Democrats that Republicans approve nominees or face the nuclear option, which effectively neuters the minority on judicial nomination.

“This rules change charade has gone from being a biennial threat, to an annual threat, to now a quarterly threat," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor. "It’s become a threat every time Senate Democrats don’t get their way."


http://washingtonexaminer.com/senate-dems-go-nuclear/article/2539579

The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn on Thursday, when Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.

The rule change means federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote super majority that has been required for more than two centuries.



WAPO

What law are they going to change next? The First Amendment ... Second Amendment ... The Fourth?

It is a very sad day for this country. It marks the elimination of the minority party in the Senate.  One of the last vestiges of the balance of power has been eliminated.  There will be time (not too far away) that Democrats will rue this day.

The very same sleaze ball that made this happen said this back in 2005 when Senator Frist mentioned the "nuclear option" on Judicial nominees in 2005. :

"If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it…The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington."

Was this done today to deflect from the disaster that is Obamacare?   YOU BETCHA!!!

Now they are completely out of control!

Yes, they certainly did want to deflect attention from Obamacare. But my question is, the house didn't pass this and isn't going to so does it really mean that much?

It eliminates the need of a super majority.  This means that what ever party holds the majority in the Senate has complete control. All they need is a majority vote or 51 out of 100 to change rules.

It's more complicated than that but that's the gist of it.

I don't think it goes to the House.

I do think that the immediate results will be the Democrats ability to force their choices for appointed positions on America. Of course they are going to be leftist leaning ideologist dreamers.

So the house doesn't have to vote too??????

WHL wrote:So the house doesn't have to vote too??????

This was a Senate rule that got changed. It strengthens the grasp of those in power.

Guess who'd previously lectured us about protecting the minority party in the Senate?

Answer:

Name any Democrat within the last 20 years—Harry Reid, Chucky Schumer, etc.—including "Hillary!"

They're Marxists—Don't call them Democrats!

Including Obama.

But what I am saying is doesn't the House still have to vote on the people not only the Senate. I know these are Senate rules they are changing but doesn't he House have to vote too?

The House is out of it. Even the Senate Republicans are out of it. As I see it the main reasons obama and reid stooped to this new political low is to try and stack the court in obama's favor. There are many, many things this administration has done that are on the verge of illegality. They want to make sure they have their own judges in place when they have to go before them. Once again obama is blatantly trying to manipulate his and America's future.

On the verge of???? Don't you mean outright illegal???

But my question still remains. If they want to appoint- say- a new judge. Doesn't the HOUSE as well as the Senate get to vote on that person? Since when does the Senate carry all the power? The house can still vote that person down, right?

WHL wrote:But my question still remains.  If they want to appoint- say- a new judge.  Doesn't the HOUSE as well as the Senate get to vote on that person?  Since when does the Senate carry all the power?  The house can still vote that person down, right?

The House is not involved. Only the Senate votes on higher court nominees. The Senate has that power since yesterday!

The House cannot "vote that person down."

… Senate Democrats on Thursday rewrote the chamber's filibuster rule, limiting Republicans' power to block presidential nominees and clearing the way for a wave of quick confirmation votes on President Obama's executive and judicial branch nominees.

"The Democrats just pushed the panic button and know the writing is on the wall regarding their majority," GOP strategist and former Republican Senate leadership aide Ron Bonjean told the Washington Examiner. "They know that time is not on their side."

Senate Democrats — joined by two independent senators — voted 52-48 to change the chamber's filibuster rule so that only 51 votes are needed to advance a presidential nominee instead of the current 60 votes. The change effectively prevents Republicans from stalling most of Obama's nominees.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/senate-democrats-expected-to-quickly-confirm-a-wave-of-obamas-long-stalled-nominees/article/2539615

So you are telling me that the House never votes on Judicial nominees? I don't think I knew that. If I ever did, I forgot. (Which isn't entirely impossible given my state lately, lol)

… Most Republicans opposed a trio of Obama judicial nominees because they fear the president will stack one of the nation's most influential courts with liberal judges who support his regulatory policies and other priorities.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the rules change will likely allow Obama to squash legal challenges to his new health care law, which would likely end up in D.C. Circuit Court.

"The Democrats are now shamelessly working to pack the D.C. Circuit, so that President Obama's lawless disregard of our statutes and Constitution will not be held to account by an impartial judiciary," Cruz said.

WASHINGTON — President Obama has a green light to start filling the courts with more liberal nominees under the new math in the Senate, now that Democrats have invoked the “nuclear” option against filibusters.

“The pressure now will be on the president to nominate far more progressive judges than he has in the past,” said Jim Manley, a longtime aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who carried the liberal banner through decades of brutal confirmation fights.

“Anybody can get on the bench now unless they’re a pedophile or something serious like that,” said Makin Delrahim, former Republican staff director of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Bush Justice Department official.

“You now have a completely different task for the selection of judges based on the Senate confirmation process,” he said.
“The most extreme wings of the party are going to control this process,” predicted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “Can you imagine a Supreme Court fight where all you needed was 51? You’re going to pick the hardest of the hard. Because who’s pushing the majority? Their base.”


http://nypost.com/2013/11/22/obama-can-pack-courts-with-liberal-nominees/

Cook County just went National...

"The Rule of Law" is done.