Senate Republicans Cave Again

Senate Republicans Cave Again

Posted in the Coopersburg Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#1 Jul 17, 2013
The Senate Republicans gave Reid and Obama another win yesterday engineered by the RINO McCain. They agreed to allow Obama to withdraw the two illegal recess appointments to the NLRB and nominate two other left wing wack jobs in their places. We send supposed conservatives to Washington and they stab us in the back every time. Bunch of losers cruising for another disaster in 2014.
EyeforanEye

Quakertown, PA

#2 Jul 17, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The Senate Republicans gave Reid and Obama another win yesterday engineered by the RINO McCain. They agreed to allow Obama to withdraw the two illegal recess appointments to the NLRB and nominate two other left wing wack jobs in their places. We send supposed conservatives to Washington and they stab us in the back every time. Bunch of losers cruising for another disaster in 2014.
We have a one party system now, Duke. Just a Dictator and his Cohorts. He will run for a third term and at that point? It will be "King Obama". We have been sold out.
Info

Broomall, PA

#3 Jul 17, 2013
EyeforanEye wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a one party system now, Duke. Just a Dictator and his Cohorts. He will run for a third term and at that point? It will be "King Obama". We have been sold out.
I wonder about that. If we get involved in some dire military commitment near the end of his term, I wonder if they will give him "emergency powers" or something similar. Think Chancellor Palpatine of Star Wars becoming emperor.
Joe

Chalfont, PA

#4 Jul 17, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The Senate Republicans gave Reid and Obama another win yesterday engineered by the RINO McCain. They agreed to allow Obama to withdraw the two illegal recess appointments to the NLRB and nominate two other left wing wack jobs in their places. We send supposed conservatives to Washington and they stab us in the back every time. Bunch of losers cruising for another disaster in 2014.
Mitt Romney lost!!!! Obama won the WH and has the right to make appointments reflecting his values. The WH and Democratic Caucas bent over backwards in making this compromise, but the extreminists still complain.
EyeforanEye

Quakertown, PA

#6 Jul 17, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Mitt Romney lost!!!! Obama won the WH and has the right to make appointments reflecting his values. The WH and Democratic Caucas bent over backwards in making this compromise, but the extreminists still complain.
You win, Kline. All Hail Obama, Our Eternal Leader. Now if you could just get everyone to feel that way.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#7 Jul 17, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Mitt Romney lost!!!! Obama won the WH and has the right to make appointments reflecting his values. The WH and Democratic Caucas bent over backwards in making this compromise, but the extreminists still complain.
He has no such right. Read the "Advise and Consent" role of the U.S. Senate in the Constitution - Article II Section 2 paragraph 2, requiring 60 votes to override a filibuster. We are not a dictatorship (yet). If you think putting union hacks in charge of the National Labor Relations Board is something that Republicans should rubber stamp, you're the "extreminist". The U.S. Supreme Court even ruled those recess appointments as unconstitutional.
Humid

Perkasie, PA

#8 Jul 17, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The Senate Republicans gave Reid and Obama another win yesterday engineered by the RINO McCain. They agreed to allow Obama to withdraw the two illegal recess appointments to the NLRB and nominate two other left wing wack jobs in their places. We send supposed conservatives to Washington and they stab us in the back every time. Bunch of losers cruising for another disaster in 2014.
They should completely outlaw the filibuster for both parties. It has stymied any ability to compromise and get things done in Washington. They should also start term limits on all politicians from Senate all the way down to the township level. Fat chance of any of that happening.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#9 Jul 17, 2013
Humid wrote:
<quoted text>They should completely outlaw the filibuster for both parties. It has stymied any ability to compromise and get things done in Washington. They should also start term limits on all politicians from Senate all the way down to the township level. Fat chance of any of that happening.
Agree 100% on term limits. But the inmates are in charge of the asylum.
Joe

Chalfont, PA

#10 Jul 17, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
He has no such right. Read the "Advise and Consent" role of the U.S. Senate in the Constitution - Article II Section 2 paragraph 2, requiring 60 votes to override a filibuster. We are not a dictatorship (yet). If you think putting union hacks in charge of the National Labor Relations Board is something that Republicans should rubber stamp, you're the "extreminist". The U.S. Supreme Court even ruled those recess
appointments as unconstitutional.
The Democrats control the Senate and have the power to change the rules. The nuclear option was averted, but it's not off the table if GOPers revert to obstructionist tactics once again. The POTUS has the right to appoint like-minded cabinet and judicial officials and it's the the Senate's responsibility to vote on those nominees, not exploit the filibuster for political purposes and harm the nation in doing so.
Info

Broomall, PA

#11 Jul 17, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
The Democrats control the Senate and have the power to change the rules. The nuclear option was averted, but it's not off the table if GOPers revert to obstructionist tactics once again. The POTUS has the right to appoint like-minded cabinet and judicial officials and it's the the Senate's responsibility to vote on those nominees, not exploit the filibuster for political purposes and harm the nation in doing so.
Harming the nation for political purposes is done by Democrats every day, Kline.

Crawl back to your basement, please.
Really

Coopersburg, PA

#12 Jul 17, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
He has no such right. Read the "Advise and Consent" role of the U.S. Senate in the Constitution - Article II Section 2 paragraph 2, requiring 60 votes to override a filibuster. We are not a dictatorship (yet). If you think putting union hacks in charge of the National Labor Relations Board is something that Republicans should rubber stamp, you're the "extreminist". The U.S. Supreme Court even ruled those reces
appointments as unconstitutional.
Really. ABSOLUTELY no mention of 60 votes in the Constitution The Constitution does REQUIRE a majority. That would be 51 of the
100 senators. Stop lying or being stupid.
Info

Broomall, PA

#13 Jul 17, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>
Really. ABSOLUTELY no mention of 60 votes in the Constitution The Constitution does REQUIRE a majority. That would be 51 of the
100 senators. Stop lying or being stupid.
Actually, it's a Senate rule, called "cloture" that was adopted during the Wilson administration

On March 8, 1917, in a specially called session of the 65th Congress, the Senate agreed to a rule that essentially preserved its tradition of unlimited debate. The rule required a two-thirds majority to end debate and permitted each member to speak for an additional hour after that before voting on final passage. Over the next 46 years, the Senate managed to invoke cloture on only five occasions.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/m...

It's actually a 2/3 majority, not 60 votes.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#14 Jul 17, 2013
Info wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it's a Senate rule, called "cloture" that was adopted during the Wilson administration
On March 8, 1917, in a specially called session of the 65th Congress, the Senate agreed to a rule that essentially preserved its tradition of unlimited debate. The rule required a two-thirds majority to end debate and permitted each member to speak for an additional hour after that before voting on final passage. Over the next 46 years, the Senate managed to invoke cloture on only five occasions.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/m...
It's actually a 2/3 majority, not 60 votes.
and such a rule is not in the US Constitution.

" the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion's passage from those Senators "present and voting" to those Senators "duly chosen and sworn". Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every Senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant.(For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 Senators "duly chosen and sworn", it would only take 59 votes for a cloture motion to pass.)[9]
The new version of the cloture rule, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture.

as to the changing of the Senate rules it is a little more involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_S...

"The Senate votes on the petition; three-fifths of the whole number of Senators (sixty with no vacancies) is the required majority; however, when cloture is invoked on a question of changing the rules of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators voting (not necessarily two-thirds of all Senators) is the requisite majority. This is commonly referred to in the news media as a "test vote"."
Humid

Perkasie, PA

#15 Jul 18, 2013
Info wrote:
<quoted text>I wonder about that. If we get involved in some dire military commitment near the end of his term, I wonder if they will give him "emergency powers" or something similar. Think Chancellor Palpatine of Star Wars becoming emperor.
Who are the infamous "they" who'll give the president emergency power to stay in office?
Humid

Perkasie, PA

#16 Jul 18, 2013
Info wrote:
<quoted text>Harming the nation for political purposes is done by Democrats every day, Kline.
Crawl back to your basement, please.
It's done by ALL politicians, all the time. They don't do it specifically to harm the nation, they do it to line their own pockets and stay in office.
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#17 Jul 18, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Mitt Romney lost!!!! Obama won the WH and has the right to make appointments reflecting his values. The WH and Democratic Caucas bent over backwards in making this compromise, but the extreminists still complain.
You would be singing a different tune if Romney was making appointments, comrade.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#18 Jul 18, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
The Democrats control the Senate and have the power to change the rules. The nuclear option was averted, but it's not off the table if GOPers revert to obstructionist tactics once again. The POTUS has the right to appoint like-minded cabinet and judicial officials and it's the the Senate's responsibility to vote on those nominees, not exploit the filibuster for political purposes and harm the nation in doing so.
Then why did Harry Reid strongly oppose eliminating the filibuster when the Dems were in the minority? HMMMMMMMMMMM? Remember what the Dems did to Robert Bork??? Or all the House bills Harry Reid refuses to allow the Senate to vote on? It's all political BS and both parties are hip deep in it. Dems don't get to take the high road when they readily play in the dirt.

POTUS has NO constitutional right to appoint anyone that requires the advise and consent of the Senate. The "nuclear option" was a bluff. The Dems knew it would eventually come back and bite them in the ass if they tried it.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#19 Jul 18, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>
Really. ABSOLUTELY no mention of 60 votes in the Constitution The Constitution does REQUIRE a majority. That would be 51 of the
100 senators. Stop lying or being stupid.
Really? Not sure why the hostility...but this may clarify it for you:

"A simple majority vote, a quorum being present, is required to confirm a nomination, but, if there is significant opposition, supporters of a nomination may first need to win a super-majority vote to end debate (60 votes) before the simple majority confirmation vote can take place."

"Senators who are opposed to a nomination may prevent the Senate from taking a final vote on it by means of extended debate.
The only recourse the majority leader has to force an end to the debate on a nomination is to use the cloture process, which would then require the support of 60 Senators to end the debate and
vote on the confirmation of the nomination."

"The Senate has a number of rules or precedents that require either a two-thirds or a three-fifths vote. The super-majority requirements include the following:

Under Senate Rule XXII, a three-fifths vote of all Senators (60 of 100) is required to invoke cloture (the closure of debate) on most questions."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41872.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-779.pdf

60 votes may not be specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but the option of using a supermajority is (Article I, Section 5):

“Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings.” Under this affirmative constitutional power, the Senate has imposed on itself a number of additional super-majority (sometimes called “extraordinary majority”) requirements."
Joe

Chalfont, PA

#20 Jul 18, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did Harry Reid strongly oppose eliminating the filibuster when the Dems were in the minority? HMMMMMMMMMMM? Remember what the Dems did to Robert Bork??? Or all the House bills Harry Reid refuses to allow the Senate to vote on? It's all political BS and both parties are hip deep in it. Dems don't get to take the high road when they readily play in the dirt.
POTUS has NO constitutional right to appoint
anyone that requires the advise and consent of the Senate. The "nuclear option" was a bluff. The Dems knew it would eventually come back and bite them in the ass if they tried it.
When Bush was in office the Democratic Caucas rarely filibustered any appointment to death. On the other hand ever since Obama won office in 2008, the GOP has filibustered almost every appointment. Until finally approved yesterday his appointment for the Consumer Protection Agrncy was filibustered for two years! Why???? I'll tell you why. It was for rank political reasons. And don't think the voters haven't noticed.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#21 Jul 18, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>When Bush was in office the Democratic Caucas rarely filibustered any appointment to death. On the other hand ever since Obama won office in 2008, the GOP has filibustered almost every appointment. Until finally approved yesterday his appointment for the Consumer Protection Agrncy was filibustered for two years! Why???? I'll tell you why. It was for rank political reasons. And don't think the voters haven't noticed.
Both parties put politics ahead of the best interests of the country. And I'm not a big fan of filibusters, but maybe the problem is the quality of Obama's appointments. Far Left wackos, cronies, and Socialists don't give Conservatives the warm fuzzies. Yes, the voters are noticing. They're noticing the scandals and incompetence of this Administration and particularly Obamacare going down in flames.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Coopersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ametek U.S. Gauge (Jul '12) Sat Its Time 148
What is going up at the corner of Tollgate and ... Dec 3 bob 22
Outrageous Prices for a haircut in Qtown Nov 29 Bad Cuts 12
Is God Real? (Mar '13) Nov 29 macholibre 304
Memories of Quakertown (Jan '10) Nov 26 TLoch 770
School zone timing? Nov 25 me 10
Most Annoying TV Commercial (Oct '12) Nov 22 retiredguru 54

Coopersburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Coopersburg Mortgages