Reid Goes Nuclear

Harry ReidOn Thursday, 225 years of Senate tradition was cast aside by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) when he invoked the so-called “nuclear option” and eliminated filibusters against most presidential nominations. “The American people believe Congress is broken. The American people believe the Senate is broken. And I believe they are right,” Reid said Thursday on the Senate floor. “The need for change is so very, very obvious.” What’s just as obvious is the primary motive behind this effort: to tilt an evenly-divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decidedly to the left.

The historic rule change was passed by a vote of 52-48, with three Democrats, Sens. Mark Pryor (D-AK), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Carl Levin (D-MI), opposing the alteration. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was incensed, not only by the change itself, but the fact that a simple majority of 51 votes was used to change the rule itself, rather than a supermajority of 60 votes that normally applies to Senate rule changes. After accusing Democrats of a power grab, McConnell suggested they will regret their decision when Republicans regain control of the chamber. “We’re not interested in having a gun put to our head any longer,” McConnell said addressing his colleagues form the Senate floor. “Some of us have been around here long enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot.” Addressing Democrats directly he predicted that they will regret their decision “a lot sooner than you think.”

As of now, the change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations. But on Wednesday, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned Democrats that if they insisted on changing the rules, the GOP will up the ante when they attain majority status, leaving Democrats no opportunity to filibuster appointments to the nation’s highest court.

The move marks quite a change of heart by Reid. In 2005, when Republicans had a Senate majority and threatened to invoke the nuclear option over stalled nominees, Reid argued passionately against the very same procedure he used yesterday. “They are talking about doing something illegal. They are talking about breaking the rules to change the rules, and that is not appropriate,” he said in April of that year. “That is not fair, and it is not right.” A month later he remained just as adamant. “To change the rules in the Senate can’t be done by a simple majority. It can only be done if there is extended debate by 67 votes,” he insisted.

Thus, it was no surprise that Republicans accused Reid of hypocrisy. Democrats countered that McConnell was ready to support the nuclear option when former Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) wanted to strip the power to filibuster from the Democrat minority eight years ago. The most obvious flaw in the Democrats’ argument is that it never actually happened.

Now that it has happened, courtesy of Reid’s about-face, the three nominations blocked by Republicans from sitting on the nation’s second most powerful court will undoubtedly be confirmed. Those nominees are Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins.

Patricia Millet is by far the most reasonable pick for a spot on the DC Court. She is a former member of the Solicitor General’s Office under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. She has argued more than 30 cases before the Supreme Court, has advocated for members of the military and their spouses (she is married to a Naval Reservist) and is a woman of faith.

Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins are entirely different stories. Pillard is a radical feminist who wrote a 2007 law review article contending that abstinence-only sex education is not only “permeated with stereotyped messages and sex-based double standards about acceptable male and female sexual behavior and appropriate social roles,” but that it is unconstitutional. She defines ultrasounds as “deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being that the anti-choice movement has popularized since the advent of amniocentesis.”

Yet perhaps the best example of her radical mindset was her discussion of the Supreme Court case “Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC” at a September 2011 press briefing for Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute. The case was about the right of the Lutheran Church to choose their religious ministers. She characterized the Church’s position as “a substantial threat to the American rule of law,” and predicted the Court would be unlikely to uphold it. The Court ruled 9-0 in the Church’s favor. Thus, it would not be unreasonable to assume Pillard is to the left of even the most leftist judges on the Supreme Court.

Robert Wilkins’ press release reads like a dream. He received his B.S. from the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in 1986 and his  J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1989. The Legal Times has named him one of the 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Last 30 Years, and he currently practices “corporate defense/white collar, technology, and commercial litigation.”

What Wilkins’ press release fails to mention is that he led an illegal occupation of a Harvard law school building. He and his fellow students demanded a commitment from Harvard to hire 20 women or minority group members over the next four years as tenured or tenure-track professors. Seven of the professors, including four women, were to be black. That protest was undertaken in support of radical bigot Derrick Bell, whose Critical Race Theory posits that America is, and always has been, an intrinsically racist society.

Democrats were primarily frustrated by the Republicans’ use of the filibuster to hold up these nominations, along with the main reason they cited for doing so, which was the assertion that the DC appellate court’s light work load didn’t require additional judges. Republicans further asserted that their aggressiveness with regard to filibustering nominations was exactly the same approach Democrats have taken when they were in the minority.

Harry Reid has now altered the equation entirely.

Unsurprisingly, President Obama supported the move. “A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to re-fight the results of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, it cannot become normal,” he said.

Just as unsurprisingly, Obama, like Reid, took the exact opposite position in 2005. “I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness,” Obama said in a speech before the Senate in April of that year. “I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy.”

He also issued a warning. “The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster–if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate–then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse,” Obama said.

Now that the filibuster has been eliminated, Republicans are equally pessimistic. “When you start, it’s like wars–there’s no end to this. I don’t know where it goes,” said Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) had an even darker perspective. “In my view this is the most important and most dangerous restructuring of Senate rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote them at the beginning of our country,” he warned.

Perhaps the most cogent understanding of the consequences was presented by Richard Arenberg, an adjunct lecturer at Brown University. Arenberg also served as a Senate staffer for 34 years. “For more than 200 years, the Senate has protected the privileges of the minority to debate and to amend legislation,” he explained. “As poisonous as it gets sometimes, lines of communication between the majority and the minority are always open.” With the change, he believes it’s only a matter of time before the filibuster is eliminated completely, destroying the fundamental way the Senate operates.

Sen. Mark Pryor, one of the three Democrats who opposed the measure, echoed Arenberg’s central assertion, contending in a statement that the Senate was “designed to protect–not stamp out–the voices of the minority.”

Nonetheless, progressives were ecstatic. “This was not a decision made easily or taken lightly. There was no choice. The Republican minority had turned the existing rules into weapons of mass obstruction,” said Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron. Conservatives were disgusted. “For Harry Reid and President Obama, this is not about a couple circuit court judges; this is an attempt to remake America to reflect their unworkable and unpopular progressive vision,” said Michael Needham of Heritage Action.

Many Republicans contend the move was designed to distract from the most unpopular progressive vision currently before the public, namely ObamaCare. “Today we face a real crisis in the confirmation process, a crisis concocted by the Democrat majority to distract attention from the ObamaCare disaster and, in the process, consolidate more power than any majority has had in more than 200 years,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in a statement.  House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) concurred. “It sounds to me like Harry Reid is trying to change the subject and if I were taking all the incoming fire that he’s taking over ObamaCare, I’d try to change the subject too,” he contended.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter why Reid did what he did. What matters is that the congressional chamber long described as “the world’s greatest deliberative body” can no longer lay claim to that mantle. Reid who is every bit the bully Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) described him as, has opened up a Pandora’s Box destined to radicalize Congress’s upper chamber. Each switch of party control is likely to strip away more minority rights as a tit-for-tat consolidation of power is played out over and over, with no end in sight. As that happens, each side will become even more hardened than they are now.

Currently, progressives are happy with that development. Ironically, their elation may be far more short-lived than they imagine. Most Americans have yet to experience the full scope of the debacle ObamaCare represents. But when the next round of 50 million to 100 million insurance policy cancellations that await employees with “ungrandfathered” policies hits–beginning a month before the 2014 mid-term elections–there is a good possibility that Reid and company may find themselves as neutered as they are making Republicans right now. In other words, what goes around, comes around.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Time for a good old fashioned caning.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Time for a good old fashioned caning.

    • defcon 4

      They also burn down synagogues in Indonesia.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        In most Muslim countries, isn’t against the law to rebuild a non-Muslim worship facility that is destroyed?

        • NAHALKIDES

          Yes, it is.

    • NAHALKIDES

      Six strokes for every Democrat who voted for Obamacare. No – make that six strokes for every Democrat, period – they’re all out to rob us of every freedom we enjoy.

  • defcon 4

    They also burn down synagogues in Indonesia.

  • CaoMoo

    Beware the power you usrp today for tomorrow it may be used against you. is a lesson both parties should keep in mind. The president especially.

  • CaoMoo

    usurp/ not usrp… what I get for trying to sound smart in the morning.

  • CaoMoo

    Beware the power you usrp today for tomorrow it may be used against you. is a lesson both parties should keep in mind. The president especially.

    • CaoMoo

      usurp/ not usrp… what I get for trying to sound smart in the morning.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        No problem on spelling. Simple typo!

        It would be pleasant if more people wouldn’t seize on typos and use them as an indication of “stupidity” on the part of people they disagree with.

        • NAHALKIDES

          Yeah, I’ve had that happen to me too. By the way, CaoMoo, you should be able to edit your own post and correct any typos in it directly.

          • CaoMoo

            oh yeah you can edit here so many sights don’t let you do that I guess I just forgot

          • Gee

            Just a minor correction – it is ‘sites’ not ‘sights’. The first is a place the second is on top of a weapon

  • tic…tic…BOOM

    Karma is a bitch. This will bite the democrats remaining in the Senate after the 2014 elections. Republicans, nominate candidates who have real conservative or Libertarian credentials and who know how to properly answer questions, unlike Todd Aiken.

  • tic…tic…BOOM

    Karma is a bitch. This will bite the democrats remaining in the Senate after the 2014 elections. Republicans, nominate candidates who have real conservative or Libertarian credentials and who know how to properly answer questions, unlike Todd Aiken.

  • CowboyUp

    Notice how quite the msm is, in comparison to the GOP threat of going nuclear when they were in the majority. Then it was a “constitutional crisis.” If the GOP wins a majority in the Senate, the msm will 180 with the dp, then mitch and john will fold like a wet paper sack.

  • CowboyUp

    Notice how quite the msm is, in comparison to the GOP threat of going nuclear when they were in the majority. Then it was a “constitutional crisis.” If the GOP wins a majority in the Senate, the msm will 180 with the dp, then mitch and john will fold like a wet paper sack.

  • m4253y

    what the caliphate does not understand, and WILL NEVER understand is that his minions, savages, subsidy dwellers, down and out blacks, hispanics, etc., is that these cretins do not vote in elections where the stakes aren’t worth their efforts.

    the caliphate stated yesterday in his edict that ‘it has been 5 years of congressional’ hindrance to his edicts.

    he is so fucking stupid that he forgets that the one branch of the legislative, congress was his for two years and he lost it due to his, reid’s and piglosi’s arrogance AND their base of BOTTOM DWELLERS who did not show up.

    what will change for this senate election in 2014? nothing in terms of voter turnout unless the gop fucks it up!

    this power grab like the caliphate care power grab is a gift to the gop.

    i hope they use it well

  • m4253y

    what the caliphate does not understand, and WILL NEVER understand is that his minions, savages, subsidy dwellers, down and out blacks, hispanics, etc., is that these cretins do not vote in elections where the stakes aren’t worth their efforts.

    the caliphate stated yesterday in his edict that ‘it has been 5 years of congressional’ hindrance to his edicts.

    he is so fucking stupid that he forgets that the one branch of the legislative, congress was his for two years and he lost it due to his, reid’s and piglosi’s arrogance AND their base of BOTTOM DWELLERS who did not show up.

    what will change for this senate election in 2014? nothing in terms of voter turnout unless the gop fucks it up!

    this power grab like the caliphate care power grab is a gift to the gop.

    i hope they use it well

  • WillyWallace

    Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the Voter Fraud Committee have calculated that they can win 2014 and another into 2016 which would give them another in 2020 so in that amount of time, they will have removed every Conservative Judge in every state and then the Supreme Court and “appointed” Far-Left Judges that will only adhere to their agenda or they will be removed. “Constitution,” you say? Rewrite it since it was written “by a bunch of White men who owned slaves.”

    They will also be free to pass any legislation they want and they will force it down our throats and say “it is the will of the people, and people, and people who voted multiple times, and illegals, since we won the election.”

    The Democrats have also figured out to commit fraud with the early voting system but especially the mail-in system where they have numerous ballots mailed to them, or given to them by the truckload by the Democrat Secretary of State or county workers and filled out with people they know who have not voted yet according to their computer records. Then if that person actually does vote in person, that mail-in ballot has not been registered yet on the computer so they will have two votes. If the SOS is in on it, they will have multiple mail-in ballots for one person and the workers in the office, all Democrats/ACORN holdouts, will approve them. They figured it out folks and the Republicans will never win ever again. Face it.

    How will they win even after so many “phony scandals,” ACA, and this Filibuster? Fill the people up with so many freebies till they bust and they wouldn’t dare vote out those people that cared for them so much. Even Republicans will be caught up in this and they’ll give up their principles to vote for freebies. Therefore, Democrats will be in power forever. Who then needs any other political party when they are powerless? So, what do you have? A Totalitarian Dictatorship with a President for Life. Bow down now and “join the Party” or you will be sent to re-education camp or the Gulag.

    Remember the book given to Obama by Hugo Chavez? It’s was Hugo’s Playbook and now we know what’s in it. Look at the tactics used in Venezuela and you will see what Obama is doing here. Viva Obama!

  • WillyWallace

    Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the Voter Fraud Committee have calculated that they can win 2014 and another into 2016 which would give them another in 2020 so in that amount of time, they will have removed every Conservative Judge in every state and then the Supreme Court and “appointed” Far-Left Judges that will only adhere to their agenda or they will be removed. “Constitution,” you say? Rewrite it since it was written “by a bunch of White men who owned slaves.”

    They will also be free to pass any legislation they want and they will force it down our throats and say “it is the will of the people, and people, and people who voted multiple times, and illegals, since we won the election.”

    The Democrats have also figured out to commit fraud with the early voting system but especially the mail-in system where they have numerous ballots mailed to them, or given to them by the truckload by the Democrat Secretary of State or county workers and filled out with people they know who have not voted yet according to their computer records. Then if that person actually does vote in person, that mail-in ballot has not been registered yet on the computer so they will have two votes. If the SOS is in on it, they will have multiple mail-in ballots for one person and the workers in the office, all Democrats/ACORN holdouts, will approve them. They figured it out folks and the Republicans will never win ever again. Face it.

    How will they win even after so many “phony scandals,” ACA, and this Filibuster? Fill the people up with so many freebies till they bust and they wouldn’t dare vote out those people that cared for them so much. Even Republicans will be caught up in this and they’ll give up their principles to vote for freebies. Therefore, Democrats will be in power forever. Who then needs any other political party when they are powerless? So, what do you have? A Totalitarian Dictatorship with a President for Life. Bow down now and “join the Party” or you will be sent to re-education camp or the Gulag.

    Remember the book given to Obama by Hugo Chavez? It’s was Hugo’s Playbook and now we know what’s in it. Look at the tactics used in Venezuela and you will see what Obama is doing here. Viva Obama!

    • NAHALKIDES

      You may be right. The situation you describe is often called “the tipping point”, meaning that so many voters have been bribed with other people’s money that the Democrats will have a permanent hammerlock on power. But let’s hope we can still just barely win at the national level – it will then be imperative to begin rolling back the state.

      • Randy Townsend

        It’s not permanent, just long enough so that when the $ does run out (and it always will since the demand always outstrips a government’s ability to pay for it), the government will be ready to use force to keep the government goodie-junkies in their place (and they will do just that). I agree that the country has permanently turned the corner into the Land of Gimmie, but there are those of us that don’t do that. Neither me, nor my family, will be relying upon the likes of Washington to provide for us.

    • Michael__Durham

      Hang these f**kers high. All of them. End of problem.

  • WillyWallace

    Alinsky + Chavez + Castro = OBAMA!

    Welcome to the United States of VenezCuba. Remember when Hugo Chavez confronted Obama and gave him a book? Now we know what’s in it. “Rob from the rich, give to the poor pendejos and they’ll vote for you. Ban or demonize all media opposition. Take over Congress and rewrite the outdated Constitution. No term limits. President for Life. ‘It’s the will of the people.’ Anyone against this is a Counter-Revolutionary. One Political Party. No more election hassles and commercials. One man runs, one man gets 100% of the vote. No thinking necessary since one man does all the thinking for everyone!” VIVA OBAMA! VIVA OBAMA! VIVA! VIVA! VIVA OBAMA!

    Former President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, tried the same moves and his own VP and Supreme Court called it illegal and he was kicked out of the country. The only leaders demanding his return were Chavez, Hillary, and Obama.

    If only our Supreme Court could be as brave. Obama has gone dictator on us and if something doesn’t happen soon for all of his “phony scandals” that Holder won’t prosecute, there will be a revolution and what’s bad about that is that Obama will have the troops, under the same Constitution he despises, to shoot and kill Americans. Why do you think Homeland Security is buying every bullet off the shelves? The Tea Party will officially be labeled “a domestic enemy.”

  • WillyWallace

    Alinsky + Chavez + Castro = OBAMA!

    Welcome to the United States of VenezCuba. Remember when Hugo Chavez confronted Obama and gave him a book? Now we know what’s in it. “Rob from the rich, give to the poor pendejos and they’ll vote for you. Ban or demonize all media opposition. Take over Congress and rewrite the outdated Constitution. No term limits. President for Life. ‘It’s the will of the people.’ Anyone against this is a Counter-Revolutionary. One Political Party. No more election hassles and commercials. One man runs, one man gets 100% of the vote. No thinking necessary since one man does all the thinking for everyone!” VIVA OBAMA! VIVA OBAMA! VIVA! VIVA! VIVA OBAMA!

    Former President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, tried the same moves and his own VP and Supreme Court called it illegal and he was kicked out of the country. The only leaders demanding his return were Chavez, Hillary, and Obama.

    If only our Supreme Court could be as brave. Obama has gone dictator on us and if something doesn’t happen soon for all of his “phony scandals” that Holder won’t prosecute, there will be a revolution and what’s bad about that is that Obama will have the troops, under the same Constitution he despises, to shoot and kill Americans. Why do you think Homeland Security is buying every bullet off the shelves? The Tea Party will officially be labeled “a domestic enemy seeking the overthrow of the United States” and Obama will have millions of supporters helping him. “Brother against Brother.”

  • steve b

    After what Harry Reid did today, when the Republicans regain the Senate they should change the rules back to 2/3 vote to break a filibuster instead of 60 votes.

    Then, when we get the Senate and a Republican President as well, they should change the rules again so it takes 20 votes to approve an appointment – regardless of the number of no-votes.

    Also, this 20-vote policy should include a proviso that it goes back automatically to a 2/3 margin the day before the next Democrat president is inaugurated.

    The Republicans probably don’t have the balls to do this, but it would stick it to
    the Dems where it belongs.

  • steve b

    After what Harry Reid did today, when the Republicans regain the Senate they should change the rules back to 2/3 vote to break a filibuster instead of 60 votes.

    Then, when we get the Senate and a Republican President as well, they should change the rules again so it takes 20 votes to approve an appointment – regardless of the number of no-votes.

    Also, this 20-vote policy should include a proviso that it goes back automatically to a 2/3 margin the day before the next Democrat president is inaugurated.

    The Republicans probably don’t have the balls to do this, but it would stick it to
    the Dems where it belongs.

    • NAHALKIDES

      When Republicans win the Senate, the last thing they should want is to empower the newly-defeated Democrats by restoring or even enhancing the filibuster. Remember, we want to be able to steamroller the Democrats on everything – bills and appointments. Also, they can’t change the rules so that 20 votes would be enough for confirming presidential appointments – the Constitution requires “the consent of the Senate” which cannot logically mean less than 50% in favor of the nominee.

      • steve b

        THE CONSENT OF THE SENATE APPARENTLY MEANS WHATEVER RULES THE SENATE MAKES UP. AS LONG AS THERE IS A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT I DO NOT WANT A FEW RINOS (MCCAIN, LINDSAY GRAHAM, ETC) TO BE ABLE TO “REACH ACROSS THE AISLE” AND APPROVE ANYONE WITH A 51-VOTE TOTAL.
        AS FAR AS PASSING SOMEONE WITH LESS THAN THE MAJORITY, THE CONSTITUTION ONLY SAYS THE SENATE MUST CONSENT – IT REMAINS FOR THE SENATE TO DECIDE WHAT CONSENT MEANS. AFTER ALL, IT ONLY TOOK THE CONSENT OF ONE PRESIDENT TO GRANT WAIVERS, POSTPONE THE EMPLOYER MANDATE, NOW POSTPONE THE 2015 CHANGES TILL A WEEK AFTER THE 2014 ELECTIONS, ETC, NONE OF WHICH IS IN THE OBAMACARE LAW.
        IF I AM A REPUBLICAN SITTING IN REID’S SEAT, I’LL MAKE THE CONSENT 100 SENATORS IF IT WILL GUARANTEE THAT OBAMA, HILLARY, OR ANY OTHER COMMUNIST PRESIDENT DOES NOT GET ONE SINGLE JUDGE OR APPOINTMENT APPROVED.

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    No problem on spelling. Simple typo!

    It would be pleasant if more people wouldn’t seize on typos and use them as an indication of “stupidity” on the part of people they disagree with.

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    In most Muslim countries, isn’t against the law to rebuild a non-Muslim worship facility that is destroyed?

  • NAHALKIDES

    Actually, the filibuster has never been a good idea, and by substantially chipping away at it here Reid has done Republicans an inadvertent favor. It’s all well and good for the Senate to have more extended debate than the House, but unlimited debate? At a certain point, the arguments have been heard and it’s time to vote. Our side (Conservatives) have been grateful for the filibuster because the Democrats have become extreme Left-wingers and it’s one of the few weapons we’ve had to obstruct them as they try to dismantle America. But we need to correctly identify the problem, which is a government (Congress) unlimited by superior law (the Constitution), instead of the limited, Constitutional government we’re supposed to have. In other words, the majority is not supposed to be able to rule, but only to govern.

    The Senate has always had an inflated sense of its own importance, and with the filibuster in place, one can well imagine John McCain, for instance, defending this “institution of the Senate” as Democrats filibustered the repeal of Obamacare. Remember, with the deck stacked against us as it is, the best our side can hope for is 51 or 52 Republicans, many of them squishes, in the 2015 and 2017 Senates. We will not have the votes to break a Democratic filibuster, and as we have seen (e.g. in Wisconsin), Democrats will pull any dirty trick in the book to avoid some measure of freedom and sanity being returned to our government. We need the power to steamroller the Democrats, and getting rid of the filibuster will make that possible.

  • NAHALKIDES

    Actually, the filibuster has never been a good idea, and by substantially chipping away at it here Reid has done Republicans an inadvertent favor. It’s all well and good for the Senate to have more extended debate than the House, but unlimited debate? At a certain point, the arguments have been heard and it’s time to vote. Our side (Conservatives) have been grateful for the filibuster because the Democrats have become extreme Left-wingers and it’s one of the few weapons we’ve had to obstruct them as they try to dismantle America. But we need to correctly identify the problem, which is a government (Congress) unlimited by superior law (the Constitution), instead of the limited, Constitutional government we’re supposed to have. In other words, the majority is not supposed to be able to rule, but only to govern.

    The Senate has always had an inflated sense of its own importance, and with the filibuster in place, one can well imagine John McCain, for instance, defending this “institution of the Senate” as Democrats filibustered the repeal of Obamacare. Remember, with the deck stacked against us as it is, the best our side can hope for is 51 or 52 Republicans, many of them squishes, in the 2015 and 2017 Senates. We will not have the votes to break a Democratic filibuster, and as we have seen (e.g. in Wisconsin), Democrats will pull any dirty trick in the book to avoid some measure of freedom and sanity being returned to our government. We need the power to steamroller the Democrats, and getting rid of the filibuster will make that possible.

  • NAHALKIDES

    Yes, it is.

  • NAHALKIDES

    Six strokes for every Democrat who voted for Obamacare. No – make that six strokes for every Democrat, period – they’re all out to rob us of every freedom we enjoy.

  • NAHALKIDES

    Yeah, I’ve had that happen to me too. By the way, CaoMoo, you should be able to edit your own post and correct any typos in it directly.

  • NAHALKIDES

    You may be right. The situation you describe is often called “the tipping point”, meaning that so many voters have been bribed with other people’s money that the Democrats will have a permanent hammerlock on power. But let’s hope we can still just barely win at the national level – it will then be imperative to begin rolling back the state.

  • NAHALKIDES

    When Republicans win the Senate, the last thing they should want is to empower the newly-defeated Democrats by restoring or even enhancing the filibuster. Remember, we want to be able to steamroller the Democrats on everything – bills and appointments. Also, they can’t change the rules so that 20 votes would be enough for confirming presidential appointments – the Constitution requires “the consent of the Senate” which cannot logically mean less than 50% in favor of the nominee.

  • Bigboy

    This must not stand!

  • Bigboy

    This must not stand!

  • Randy Townsend

    It’s not permanent, just long enough so that when the $ does run out (and it always will since the demand always outstrips a government’s ability to pay for it), the government will be ready to use force to keep the government goodie-junkies in their place (and they will do just that). I agree that the country has permanently turned the corner into the Land of Gimmie, but there are those of us that don’t do that. Neither me, nor my family, will be relying upon the likes of Washington to provide for us.

  • steve b

    THE CONSENT OF THE SENATE APPARENTLY MEANS WHATEVER RULES THE SENATE MAKES UP. AS LONG AS THERE IS A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT I DO NOT WANT A FEW RINOS (MCCAIN, LINDSAY GRAHAM, ETC) TO BE ABLE TO “REACH ACROSS THE AISLE” AND APPROVE ANYONE WITH A 51-VOTE TOTAL.
    AS FAR AS PASSING SOMEONE WITH LESS THAN THE MAJORITY, THE CONSTITUTION ONLY SAYS THE SENATE MUST CONSENT – IT REMAINS FOR THE SENATE TO DECIDE WHAT CONSENT MEANS. AFTER ALL, IT ONLY TOOK THE CONSENT OF ONE PRESIDENT TO GRANT WAIVERS, POSTPONE THE EMPLOYER MANDATE, NOW POSTPONE THE 2015 CHANGES TILL A WEEK AFTER THE 2014 ELECTIONS, ETC, NONE OF WHICH IS IN THE OBAMACARE LAW.
    IF I AM A REPUBLICAN SITTING IN REID’S SEAT, I’LL MAKE THE CONSENT 100 SENATORS IF IT WILL GUARANTEE THAT OBAMA, HILLARY, OR ANY OTHER COMMUNIST PRESIDENT DOES NOT GET ONE SINGLE JUDGE OR APPOINTMENT APPROVED.

  • kasandra

    This is simply a bare knuckled power grab in pursuit of the D’s ultimate goal – one party rule. Contrary to Ms. Aron’s quote in the article (“There was no choice. The Republican minority had turned the existing rules into weapons of mass obstruction”) the Republicans blocked 5 out of 220 (less than 2.5%) judicial nominations. The bulk of the alleged “filibusters” referred to by Reid, Obama and other one-party rule advocates are imaginary. Reid called for cloture votes on legislation that was not being filibustered and then counted the number of cloture votes as the number of instances in which there were filibusters. This massively increased the numbers of claimed filibusters he frequently cites way above the number of actual filibusters. If their is any obstructionism in the Senate it is personified in “Dirty Harry Reid” himself who refuses to allow debates or votes on numerous pieces of legislation either proposed by Republicans in the Senate or brought over from the House.

  • kasandra

    This is simply a bare knuckled power grab in pursuit of the D’s ultimate goal – one party rule. Contrary to Ms. Aron’s quote in the article (“There was no choice. The Republican minority had turned the existing rules into weapons of mass obstruction”) the Republicans blocked 5 out of 220 (less than 2.5%) judicial nominations. The bulk of the alleged “filibusters” referred to by Reid, Obama and other one-party rule advocates are imaginary. Reid called for cloture votes on legislation that was not being filibustered and then counted the number of cloture votes as the number of instances in which there were filibusters. This massively increased the numbers of claimed filibusters he frequently cites way above the number of actual filibusters. If their is any obstructionism in the Senate it is personified in “Dirty Harry Reid” himself who refuses to allow debates or votes on numerous pieces of legislation either proposed by Republicans in the Senate or brought over from the House.

  • Juan Motie

    harry “pinky” reid, the senile and demented old fascist pig from nevada, voted against cloture at least 25 times on 13 different nominees of George W. Bush, yet he’s outraged that Republicans defeated a grand total of seven cloture motions on Obama nominees.Hypocrisy, thy name is “extreme radical left wingnut party of death democrats.”

  • Juan Motie

    harry “pinky” reid, the senile and demented old fascist pig from nevada, voted against cloture at least 25 times on 13 different nominees of George W. Bush, yet he’s outraged that Republicans defeated a grand total of seven cloture motions on Obama nominees.Hypocrisy, thy name is “extreme radical left wingnut party of death democrats.”

  • Gee

    What goes around comes around.

    When the Republicans are the majority I fully expect that they will treat the Democrats as they have been treated.

    Senator Reid and company have destroyed the United States Senate

  • Gee

    What goes around comes around.

    When the Republicans are the majority I fully expect that they will treat the Democrats as they have been treated.

    Senator Reid and company have destroyed the United States Senate

  • Michael__Durham

    Hang these f**kers high. All of them. End of problem.

  • weirdpeter

    We will hear nothing negative about this from the talking heads because they realize their side has won. There may be a few stories about it, but it will be the Tea Party’s fault. This is the result of RINO comity and fence sitting independents believing Obama’s press releases. We are now entering another stage of the Collectivist/Marxist take over and transformation of the United States.
    This is the ultimate example of a frog being boiled in a pot of warm water. The United States is being destroyed incrementally and the low information citizens of our once great nation are too brain numbed to realize what is happening. Just remember today the next time some senile Republican Senator from Arizona attacks members of his own party for being too radical. Remember the members of our own party who would rather rub elbows with the rich and famous than raise one finger finger in opposition to their good friends on the other side of the aisle.
    Do you now understand that our own government considers us the terrorists and the billions of bullets it has stockpiled are for those who dare question the legitimacy of Dear Leader?

  • weirdpeter

    We will hear nothing negative about this from the talking heads because they realize their side has won. There may be a few stories about it, but it will be the Tea Party’s fault. This is the result of RINO comity and fence sitting independents believing Obama’s press releases. We are now entering another stage of the Collectivist/Marxist take over and transformation of the United States.
    This is the ultimate example of a frog being boiled in a pot of warm water. The United States is being destroyed incrementally and the low information citizens of our once great nation are too brain numbed to realize what is happening. Just remember today the next time some senile Republican Senator from Arizona attacks members of his own party for being too radical. Remember the members of our own party who would rather rub elbows with the rich and famous than raise one finger finger in opposition to their good friends on the other side of the aisle.
    Do you now understand that our own government considers us the terrorists and the billions of bullets it has stockpiled are for those who dare question the legitimacy of Dear Leader?

    • Erudite Mavin

      Another post giving cover to the Democrats by attacking Republicans, the ones who are taking on this Democrat Majority.
      The ones we can thank for the Democrat Majority are the sit at home at third party voters who enabled Democrat victories.

      • weirdpeter

        No intention of giving cover to Dems, but I have watched the Republican establishment eat their own since Obama appeared on the scene.

        • Erudite Mavin

          Having followed politics over 50 years, the what you call establishment GOP are not eating their own but the pures, the all or nothings who would rather make a point than defeat Democrats and attempt to eat at the GOP.
          This is in part how the Democrats won, by the all or nothings who sat at home as they say to punish Republicans and did not have a problem with Obama winning.
          Now they whine about Obama’s Neo Marxist agenda.

          • weirdpeter

            Unfortunately, the pures on the left are the winners, because they are always backed by the mainstream Democrats. The pures in the Republican party are ostracized by the mainstream GOP. “Mainstream” gave us both Bush’s. Did we get even a hint of smaller government or less regulation? Nope. Mainstream gave us John McCain and Mitt Romney ( I voted for both of them). Mainstream Republicans fought tooth and nail to keep the “purest” of the pures from becoming POTUS – Ronald Reagan. By constantly rejecting ideas not printed in their catechism, the mainstream GOP demonstrates that it a closed shop. Which Democrat President in the last 50 years do you not consider “left wing” or one of the pures? The left elects ideologues to produce change, Republicans nominate and elect country club types to maintain the status quo.

  • Erudite Mavin

    Another post giving cover to the Democrats by attacking Republicans, the ones who are taking on this Democrat Majority.
    The ones we can thank for the Democrat Majority are the sit at home at third party voters who enabled Democrat victories.

  • CaoMoo

    oh yeah you can edit here so many sights don’t let you do that I guess I just forgot

  • weirdpeter

    No intention of giving cover to Dems, but I have watched the Republican establishment eat their own since Obama appeared on the scene.

  • Erudite Mavin

    Having followed politics over 50 years, the what you call establishment GOP are not eating their own but the pures, the all or nothings who would rather make a point than defeat Democrats and attempt to eat at the GOP.
    This is in part how the Democrats won, by the all or nothings who sat at home as they say to punish Republicans and did not have a problem with Obama winning.
    Now they whine about Obama’s Neo Marxist agenda.

  • weirdpeter

    Unfortunately, the pures on the left are the winners, because they are always backed by the mainstream Democrats. The pures in the Republican party are ostracized by the mainstream GOP. “Mainstream” gave us both Bush’s. Did we get even a hint of smaller government or less regulation? Nope. Mainstream gave us John McCain and Mitt Romney ( I voted for both of them). Mainstream Republicans fought tooth and nail to keep the “purest” of the pures from becoming POTUS – Ronald Reagan. By constantly rejecting ideas not printed in their catechism, the mainstream GOP demonstrates that it a closed shop. Which Democrat President in the last 50 years do you not consider “left wing” or one of the pures? The left elects ideologues to produce change, Republicans nominate and elect country club types to maintain the status quo.

  • Gee

    Just a minor correction – it is ‘sites’ not ‘sights’. The first is a place the second is on top of a weapon

  • weirdpeter

    Just another result of Republicans meeting extreme Democrat politics with moderation. Each time an agreement is reached between cowed moderates and extreme leftists, the “center” is moved further left. Fostering a “Can’t we all get along?” attitude is similar to believing the meek shall inherit the earth. Did the Founding Fathers preach moderation when calling for separation from England? Appeasement has a long history of failure and I am not aware of any successful appeasers. To think of the current state of U.S. politics as anything but total war will put the moderates on the wrong side of history.

  • weirdpeter

    Just another result of Republicans meeting extreme Democrat politics with moderation. Each time an agreement is reached between cowed moderates and extreme leftists, the “center” is moved further left. Fostering a “Can’t we all get along?” attitude is similar to believing the meek shall inherit the earth. Did the Founding Fathers preach moderation when calling for separation from England? Appeasement has a long history of failure and I am not aware of any successful appeasers. To think of the current state of U.S. politics as anything but total war will put the moderates on the wrong side of history.

  • Erudite Mavin

    You have the usual libertarian talking points

    Here are the facts. The general population votes in the primaries. Who receives the most votes, wins.

    I am a Conservative Republican, I also understand the reality, a pure conservative is not going to win.
    The major population areas are not pure conservative.
    The idea is to win, not make a point.

    Many of the pures shoot themselves in the foot with their libertarian views of anti war, weak on National Security, their support for traitor Snowden, some attempting to become the story taking the focus off of
    Obama and his neo Marxist agenda.

    • weirdpeter

      I quote no one’s talking points although they may coincide with other points of view. I have not tried to pigeon hole you becuase I would be judging based upon a few paragraphs. You, apparently, are much more astute. I have voted for a Republican in every election, since I was 21(1967). My main point is that your argument against pures could just as easily used against “moderates.” Moderates shut out anyone who disagrees with the party platform. I have deliberately stayed away from specific hot button items,because it is easy to get bogged down. As a conservative Republican, I have difficultly swallowing the party’s left wing leanings, but I vote Republican. As a Conservative Repulican, can you tell me what is conservative about those Republicans running the party? I posted the following on a different thread:Just another result of Republicans meeting extreme Democrat politics with moderation. Each time an agreement is reached between cowed moderates and extreme leftists, the “center” is moved further left. Fostering a “Can’t we all get along?” attitude is similar to believing the meek shall inherit the earth. Did the Founding Fathers preach moderation when calling for separation from England? Appeasement has a long history of failure and I am not aware of any successful appeasers. To think of the current state of U.S. politics as anything but total war will put the moderates on the wrong side of history.

      • Erudite Mavin

        I stand by my comments as I understand what the founders believed and they all did not walk in lock step.
        I have over 13 5th great grandfathers who fought in the Revolutionary War and a member of the DAR.

        • weirdpeter

          And I thought credentialism was a tool of the intellectual left!

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    I also use Mozilla Firefox, as my browser. It has a built-in spell-checker that “red-lines” your spelling errors, as they occur. Of course, they don’t distinguish between improper word usages, like “to”, “two”, or “too”.

  • Joe Rogowski

    The best Senator that Mob money can buy!

  • WhiteHunter

    I wish I could agree with your expectation, but I doubt it will come true. The Damnocrat Party of today is savagely partisan, pathologically dishonest, and fanatically committed to its America-destroying agenda in every issue across the board. The Republican “establishment” doesn’t have the stomach to fight these savages with the same brutality–which is the only way to fight them successfully; it would be “ungentlemanly,” and “unseemly” to engage in a bare-knuckle brawl to the death. The Damnocrats have no such hesitation; they hate America with such white-hot intensity that to them, any means of bringing the country to its knees–no matter how filthy, how dishonest, how treasonous–is ipso facto justified.

  • WhiteHunter

    Love it!

  • celador2

    The federal judiciary and agency heads are where there is much power. By packing the court liberals win because they overtone laws we pass and declare their decisions legal. Reid is a fighter and won on judges. I wish we could do something like that once in a while.
    These judges are friendly to Obamacare, gun control , gay marriage and abortion and have no use for states regulating themselves

  • Kim58

    The American people voted them into office. If they wish to do so, they can vote them out of office. It’s all up to the American people. We the People will always outnumber our elected leaders. If the American family were more intact, perhaps the Media wouldn’t have so much power to convince the American people that Evil is Good and Good is Evil?

  • MrUniteUs1

    The Senate should be like the House, and the Supreme Court, majority vote wins.