Republicans Go Nuclear

[Englebert]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I want to shout to the rooftops a big thank you to Chuck Schumer for allowing the GOP to invoke the nuclear option to counter the Liberal Party Of Hate (formerly known as the Democrat Party) political filibuster attempt, and for shining a spotlight on the unadulterated partisanship of his party members. Please, please, please Liberals...keep these people as your leaders. Harry Reid opened the can of worms and the Republicans just shoved it down their throat. That last sentence was just to remind you re-writers of history that the Democrats started this tactic. Any complaints about the use of the nuclear option should be directed straight to Harry Reid and the Liberal Party of Hate.

Welcome Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

[stevenash]

Prepare to be told ( or inferred) that the nuclear option is acceptable when executed by the left but totally unwarranted otherwise.

[BS Wildcats]

YES!!!

[LumRaiderFan]

Winning

[jv_coach]

It will be the new norm, sadly. But it would be the democrats fault. 

 

[bullets13]

The republicans have plenty of blame here, so to make it seem like only the left is at fault is not fair.  Both sides are incredibly partisan, and neither is willing to work with the other.  And anyone celebrating this now likely won't be in the future the next time the left is in the position to use this strategy.  It was a shame that republicans worked so hard to thwart democratic nominees from Obama for lower courts to begin with, leading to the first use of the "nuclear option".  And now the republicans are going to both A) blame the dems for not allowing this nominee to go through (even though they blocked a democratic nominee last year in similar fashion) and B ) blame the dems for first using the nuclear option, even though the republicans basically forced them to use it, and even though republicans have no problem using it when put in the same position.  I'm not picking a side here.  Both are culpable.  But to get on here and celebrate us getting to this point as a good thing is asinine.  This whole scenario does not at all represent the democratic process, and when our leaders start skirting/changing rules we're in trouble.  You guys like it now because the right is in charge, but sooner or later that will change, and y'all may not be happy with what happens when it does.  I know I won't be. 

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

The republicans have plenty of blame here, so to make it seem like only the left is at fault is not fair.  Both sides are incredibly partisan, and neither is willing to work with the other.  And anyone celebrating this now likely won't be in the future the next time the left is in the position to use this strategy.  It was a shame that republicans worked so hard to thwart democratic nominees from Obama for lower courts to begin with, leading to the first use of the "nuclear option".  And now the republicans are going to both A) blame the dems for not allowing this nominee to go through (even though they blocked a democratic nominee last year in similar fashion) and B ) blame the dems for first using the nuclear option, even though the republicans basically forced them to use it, and even though republicans have no problem using it when put in the same position.  I'm not picking a side here.  Both are culpable.  But to get on here and celebrate us getting to this point as a good thing is asinine.  This whole scenario does not at all represent the democratic process, and when our leaders start skirting/changing rules we're in trouble.  You guys like it now because the right is in charge, but sooner or later that will change, and y'all may not be happy with what happens when it does.  I know I won't be. 

I was glad the Republicans were blocking Obama's lower court nominees. In fact, at the time I was even thinking many of his nominees where included just so the Republicans would block them, thus he could cry foul...which he/they did. For the few nominees I looked at, the Republicans were just doing their due diligence, but the Liberal media was painting the Republicans as partisan obstructionists...per usual.

Harry Reid was warned repeatedly not to use the nuclear option, but did it anyway. I am rejoicing the payback, and don't feel one ounce of guilt. I'm also fully aware that the Democrats will use this option when available in the future, as will the Republicans. Once Harry Reid opened the door, either party was going to use it at first opportunity. Let me ask you for the purpose of assigning blame, would the Republicans have used this option if Harry Reid would have abstained from using it?

I'm also fully aware that Chuck Schumer purposely forced the Republicans to use this option, thus trying to spread more divide between the parties. His motives were 100% political. And he's banking on the Liberal media's all-out smear campaign against the Republicans.

[stevenash]

Ah, yes, the "honorable " Harry Reid.  When asked about the ethics related to his statement in Congress that he "heard" Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes when he already knew otherwise, he responded with 'we won, didn't we"?

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

I was glad the Republicans were blocking Obama's lower court nominees. In fact, at the time I was even thinking many of his nominees where included just so the Republicans would block them, thus he could cry foul...which he/they did. For the few nominees I looked at, the Republicans were just doing their due diligence, but the Liberal media was painting the Republicans as partisan obstructionists...per usual.

Harry Reid was warned repeatedly not to use the nuclear option, but did it anyway. I am rejoicing the payback, and don't feel one ounce of guilt. I'm also fully aware that the Democrats will use this option when available in the future, as will the Republicans. Once Harry Reid opened the door, either party was going to use it at first opportunity. Let me ask you for the purpose of assigning blame, would the Republicans have used this option if Harry Reid would have abstained from using it?

I'm also fully aware that Chuck Schumer purposely forced the Republicans to use this option, thus trying to spread more divide between the parties. His motives were 100% political. And he's banking on the Liberal media's all-out smear campaign against the Republicans.

We'll never know, but I would not be surprised if they did, because they could then blame the Dems and say "they gave us no choice", which is basically what they're doing now while also saying "the dems did it first"

[LumRaiderFan]

The gloves are off...there is no compromise anymore.

 

[Hagar]

7 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

The gloves are off...there is no compromise anymore.

 

No, but the Dem politicians can't compromise if the DNC puts it foot down, which is what happened with Gorsuch, and has been going on since the Far Left took over the party.  When you have a major party boo God at their convention, it doesn't take a genius to know how far left they are.  And yes, when the Dems get back in power, they'll have this too.  But, imo, they'd used it anyway.  I just pray Trump has a good 4 years and gets re-elected.

[Englebert]

48 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

We'll never know, but I would not be surprised if they did, because they could then blame the Dems and say "they gave us no choice", which is basically what they're doing now while also saying "the dems did it first"

I'm willing to state with a high degree of confidence that the Republicans would not have used to nuclear option if not for Harry Reid opening the can.

In my opinion what the Republicans are saying is that "Harry Reid changed the way the Senate conducts business, we are just following the same rules."

[Englebert]

19 minutes ago, REBgp said:

No, but the Dem politicians can't compromise if the DNC puts it foot down, which is what happened with Gorsuch, and has been going on since the Far Left took over the party.  When you have a major party boo God at their convention, it doesn't take a genius to know how far left they are.  And yes, when the Dems get back in power, they'll have this too.  But, imo, they'd used it anyway.  I just pray Trump has a good 4 years and gets re-elected.

I could not agree more. Of course, they wouldn't have to face any backlash since it is now precedent, which doesn't really matter considering the Liberal media wouldn't have said a word even if the Republicans would have refrained from using the nuclear option.

[Hagar]

26 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm willing to state with a high degree of confidence that the Republicans would not have used to nuclear option if not for Harry Reid opening can.

And I believe what the Republicans are saying is that "Harry Reid changed the way the Senate conducts business, we are just following the same rules."

I'll admit it's sad it's come to this. The Dems in recent times have blocked two that I know of.  Miguel Estrada and Robert Bork.  I can't think of any the Repubs have blocked.  Other than the lame duck, which the Dems did also. 

[westend1]

4 hours ago, bullets13 said:

The republicans have plenty of blame here, so to make it seem like only the left is at fault is not fair.  Both sides are incredibly partisan, and neither is willing to work with the other.  And anyone celebrating this now likely won't be in the future the next time the left is in the position to use this strategy.  It was a shame that republicans worked so hard to thwart democratic nominees from Obama for lower courts to begin with, leading to the first use of the "nuclear option".  And now the republicans are going to both A) blame the dems for not allowing this nominee to go through (even though they blocked a democratic nominee last year in similar fashion) and B ) blame the dems for first using the nuclear option, even though the republicans basically forced them to use it, and even though republicans have no problem using it when put in the same position.  I'm not picking a side here.  Both are culpable.  But to get on here and celebrate us getting to this point as a good thing is asinine.  This whole scenario does not at all represent the democratic process, and when our leaders start skirting/changing rules we're in trouble.  You guys like it now because the right is in charge, but sooner or later that will change, and y'all may not be happy with what happens when it does.  I know I won't be. 

So all new legislature will now get nuked into existence with no support from the other side.   I guess it's cool when you have Congress.   

[baddog]

33 minutes ago, westend1 said:

So all new legislature will now get nuked into existence with no support from the other side.   I guess it's cool when you have Congress.   

What support?

[stevenash]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

5 hours ago, REBgp said:

No, but the Dem politicians can't compromise if the DNC puts it foot down, which is what happened with Gorsuch, and has been going on since the Far Left took over the party.  When you have a major party boo God at their convention, it doesn't take a genius to know how far left they are.  And yes, when the Dems get back in power, they'll have this too.  But, imo, they'd used it anyway.  I just pray Trump has a good 4 years and gets re-elected.

Which is why I say no compromise...dems have to be defeated, not compromised with.

How do you compromise with socialists...you don't.

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, westend1 said:

So all new legislature will now get nuked into existence with no support from the other side.   I guess it's cool when you have Congress.   

It is just as cool as when the Dems had Congress and voted Obamacare into law with not a single Republican vote from either house. 

[westend1]

36 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

It is just as cool as when the Dems had Congress and voted Obamacare into law with not a single Republican vote from either house. 

Cool. How many dem votes do they need to vote it out?   Go for it

[tvc184]

9 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Cool. How many dem votes do they need to vote it out?   Go for it

0

[Hagar]

Looking at the title of this thread, it takes on a whole new meaning in the last few days.  With the idiot in North Korea.  With the gas attack.  With, as I just heard, Russia sending a warship into the Med heading for the two American ships that fired the cruise missiles.  But we'll discuss all this on another thread.

For this discussion, something just dawned on me.  It's something we all realize, but perhaps like me, many of you haven't thought about it either.  This action is necessary to maintain the SCOTUS as we know it.  If the Dems don't approve of Gorsuch, can you visualize any justice to be nominated by Trump that would meet their approval?  And once the Dems are in power, the Repubs wouldn't approve any of theirs.  Neither, never.  So without this nuclear option, the number of justices would dwindle down until one party finally gets 60 Senators, which is probably many years from now.  So if the SCOTUS is to maintain 9 members, this is not a nuclear option, it's the only option.

[Hagar]

And here's a promising article about Gorsuch..

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up