Chuck Grassley: More Scalias if Senate goes nuclear

[Sallow]

Possibly one of the most ignorant statements ever made in the Senate:

“Be careful what you wish for,” said Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If the Democrats are bent on changing the rules, then I say go ahead. There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases out there that we would love to put on the bench. The nominees we would nominate and confirm with 51 votes will interpret the Constitution as it was written. They are not the type who would invent constitutional law right out of thin air.”

Read more: Chuck Grassley: More Scalias if Senate goes nuclear - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

Neither appointment was filibustered.

 

[Sallow]

Filibuster is probably going to be history.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Filibuster is probably going to be history.

I believe we should move passage of a bill to a 70 vote threshold. This could eliminate some of the bad obamacare type laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It would end bad tax cuts and endless wars.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that the filibuster will be at an end come beginning of term in 2015, regardless of which party holds the Senate.

If so, the Pubs will try to defund ACA and the Dems will punch through an expanded Medicare program for all and single payer. The Dems will attach a requirement that ending the program later on will require a 2/3ds majority vote.

 

[Avatar4321]

Possibly one of the most ignorant statements ever made in the Senate:

“Be careful what you wish for,” said Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If the Democrats are bent on changing the rules, then I say go ahead. There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases out there that we would love to put on the bench. The nominees we would nominate and confirm with 51 votes will interpret the Constitution as it was written. They are not the type who would invent constitutional law right out of thin air.”

Read more: Chuck Grassley: More Scalias if Senate goes nuclear - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

Neither appointment was filibustered.

That would be because they were nominated in an age before the illegal fillibuster of judicial nominees started in the Senate.

If they were nominated today, there would be a filibuster.

 

[JakeStarkey]

With a 51 vote requirement, they would be defeated in today's climate.

The filibuster is going away, I think.

 

[Contumacious]

Filibuster is probably going to be history.

I believe we should move passage of a bill to a 70 vote threshold. This could eliminate some of the bad obamacare type laws.

Either that or abolish the so-called 17th Amendment.

.

 

[Avatar4321]

With a 51 vote requirement, they would be defeated in today's climate.

The filibuster is going away, I think.

Im pretty sure Obama would never nominate them to begin with

 

[Avatar4321]

Filibuster is probably going to be history.

I believe we should move passage of a bill to a 70 vote threshold. This could eliminate some of the bad obamacare type laws.

Either that or abolish the so-called 17th Amendment.

.

That truly would be nice and eliminate alot of the corruption going on. But it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Not sure what is "so-called" about it though

 

[Sallow]

I believe we should move passage of a bill to a 70 vote threshold. This could eliminate some of the bad obamacare type laws.

Either that or abolish the so-called 17th Amendment.

.

That truly would be nice and eliminate alot of the corruption going on. But it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Not sure what is "so-called" about it though

And what "corruption" would that be?

The corruption of "rule by the people"?

That corruption?

 

[Sallow]

It would end bad tax cuts and endless wars.

Wars?

Really?

No President has ever been denied a war he wanted.

Unless it's covert.

 

[Sallow]

Filibuster is probably going to be history.

I believe we should move passage of a bill to a 70 vote threshold. This could eliminate some of the bad obamacare type laws.

That's just whacky.

 

[Steven_R]

Filibuster is probably going to be history.

I believe we should move passage of a bill to a 70 vote threshold. This could eliminate some of the bad obamacare type laws.

If it were up to me, I'd require 3/4 passage in both Houses to pass a bill. Simple majority in either house to repeal a bill. It would eliminate the partisanship and make both sides actually work something out to get a bill everyone likes.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I remember when the Republicans had the majority in the Senate as well as the House and Bush couldn't get his nominees through their confirmation. Big ol Teddy Kennedy had so many of them locked up in procedural votes that they considered getting rid of the fillibuster closure rule. I thought it was a bad idea then and I think it's a bad idea now.

What happens when you have an unstoppable majority? You get the nighmare you call Obamacare and things like it. The only time I really feel safe is when those maggots in Washington are home on vacation.

Besides, since Barry has become President, we now have 'executive order' as the way to rule the nation. Be careful what you wish for liberals, you might wake up and have a conservative in the White House and he or she (thinking Sarah Palin here just for a nightmare scenario for the left) might just make your life a living hell.

When are you folks going to learn that Washington is over-bloated, too ineffectual, too expensive, too ignorant, too much in bed with lobbyists to be what you want them to be. The more power you give them the less they can govern.

 

[Avatar4321]

Either that or abolish the so-called 17th Amendment.

.

That truly would be nice and eliminate alot of the corruption going on. But it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Not sure what is "so-called" about it though

And what "corruption" would that be?

The corruption of "rule by the people"?

That corruption?

The corruption by special interests of course. The House was to be the People's branch of government. The Senate was to represent the States, not the people.

The 17th amendment eliminated the check the States had on the Federal Government and empowered special interests to gain power over the Senate. Before the amendment, if a special interest wanted to buy a Senator, they would have to buy off a bunch of local politicians to get him/her appointed. Now they can contribute directly to the Senator's campaign eliminating any potential check (Which pretty much was the point of the amendment).

There is a reason our government was organized with a division of powers & checks and balances. One was to prevent the executive, legislative, and judicial branches from obtaining to much control. The Second, was to balance power between the individual, the States, and the Federal Government. By dividing up the power between three groups, it creates a stable government. Our Founders looked at the examples of History, particularly the Roman Triumvirates to deduce this. When the power was divided among 3, there was stability. When one of the three legs was eliminate and the power was divided between two, there was a fight between the two until one dominated the other.

Right now state power has been significantly dominated. Since the 17th amendment was passed, there has been a fight between individual power and the Federal Governments power. And we have seen in the past 100 years that the Federal Government has been winning the war against individual power.

If we are to restore individual power in our government system, we have to restore State power. It seems counterintiuative, which is what makes restoring it so difficult.

I'd like my state to regain control of the Senate. Because then I will have more power to check the government as well.

 

[Sallow]

Filibuster is probably going to be history.

I believe we should move passage of a bill to a 70 vote threshold. This could eliminate some of the bad obamacare type laws.

If it were up to me, I'd require 3/4 passage in both Houses to pass a bill. Simple majority in either house to repeal a bill. It would eliminate the partisanship and make both sides actually work something out to get a bill everyone likes.

Nothing would pass.

Might as well have a Theocracy.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Filibuster is probably going to be history.

I believe we should move passage of a bill to a 70 vote threshold. This could eliminate some of the bad obamacare type laws.

That's just whacky.

See Stephen R's post. That was my exact sentiment.

 

[Sallow]

That truly would be nice and eliminate alot of the corruption going on. But it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Not sure what is "so-called" about it though

And what "corruption" would that be?

The corruption of "rule by the people"?

That corruption?

The corruption by special interests of course. The House was to be the People's branch of government. The Senate was to represent the States, not the people.

The 17th amendment eliminated the check the States had on the Federal Government and empowered special interests to gain power over the Senate. Before the amendment, if a special interest wanted to buy a Senator, they would have to buy off a bunch of local politicians to get him/her appointed. Now they can contribute directly to the Senator's campaign eliminating any potential check (Which pretty much was the point of the amendment).

There is a reason our government was organized with a division of powers & checks and balances. One was to prevent the executive, legislative, and judicial branches from obtaining to much control. The Second, was to balance power between the individual, the States, and the Federal Government. By dividing up the power between three groups, it creates a stable government. Our Founders looked at the examples of History, particularly the Roman Triumvirates to deduce this. When the power was divided among 3, there was stability. When one of the three legs was eliminate and the power was divided between two, there was a fight between the two until one dominated the other.

Right now state power has been significantly dominated. Since the 17th amendment was passed, there has been a fight between individual power and the Federal Governments power. And we have seen in the past 100 years that the Federal Government has been winning the war against individual power.

If we are to restore individual power in our government system, we have to restore State power. It seems counterintiuative, which is what makes restoring it so difficult.

I'd like my state to regain control of the Senate. Because then I will have more power to check the government as well.

"Restore" State power?

States never had that much power to begin with.

And it sounds like you think money is the root of this corruption.

Yet you and folks like you bend over backwards to defend the well monied interest and their involvement in government.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I believe we should move passage of a bill to a 70 vote threshold. This could eliminate some of the bad obamacare type laws.

If it were up to me, I'd require 3/4 passage in both Houses to pass a bill. Simple majority in either house to repeal a bill. It would eliminate the partisanship and make both sides actually work something out to get a bill everyone likes.

Nothing would pass.

Might as well have a Theocracy.

That simply means that it would have to be a law that is heavily scrutinized which positively affects every one. The other added benefits would be the elimination of unnecessary wars, entitlements, and of course, worthless laws.