Dems: Yeah, We Blew It By Using the Nuclear Option

[Weatherman2020]

Thank you Harry Reid.

(CNN)Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.

That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thank you Harry Reid.

(CNN)Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.

That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

Goose meet gander

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Also, the Republicans won't even have to read any of the bills they pass either based upon Dems, "You have to pass it to find out what's in it" precedent

 

[boedicca]

 

[SAYIT]

Thank you Harry Reid.

(CNN)Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.

That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

And I agree that congressional "speed bumps" allow for contemplation, cooperation and compromise ... all usually good things.

What we have here is another example of the law of unintended consequences (they do tend to bite everyone in the ass), consideration of which is so often ignored in today's headlong rush to poke one's political finger in another's eye.

 

[saveliberty]

After Republicans get everything they want, this can be changed back.

 

[martybegan]

Thank you Harry Reid.

(CNN)Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.

That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

Goose meet gander

Even more gander, because once the well was opened, Republicans can merely extend the rule to cover supreme court nominees.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Thank you Harry Reid.

(CNN)Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.

That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

Goose meet gander

Even more gander, because once the well was opened, Republicans can merely extend the rule to cover supreme court nominees.

As well as all the other hundreds of Judicial appointments that can now be completed without Democrats being able to filibuster or 60 votes required.

 

[Weatherman2020]

After Republicans get everything they want, this can be changed back.

After all the judges die from old age.

 

[dannyboys]

Thank you Harry Reid.

(CNN)Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.

That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

Goose meet gander

Even more gander, because once the well was opened, Republicans can merely extend the rule to cover supreme court nominees.

The paperwork to do just that is being finalized already.The REPs are going to put up to four SCJs on the bench in the next four years.
Say hello to a SC which will promote 'Constitutionalism' for the next five decades!
I'm LOVIN IT!!!!!
Thanks Harry. You accomplished something of value after all in your useless life besides somehow making yourself a multimillionaire based on your Government salary.
Now go fucking kick the bucket!

 

[whitehall]

How many freaking excuses do they have? Hillary lost because Heartland Americans and every other state except NY and Ca.hated her and feared her agenda. It's as simple as that

 

[mamooth]

Well, yes. Many Americans are morons, and fell hard for the fake news about Clinton, even though anyone who wasn't a bedwetting moron instantly saw through it.

Anyways, you lied to the bedwetters and won. Stop whining about it already. Worst sore winner crybabies I ever saw.

Oh, since Democrats were never filibuster-happy anyways, this thread is whining about nothing. The conservatives just can't understand that Democrats have never been as anti-Constitution as they are.

 

[martybegan]

Thank you Harry Reid.

(CNN)Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.

That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

Goose meet gander

Even more gander, because once the well was opened, Republicans can merely extend the rule to cover supreme court nominees.

The paperwork to do just that is being finalized already.The REPs are going to put up to four SCJs on the bench in the next four years.
Say hello to a SC which will promote 'Constitutionalism' for the next five decades!
I'm LOVIN IT!!!!!
Thanks Harry. You accomplished something of value after all in your useless life besides somehow making yourself a multimillionaire based on your Government salary.
Now go fucking kick the bucket!

This is probably why we have seen a smattering of "Progressives luv teh federalism" articles popping up. What they don't realize is that a strict constructional SC will not stop them from doing things they want at the State level (except gun control). They can have their abortion on demand, their gay marriages, and their single payer health care all they want, they just have to run in and fund it at the State level.

 

[martybegan]

Well, yes. Many Americans are morons, and fell hard for the fake news about Clinton, even though anyone who wasn't a bedwetting moron instantly saw through it.

Anyways, you lied to the bedwetters and won. Stop whining about it already. Worst sore winner crybabies I ever saw.

Oh, since Democrats were never filibuster-happy anyways, this thread is whining about nothing. The conservatives just can't understand that Democrats have never been as anti-Constitution as they are.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

What a whiny bitch.

 

[Mac1958]

Thank you Harry Reid.

(CNN)Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.

That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

What is it about politicians that makes them so short-sighted?

They must think that, whenever they're in control, they'll be in control FOREVER. They're just SO damn GOOD.

The Dems over-interpreted their "mandate" (ha ha) and here we are. And no one should be surprised if the GOP does precisely the same thing.
.

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change

Eat it libs, what goes around comes around. That said, it would not surprise me if that retard McConnell changes the rules back raising it back up to 60 votes. Do not underestimate the GOP establishment's ability to blast away at both feet.

 

[dannyboys]

Well, yes. Many Americans are morons, and fell hard for the fake news about Clinton, even though anyone who wasn't a bedwetting moron instantly saw through it.

Anyways, you lied to the bedwetters and won. Stop whining about it already. Worst sore winner crybabies I ever saw.

Oh, since Democrats were never filibuster-happy anyways, this thread is whining about nothing. The conservatives just can't understand that Democrats have never been as anti-Constitution as they are.

OH DEAR!
You poor baby!
Were you one of the fifteen Jill Stein supporters that showed up with her yesterday to demonstrate in front of Trump Towers?
HAAAA HAAAAA!

 

[OKTexas]

Thank you Harry Reid.

(CNN)Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.

That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

Goose meet gander

Even more gander, because once the well was opened, Republicans can merely extend the rule to cover supreme court nominees.

The paperwork to do just that is being finalized already.The REPs are going to put up to four SCJs on the bench in the next four years.
Say hello to a SC which will promote 'Constitutionalism' for the next five decades!
I'm LOVIN IT!!!!!
Thanks Harry. You accomplished something of value after all in your useless life besides somehow making yourself a multimillionaire based on your Government salary.
Now go fucking kick the bucket!

This is probably why we have seen a smattering of "Progressives luv teh federalism" articles popping up. What they don't realize is that a strict constructional SC will not stop them from doing things they want at the State level (except gun control). They can have their abortion on demand, their gay marriages, and their single payer health care all they want, they just have to run in and fund it at the State level.

As it should be.

 

[jknowgood]

Well, yes. Many Americans are morons, and fell hard for the fake news about Clinton, even though anyone who wasn't a bedwetting moron instantly saw through it.

Anyways, you lied to the bedwetters and won. Stop whining about it already. Worst sore winner crybabies I ever saw.

Oh, since Democrats were never filibuster-happy anyways, this thread is whining about nothing. The conservatives just can't understand that Democrats have never been as anti-Constitution as they are.

 

[Fang]

Liberals are like little children that can't think beyond what they want at the moment. This is precisely why they all hate the electoral college right now.