- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What about the nuclear option?
Posted on 11/2/14 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 11/2/14 at 10:45 pm
If the republicans win control of the Senate, will they want to rescind the nuclear option the democrats approved earlier? Gonna be interesting to see who will stand on their original arguments and who will flip flop for politic's sake...
4
Posted on 11/2/14 at 10:47 pm to BFIV
I would be pretty shocked if they rescind but, depending on how many seats they picked up and how united they are as a faction, they may symbolically "repeal" it, knowing they can always use it later.
But, yeah, that cat's out of the bag. It's "precedent" now.
But, yeah, that cat's out of the bag. It's "precedent" now.
Posted on 11/2/14 at 10:50 pm to BFIV
quote:
Gonna be interesting to see who will stand on their original arguments and who will flip flop for politic's sake...
R's argued not to change it in the 1st place... They never argued to change it back.
You're not comparing apples and oranges
ETA: Also the nuclear option only pertains to nominees, I don't see the dems trying to filibuster with those regards
This post was edited on 11/2/14 at 10:53 pm
Posted on 11/2/14 at 11:00 pm to BACONisMEATcandy
quote:
R's argued not to change it in the 1st place.
That's the thrust of my comment. If the republicans were so adamant in not changing it for the reasons stated at the time, it would seem logical, that on principle alone, they would want to return to the original rules. And if the democrats were so adamant in changing the rules for the reasons stated at the time, they should be quite content in leaving the rules as they currently exist. If the republicans win, I think we're all going to see 100 flip floppers.
Posted on 11/2/14 at 11:04 pm to BFIV
I agree with what you're saying. They ought to change it back to the way it was.
Posted on 11/2/14 at 11:10 pm to Paluka
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Posted on 11/2/14 at 11:14 pm to BFIV
I can't wait to hear the Democraps reasonings to change it back to the way it was.
Can you imagine changing the rules of the game when you're the majority, and then complaining about the rules you instituted when you're in the minority. Only the libs could come up with this.
Can you imagine changing the rules of the game when you're the majority, and then complaining about the rules you instituted when you're in the minority. Only the libs could come up with this.
Posted on 11/2/14 at 11:22 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
I can't wait to hear the Democraps reasonings to change it back to the way it was.
Can you imagine changing the rules of the game when you're the majority, and then complaining about the rules you instituted when you're in the minority.
Exactly. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires,for example, the nuclear option is gonna bite somebody if the republicans win...or lose.
This post was edited on 11/2/14 at 11:23 pm
Posted on 11/2/14 at 11:24 pm to BFIV
It doesnt really matter as it is for appts and they blocked them all anyway
Posted on 11/2/14 at 11:26 pm to BFIV
I would raise it to 70. I'd also make it apply to any Supreme Court nominee.
If the Dims can unilaterally reduce it by 10 from the original 60, then why can't the Republicans raise it 10 from the original 60.
I just can't wait to see all the Dims cry like a bunch of puss!es when Odumbf*ck can't get any judicial nominees through the Senate in his last two years.
If the Dims can unilaterally reduce it by 10 from the original 60, then why can't the Republicans raise it 10 from the original 60.
I just can't wait to see all the Dims cry like a bunch of puss!es when Odumbf*ck can't get any judicial nominees through the Senate in his last two years.
This post was edited on 11/2/14 at 11:28 pm
Posted on 11/2/14 at 11:27 pm to BFIV
That same logic is used when politicians implement self-imposed term limits. Only their constituents are hurt by doing so.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 6:16 am to BFIV
quote:Unless you're saying the GOP would expand the N.O. to SCOTUS appointees, that is the one area Reid & Co had said they'd leave as is.
Exactly. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires,for example, the nuclear option is gonna bite somebody if the republicans win...or lose.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 6:31 am to BFIV
Who brings up the issue first? The dems who passed it but now don't want or the repubs who didn't want it but now benefit from it?
Posted on 11/3/14 at 6:31 am to NC_Tigah
And if you think that would have stuck after the GOP stalled Holders nomination to the Court for the 2nd time, you are fooling yourself.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 7:26 am to BFIV
quote:
If the republicans win control of the Senate, will they want to rescind the nuclear option the democrats approved earlier?
If they had any sense of why the Senate was created, and what makes the Senate different than the House, they will rescind. IOW no, they'll keep the rachet right where it is.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News