Senate passes Nuke option

[grumbler]

Okay.

Fuck off.

Did that work for you on the kindergarten playground?  If so, you might want to use it there again.  Here, though, you just sound petulant.  It doesn't bother me, but you are going to have to live with the knowledge that you sound like a teenage twat.

[11B4V]

Not sure what argument you think you are making here, since you don't make any argument at all, but these conclusions certainly aren't mutually exclusive.  Why don't you make an argument, and use these quotes as evidence, rather than simply providing the quotes and expecting people to read your mind as to why you think they are significant?

Why don't you just fuck off, old man.

Sorry to tax you with actually making arguments, old woman, but hat's how debate works.  Bursting into tears and telling someone to "fuck off" doesn't get you any traction.  Arguments with evidence get you traction.

Why don't you dry your tears and try again?

Okay.

Fuck off.

[Admiral Yi]

[Sheilbh]

Expanding the DC Court of Appeals isn't an immediate objective.  It would take House approval, which isn't going to be immediately available.

And for all the focus on the DC Court of Appeals there's now about 10% of the Federal judiciary to be absent because they've retired or, less damagingly, took senior status. I believe some circuits are disproportionately affected and most far worse than the situation with appeals judges.

To add my cynical two cents I think the person in DC who should find this most worrying is probably Kathleen Sebelius.

Incidentally I heard on NPR that Reid kept the filibuster for legislation and for SC nominees.

Yeah, as I say, it's not such a big deal and strikes me as common sense. Supreme Court nominees are serious enough to deserve the right to filibuster, I'm not convinced of lower down the judicial ranks especially if its hindering the court system. When an administration nomination unless there's something seriously wrong, Congress should defer to the President.

The Executive branch, the President, would need to work with the opposition party also, not just his own party. That works for a President of either party and I'd much rather it that way, part of the check/balance on the process.

I think Obama has tried to a remarkable degree. He's had two Republican (all be it anathema) Secretaries of Defense and wanted a Republican Secretary of Commerce. It's worth noting that one of those Republican appointees caused the first ever filibuster of a nomination for Secretary of Defense.

Even if he hadn't have his appointees been so outrageous that they justify the sheer number of times the Senate needs sixty votes to approve?

But I don't accept this view in the abstract. I understand the benefit of bipartisanship over legislation, for example, or Supreme Court nominees. But surely what matters above all in appointments made by the executive is that the President has confidence in them. It's an odd view that you elect a President every four years and give them a mandate, but then say that their executive should be a coalition.

Hopefully one benefit of this will be a moving towards the voters by the Republicans. If they're worried about that 10% vacancy rate in the Federal judiciary and ageing Supreme Court justices the easiest answer is to be really happy with the results, is to win a Presidential election.

[DGuller]

[Eddie Teach]