1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Democrats say it is an arrogant power grab against the founders intent?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by OddsOn, Feb 24, 2010.

Tags:
Page 1 of 4
  1. OddsOn

    OddsOn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    90
    Obama & Dems in ‘05: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founders’ Intent

    <embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgcihYQI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="364" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
     
    #1 OddsOn, Feb 24, 2010
  2. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    reconciliation is not the nuclear option
     
    #2 mc mark, Feb 24, 2010
  3. OddsOn

    OddsOn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    90
    Well if you are going to make a statement like that you should at least back it up with some facts on what EXACTLY you think the difference... :cool:


    Per Wikipedia for the record...

    Reconciliation
    Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party. Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body.

    Nuclear Option:
    In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005;[1] prior to this it was known as the constitutional option.[2]

    The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.
     
    #3 OddsOn, Feb 24, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
  4. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,946
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    fixed.
     
    #4 Rocketman95, Feb 24, 2010
  5. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468

    Better yet, why don't you explain how it is?

    But anyway here is an explanation of what the nuclear option is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

    Once again we have republicans playing fast and lose with the truth. Reconciliation is a perfectly legal procedure that has been used many times in the past. The nuclear option was an illegal power grab and a way for the majority party to circumvent the filibuster.
     
    #5 mc mark, Feb 24, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
  6. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    30,696
    Likes Received:
    7,166
    now it's called the "kiss up to terrorist states so as to restore america's standing in the world" option.
     
    #6 basso, Feb 24, 2010
  7. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,946
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    2/24/10 - 1:06CST - basso back to not caring what rest of world thinks. thanks for the update!
     
    #7 Rocketman95, Feb 24, 2010
  8. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    59,389
    Likes Received:
    37,141
    You mean this?:

    [​IMG]
     
    #8 SamFisher, Feb 24, 2010
  9. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    so your point is?
     
    #9 mc mark, Feb 24, 2010
  10. OddsOn

    OddsOn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    90

    well it seems both methods are ways of getting around the filibuster....

    the main difference is the republicans were going to use it to force the dems to follow through on a process of nomination that every sitting president does, while the dems are going to use it to force through legislation that is required to go through the normal process of voting.

    either way you have to admit that its a pretty hypocritical and arrogant thing to do...
     
    #10 OddsOn, Feb 24, 2010
  11. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    Nope reconciliation is perfectly legal (see Bush the lesser's two tax cuts) .

    The nuclear option is a power grab to render the minority party irrelevant
     
    #11 mc mark, Feb 24, 2010
  12. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,446
    Likes Received:
    15,886
    The difference is that they are two entirely different things. The GOP used reconciliation multiple times when they were in the majority. They never used the nuclear option.
     
    #12 Major, Feb 24, 2010
  13. vlaurelio

    vlaurelio Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    21,310
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    odds on, we all know you and your kind don't know how to spell but you don't know how to read too?

    from your own post

    1) Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate
    2) Nuclear option is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate
     
    #13 vlaurelio, Feb 24, 2010
  14. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468

    Now now, to be fair, I'm probably one of the world's worse spellers! ;)
     
    #14 mc mark, Feb 24, 2010
  15. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,373
    Likes Received:
    13,944
    I don't see a problem, really, with either tactic. Filibusters are dumb and anti-democratic. I wanted Frist to do the nuke during the Bush Admin, and I'd be happy to see it here too.
     
    #15 JuanValdez, Feb 24, 2010
  16. OddsOn

    OddsOn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    90

    Since you are such an observant poster you probalby already know that it was a democrat who originally thought up the notion of the "constitutional option"...as it was stated "to circumvent" the procedures in the congress.
     
    #16 OddsOn, Feb 24, 2010
  17. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    #17 mc mark, Feb 24, 2010
  18. vlaurelio

    vlaurelio Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    21,310
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    so what? is it 2005 or later? how long ago was that?
     
    #18 vlaurelio, Feb 24, 2010
  19. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447
    Republicans were "fer" reconciliation before they were "agin' it."
     
    #19 Oski2005, Feb 24, 2010
  20. bucket

    bucket Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    60
    OddsOn, you should just give up on this one. You've been mislead by Rush or whoever, and you're completely wrong about this.

    1) Any quote from the past regarding the "nuclear option" refers to the elimination of the filibuster. There is no hypocrisy in being against the "nuclear option", as it has previously been defined, and being for reconciliation now. Reconciliation is a different process, and is highly complicated, placing restrictions on the legislation that can be passed using this process.

    2) Back when Republicans were threatening to exercise the "nuclear option" by eliminating the filibuster, they did in fact use reconciliation repeatedly. For instance, reconciliation was used to pass the Bush tax cuts.


    Republican talking heads have attempted to redefine the term "nuclear option" to mean something that it has never meant before (reconciliation), and are now using old footage of Democrats attacking the potential elimination of the filibuster (which, unlike the Republicans, they have made no serious threat to do) to claim that Democrats are being hypocritical. This takes dishonesty (and disrespect for the intelligence of their conservative audience) to an entirely new level.
     
    #20 bucket, Feb 24, 2010
    1 person likes this.
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 4

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now