Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Mark Levin: The nation is in grave jeopardy with the latest act of leftist tyranny

    Mark Levin

    The nation is in grave jeopardy with the latest act of leftist tyranny

    http://nationalreview.com/corner/364...sy-roger-pilon



    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Harry Reid’s Nuclear Hypocrisy

    By Roger Pilon
    November 21, 2013 11:29 AM
    Comments
    476

    Harry Reid is set to “go nuclear.” He wants to end the filibuster as it applies to appellate court nominations — not by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, as Senate rules require, but by a simple majority. And given the short memories now in evidence, he may just succeed.
    On Monday, for the third time in less than a month, Senate Republicans filibustered an Obama nominee to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That’s the court that’s checked the president more than once, as when it said he couldn’t make “recess appointments” when the Senate wasn’t in recess. So in a Tuesday closed-door lunch, Reid moved closer to ending the practice, and it’s reported he picked up crucial support from California Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer along with Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy among others.
    The hypocrisy here should not go unnoticed. Although the filibuster for legislation has a long history, prior to 2003 it was seldom used to block executive-branch nominations — and appellate-court nominees in particular. In fact, Democrats themselves began using it this way in the 108th Congress, after they lost the Senate in the 2002 midterm elections. Here’s the backstory.
    Start with Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court’s December 2000 decision that effectively decided the presidential outcome, creating a firestorm among Democrats, especially among the legal professoriate. On January 13, 2001, for example, 554 professors from 120 law schools took out a full-page ad in the New York Timescondemning the Court’s majority for having acted not as judges but as “political proponents for candidate Bush.” And at a Democratic retreat a month later Yale’s Bruce Ackerman urged members not to confirm a single Bush nominee for the Supreme Court until after the 2004 elections.
    Democrats got their break in May when Vermont senator James Jeffords left the Republican party. That switched control of the Senate to the Democrats, who immediately turned their attention to the eleven appellate court nominees then before the Senate Judiciary Committee, two of them Democrats — a gesture from Bush. Those two were immediately confirmed. The rest would not even get hearings. Instead, Democrats began calling for “litmus tests” — explicit demands that nominees state their views on everything from abortion to affirmative action to Congress’s unquestioned power to regulate anything and everything.
    But the near lock-down on appellate-court nominations did not end with the 2002 midterm elections, which switched control of the Senate back to the Republicans. It was then that Senate Democrats began the unprecedented filibustering of appellate-court nominations. The most egregious case was that of Miguel Estrada, whose life story was pure American dream. First nominated by President Bush in May 2001, Estrada finally withdrew his name from further consideration some 27 months later, after seven failed cloture votes in the next, 108th Congress.
    Things came to a head early in the 109th Congress when Republicans themselves, still in control of the Senate, threatened finally to “go nuclear” — to end the appellate-court filibusters Democrats had introduced only in the previous Congress. That was headed off when the bipartisan “Gang of 14” reached a compromise: Democrats would filibuster nominees only in “extraordinary circumstances,” they agreed, and Republicans would not use the nuclear option. That compromise held for the rest of the 109th Congress — though not without difficulties — but it became moot after Democrats regained control of the Senate following the 2006 midterm elections since they no longer needed to filibuster Bush nominees.
    In sum, after the 2000 election was decided, Senate Democrats sat on their hands for two years as Bush appellate-court nominees twisted in the wind. In the minority after the 2002 elections, those Democrats then initiated the filibuster for many of Bush’s nominees. Only after the 2005 Gang of 14 compromise was imposed did things settle down. And after the 2006 elections, Democrats no longer needed to filibuster.
    So is the Republican use of the filibuster today simply fair turn-around — with Democrats in no position to complain when Republicans use tactics they themselves introduced? If so, that would be enough to illustrate the hypocrisy of today’s Democratic protests. But that’s not what’s at issue here. In the D.C. Circuit matter, which has driven Senator Reid to the nuclear option, Republicans are not raising ideological objections to Obama’s nominees — as Democrats did when they filibustered Bush’s picks. Their objection, rather, is that these judges are not needed, because the workload of the court is so light. In fact, speaking of hypocrisy, Democrats, in the minority in the 109th Congress, used that very rationale to urge Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter in a July 2006 letter not to confirm any additional Bush nominees to the D.C. Circuit — and none was confirmed after that letter from Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin was sent, all of whom are still on the committee. Yet now, when the court’s workload is even lighter, Democrats cry foul when Republicans point that out.
    In fact, look at the numbers from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In 2006, written decisions per active judge had declined by 17 percent since 1997. Since 2006 they have declined another 27 percent. In 2006, the total number of appeals filed had declined by 10 percent since 1997. Since 2006 they have declined another 18 percent. The Administrative Office ranks the twelve circuits using various caseload benchmarks: 2013 is the 17th straight year that the office has ranked the D.C. Circuit last on both appeals being filed and appeals being terminated. There simply is no need for more judges on the D.C. Circuit when those there now do not have enough to do — unless, of course, the aim is to have a bench more sympathetic to rule by presidential diktat, which may be precisely why Senator Reid wants to go nuclear.

    — Roger Pilon is vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

    http://nationalreview.com/corner/364...sy-roger-pilon

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    SENATE DEMOCRATS DETONATE “NUCLEAR OPTION” BARRING NOMINEE FILIBUSTERS



    By: John Hayward
    11/21/2013 02:46 PM

    Today the Senate “went nuclear” and changed the rules for executive nominees and judicial appointments, throwing out two centuries of precedent to make it possible to confirm those nominees (but not, it should be noted, Supreme Court justices) on a simple majority vote.
    President Obama issued a powerful statement condemning this change. ”If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything,” he thundered. ”That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.”
    Vice President Joe Biden was equally opposed to the nuclear option, fondly recalling his vote against such a proposal back in 2005 as “the single most significant vote” of his Senate career. ”We should make no mistake,” Biden cautioned. ”This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party.”
    “The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play,” Biden added. ”It is the one thing this country stands for: not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field.” He cautioned that the majority should have remembered that it wouldn’t own that playing field forever, and should thus have avoided the “naked power grab” represented by this change to Senate procedure.
    Former Secretary of State and Senator Hillary Clinton, widely viewed as the front-running Democrat candidate for the presidency in 2016, was unsparing in her criticism of today’s rule change: “If you cannot get 60 votes for a nominee, maybe you should think about who you are sending to be confirmed.”
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fought the “nuclear option” to the bitter end. His strong and principled opposition reached deep into the roots of American history, as Reid powerfully evoked the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to explain why the filibuster was so important. ”For 200 years we’ve had the right to extended debate,” Reid argued. ”It’s not some procedural gimmick. It’s within the vision of the founding fathers of our country. They did it; we didn’t do it. They established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control.”
    Reid described the push to end these filibusters as a “quest for absolute power,” chastising those who demanded the nuclear option for thinking they are “wiser than our Founding Fathers.” He added sarcastically, “I doubt that’s true.”
    So how in the world did this enormous change in the Senate rules get passed despite opposition from President Obama, Vice President Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Majority Leader Reid? Simple: they’re a pack of nauseating liars and hypocrites, hell-bent to grab the “absolute power” Reid described before they get booted out of the majority in 2014. All the quotes above came from years gone by, when Democrats were in the minority.
    Today, the odious Harry Reid didn’t have much to say about the Founding Fathers and their vision of checks, balances, and extended debate. He very much wants one person, the increasingly dictatorial Barack Obama, and his Party to have total control. He also very much wants everyone to stop talking about the ObamaCare disaster. Democrats desperately needed a distraction, a political win, and enough power to set the table before they risk becoming a Senate minority in the next election. They changed the rule on a party-line vote, 52-48, actually losing three of their number – Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas – who sided with the Republican opposition.
    “The need for change is so very, very obvious,” said Reid, railing against Republican “obstructionism.” Funny, it wasn’t obvious to him back when he was leading a bitterly partisan minority that blocked some 23 of President Bush’s appointments.
    It’s anyone’s guess how today’s Senate drama will play with the American people. It’s not going to restore a single one of the five million insurance policies ObamaCare has killed, is it? This might not have been the best time for Democrats to make a desperate power grab in the name of giving unchallenged power to the Lyin’ King. No doubt they craved the opportunity to posture against Republican “obstructionism,” but right now most of the country is wishing to God there had been more of that obstructionism in the air when Reid was busy ramming ObamaCare through the Senate with sleazy backroom deals. The public may not be terribly concerned about the shortage of far-left judicial appointments to D.C. courts, but the Republican argument against the nuclear option – which, as demonstrated above, they can easily make by quoting top Democrats from five or six years ago – might very well move some votes.
    Actually, you don’t even have to go back five years to find Democrats like Harry Reid promising never to do what he just did. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rose to the occasion with a powerful argument against the nuclear option and Democrat efforts to change the subject from ObamaCare, spiced with a beautifully delivered zinger:



    The Democrats don’t seem to have taken full account of how ridiculous their transparent hypocrisy would make them look. This is not a good moment for them to become figures of absurdity again.
    Hillary Clinton actually did an excellent job of succinctly explaining why the filibuster is important. The minority party is not meant to sit on the sidelines like passive observers while the majority pushes through everything it wants, without concern for the people represented by their opponents. David Harsanyi noted the temptation for whichever side happens to be in power to denounce the influence of the minority party as obstructionist: “It’s a ‘different world’ because the party administering checks on power happens to be the wrong one.” Writing before today’s vote, he made a good point about the probable fallout from the nuclear option:
    So the question is: would Reid really going to blow up the Senate for some D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judges? It seems improbable. But if he does, the GOP, should they ever return to power, will have the justification it needs to undo Obamacare – or pretty much anything they please – with their own majority. If the filibuster is neither sacred nor a check on power, there is no reason for legislation or cabinet nominees to be immune from the up-or-down vote. It’s going to mean a lot less stability in DC, a lot more seesawing legislation, and more severe partisanship than anyone in the Senate could possibly desire.
    This may already be proving to be prescience on David’s part, because President Obama’s statement on the nuclear option – he approves, of course, and commands you to forget everything he ever said about it prior to 2009 – rambled into all sorts of things that have nothing to do with judicial nominees and executive appointments. Either Obama is bizarrely misinformed about what Harry Reid and his lockstep caucus did today, or he’s got big plans for trimming even more power from the minority to pave the way for further “executive actions.” That should, in turn, make it easier for Republicans to convince voters alarmed by Obama’s mendacity and disastrous policies that they need a strong Senate majority to keep him in check.

    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/11/2...e-filibusters/

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Breaking: Democrats Drop Nuclear Bomb in Senate on Republican Minority - Strip Filibuster

    Kyle Becker
    On November 21, 2013
    http://kylenbecker.com



    Senate Democrats under Harry Reid have passed the “nuclear option” – stripping the minority of filibuster usage for opposing contentious or controversial bills. (Bummer: No more “Cruzabuster” or “Stand with Rand” talkathons.)

    Want to talk about bullying. Let’s see if the Democrats are so keen on this tactic when the chance to repeal ObamaCare and other unpopular legislation is within the GOP’s reach.

    Hypocrisy: Watch Senate Democrats AND Obama Oppose Stripping Filibuster in 2005!

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/9648...ip-filibuster/

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Mark Levin: This nation is in grave jeopardy like nothing I’ve ever seen before…

    Posted by The Right Scoop on November 21st, 2013 in Politics | 27 Comments

    Mark Levin opened his show with another epic monologue explaining that what’s really going on with this so-called nuclear option is that Obama wants to run this nation out of the Oval Office.

    Listen:

    Video at the Page Link:

    http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-...r-seen-before/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    The USA has been ruled by an oligarchy for at least the past twenty years. Obama is just making it official.

    Anyone believing that a two-party political system is still governing this country obviously believes our Constitution is still in effect.

    Neither are true.

    ol·i·gar·chy

    noun \ˈä-lə-ˌgär-kē, ˈō-\ : a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people
    : the people that control a country, business, etc.
    : government or control by a small group of people

    1: government by the few

    2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control

    ol·i·garch
    ˈäliˌgärk,ˈōl-/
    noun
    noun: oligarch; plural noun: oligarchs

    • 1. a ruler in an oligarchy.
    • 2. (esp. in Russia) a very rich businessman with a great deal of political influence.
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #7
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Senate Rules for Radicals

    Democrats break the filibuster in a precedent they may regret.


    341 Comments
    Nov. 21, 2013 6:35 p.m. ET

    Today's Democrats have grown up in the Saul Alinsky tradition, and on Thursday they proved it with a partisan vote to break the Senate filibuster rule for confirming judges and executive-branch nominees. The new rules will empower the party's liberals for as long as they control the White House and Senate, but they will also set a precedent for conservatives to exploit in the future.
    Majority Leader Harry Reid broke a GOP filibuster of a judicial nominee on a 52-48 vote. He was prodded by the Democratic Senate classes of 2006-2012, younger liberals in a hurry like Al Franken (Minnesota), Jeff Merkley (Oregon) and Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire). These are the same liberals who enjoyed a rare 60-vote supermajority in 2009-2010 when they rammed through ObamaCare without a single Republican vote. They view the minority as an inconvenience to be rolled.
    It's true that Senators of both parties have misused the advice and consent power to make it harder for the executive branch to govern. But the great irony is that Democrats voted to end the practice of judicial filibusters that they pioneered when George W. Bush was President. As the minority from 2003-2005, Democrats demanded 60 votes to confirm executive-branch nominees like John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador.
    For the first time they also insisted on 60 votes for judicial nominees Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, Henry Saad, William Pryor, David McKeague, Richard Griffin, Charles Pickering and William Gerry Myers.
    Only when Republicans threatened to break the filibuster themselves in 2005 did Democrats agree to allow a vote on some judges. But Mr. Bolton was still blocked, and when Democrats regained the majority in 2007 they began a new filibuster jag to block nominees of all sorts through the end of Mr. Bush's term. Yet now that Republicans are returning the favor, Democrats are up in arms.
    The move shows how foolish Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch were to worry that if they broke the filibuster, Democrats would then do it too. Democrats did it anyway. The only way to deter bloody-minded Democratic behavior is to treat Democrats as they treat Republicans. Democrats sicced special prosecutors on GOP Presidents for years, but they gave up the independent-counsel statute only after Ken Starr investigated Bill Clinton.
    The immediate result of Harry Reid's power play will be that President Obama has a freer hand to pursue his agenda through regulation and the courts. Democrats will now rush to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in particular, adding three new judges over GOP objection to a court that is already underworked.
    They will also confirm Mel Watt as the chief regulator for Fannie Mae FNMA -6.16% andFreddie Mac. FMCC -3.80% Mr. Watt, who will have almost unlimited power as government conservator, will proceed to allow principal writedowns on underwater mortgages before the 2014 election. And he will begin to finance an "affordable housing trust fund" for liberal groups that dole out subsidies to Democratic voters and harass businesses with lawsuits.
    Mr. Obama also hopes to limit successful legal challenges to his rule-by-regulation. The D.C. Circuit will now have more liberal judges to hear challenges to his unilateral climate-change power grab or his rewrite by fiat of the Affordable Care Act.
    The silver lining is that the end of the nominee filibuster will work for conservatives too. The next time they hold the Senate and White House, Republicans should employ the same weapon. Democrats are pretending that they are only breaking the filibuster for lower-court nominees, not for the Supreme Court. They can dream on.
    The next GOP President should line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O'Hare International Airport. Imagine two or three more Clarence Thomases on the High Court confirmed with 51 Senate votes. Planned Parenthood can send its regrets to Harry Reid.
    Mr. Reid's new rules for Senate radicals are also a warning of what Democrats will do if they retake the House in 2014. They will surely break any GOP filibuster that could block key liberal legislation so President Obama can go out with a reprise of his first two years. Forget about a filibuster stopping union card-check, for example.
    ObamaCare would never have passed if Mr. Franken hadn't stolen the Minnesota recount and prosecutors hadn't hidden exculpatory evidence to convict Alaska Republican Ted Stevens on false ethics charges. But liberals are showing that they'll only need 51 votes, not 60, to pass the next ObamaCare.
    Conservatives have more of a stake than liberals do in the legislative filibuster as a check on the political passions of the moment. But the Democrats who rewrote Senate rules on Thursday should also understand that they have now opened the door to repeal ObamaCare with only 51 votes.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...12213849755246

    I believe Obama will use this to go after the Guns and destroy the Second Amendment ... he has 51 votes in the Senate to enact the U.N. Small Arms Treaty
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #8
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Mark Levin Skewers GOP ‘Buffoons,’ ‘Cowards’ for Tepid Response to ‘Nuclear Option’

    by Josh Feldman | 1:03 pm, November 22nd, 2013 audio

    Yesterday’s nuclear fallout from Harry Reid pushing the big red button on the filibustering of non-Supreme Court nominees has left practically everyone on the right seething, but Mark Levin was particularly fired up by the GOP’s less-than-forceful response to the power grab. He asked, “Do the Republicans in the United States Senate have any self-respect whatsoever? Do they understand they look like a bunch of buffoons and cowards?”

    He mocked Republicans for singing the same song about how “it’s a sad day” in the Senate instead of getting real with the Democrats about how significantly and quickly the tables will turn on them the second the GOP takes control of the Senate.
    Levin said the Republicans should have warned Democrats that when they take power, they’ll go even further, strip the entire filibuster, and then go after Obamacare with a simple majority.

    But they didn’t do that, which is why Levin felt no reservations about calling Senate Republican leadership “losers” who are “perfectly comfortable with tyranny.”

    Listen to the audio below, via The Mark Levin Show:

    Audio at the Page Link:

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/mark-...uclear-option/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #9
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •