Today Democrats in the Senate led by Harry Reid changed the rules so that now all Presidential nominations and most importantly Judges can be confirmed on a mere party line vote. This has never been done in 225 years.

I fear that they will use this power to stuff the courts with radical judges that are appointed for life. This forever changes our country.

What do you think of that?

I think this is very very bad for our country and only shows the arrogance of these people, shows they care more about power than sitting down and talking like they used to do in the olden days like in the 90's and earlier.

This here's from FOX

President Obama, openly expressing his frustration with Senate Republicans, applauded Majority Leader Harry Reid's success Thursday at invoking the so-called "nuclear option" as Democrats voted to strip the minority party of its primary power to block nominations -- the filibuster.

Obama, even invoking former President Bush, said it's critical to "change the way that Washington is doing business."

But Republicans and even some Democrats warned that the Senate may have just opened a Pandora's box -- and with little debate, approved a change that could haunt the chamber for years to come.

"This was nothing more than a power grab," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

In a rapid-fire set of developments on Thursday, the Senate narrowly approved a rule change that would limit the ability of the minority party to block key presidential appointments. Instead of needing 60 votes to break a filibuster, Democrats will now need only 51.

Speaking Thursday from the White House briefing room, Obama said the change was needed to deal with Republicans' "unprecedented pattern of obstruction." He cited the record of George W. Bush, claiming his predecessor had an easier time getting nominees confirmed.

Obama cited, among other stand-offs, the bid by Republicans to filibuster his nomination of Chuck Hagel, a former GOP senator, for Defense secretary.

"For the sake of future generations, we can't let it become normal," he said.

But following the vote, even some Democrats emerged as tough critics of the decision.

While Republicans were furious that their ability to hold up appointments had been scrambled, moderate Democrats were concerned more about how Reid was able to pull off the maneuver.

Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., one of three Democrats who opposed the move, said it could "permanently damage" the Senate.

"This institution was designed to protect -- not stamp out -- the voices of the minority," he said.

Reid used what is known in Senate slang as the "nuclear option." To change Senate rules of this kind, it typically takes 67 votes. But Reid used a highly controversial shortcut and did it with just 51 votes.

Retiring Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a prominent and influential moderate, put out a 2,300-word statement explaining in great detail why Reid's action Thursday could cause lasting damage.

"Changing the rules, in violation of the rules, by a simple majority vote is not a one-time action," he warned. "If a Senate majority demonstrates it can make such a change once, there are no rules that bind a majority, and all future majorities will feel free to exercise the same power, not just on judges and executive appointments but on legislation."

Levin argued that the move opened the floodgates for the majority to change important rules on a whim going forward.

"Today, we once again are moving down a destructive path," he said. "Pursuing the nuclear option in this manner removes an important check on majority overreach which is central to our system of government."

Levin made clear that he thinks Republicans were acting irresponsibly by blocking Obama's judicial nominees, and supports getting those nominees an up-or-down vote.

But he said there were other ways for Reid to achieve that, including by forcing GOP foes to stage an old-fashioned filibuster on the floor.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was the other Democrat to oppose the rule change.

The filibuster, for better or worse, has been a defining feature of the Senate for decades. While this makes the Senate one of the slowest-moving legislative bodies in the world, it also prevents legislation and appointments from moving too fast.

The vote on Thursday vastly reduces the power of the minority to stall nominations and makes it easier for federal judges to get lifetime appointments. The move would not affect Supreme Court nominees.

The late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., presented a powerful case against changing the rules back in 2010, when he said doing so would "destroy the uniqueness of this institution."

"In the hands of a tyrannical majority and leadership, that kind of emasculation of the cloture rule would mean that minority rights would cease to exist in the U.S. Senate," he said.

This here's from CNN

Washington (CNN) President Barack Obama said Thursday afternoon he supports the Senate Democrats' decision to change filibuster rules to make it easier to approve judicial appointments.

He cited what he said has been, over the past five years, "an unprecedented pattern of obstruction in Congress."

"A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to re-fight the results of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, it cannot become normal," he said.

The Senate on Thursday voted to invoke the so-called nuclear option out of frustration over Republicans who have been blocking Obama's nominees.

The controversial move is a rules change that could make a partisan environment even more divisive because it takes away a sacrosanct right for any party in the Senate minority–the right to filibuster.

Explainer: What's the nuclear option?

Under the old rules it took 60 votes to break a filibuster. The change now allows most filibusters of Obama nominees to be stopped with 51 votes–a simple Senate majority.

The rules change only applies to executive and judicial nominees, not Supreme Court nominees.

Typically 67 votes are required to change Senate rules, but under the nuclear option, Democrats - who control the chamber with a 55-45 majority - changed those rules with a simple majority vote.

"It's time to get the Senate working again," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor. "Not for the good of the current Democratic majority or some future Republican majority, but for the good of the United States of America. It's time to change. It's time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete.

The move came about after Republicans blocked three judicial nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, known as the highest court in the land after the Supreme Court.

After invoking the nuclear option Thursday, Senate Democrats' first order of business was voting to break the filibuster of one of those nominees–Patricia Millett–to the DC Circuit. As expected the vote passed with a simple majority vote under the new rules.

In 2005, the then majority Republicans threatened the nuclear option to prevent Democratic filibusters of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. The confrontation was averted thanks to an agreement by a bipartisan group of 14 senators.

Related: The man who coined the term 'nuclear option' regrets ever pursuing it

While Obama supported the rules change on Thursday, Republicans were quick to point out that he opposed the nuclear option when his party was out of power in 2005.

"I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority," he said on the Senate floor at the time.

Republicans were furious with the new change Thursday. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Reid "promised over and over again that he wouldn't break the rules of the Senate to change the Senate."

"When Democrats were in the minority they argued strenuously for the very thing they now say we will have to do without, namely the right to extend a debate on lifetime appointments," he added. "In other words they believe that one set of rules should apply to them and another set to everybody else."

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, called it a "power grab."

"It is another partisan political maneuver to permit the Democratic majority to do whatever it wants to do, and in this case it is to advance the President’s regulatory agenda and the only cure for it that I know is an election," he said.

Until now, Reid hadn't necessarily had support from enough of his own Democratic caucus to pass a rules change. Some Democratic senators were reluctant to change the rules–because of reverence for the institution and, more importantly, because they know Democrats will not always be in the majority.

The beauty of the way the Senate works, as opposed to the House, is that the minority has more power. The filibuster, a 60 vote hurdle, was one of the biggest weapons in the minority's arsenal.

But Senate veterans like Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California who had been opposed to the nuclear option - changing Senate rules - recently changed their minds. Feinstein and others, like fellow Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said things are so broken in Washington that the nuclear option was the only way to fix it.

Many Republicans argued Democrats were just trying to manufacture a crisis in order to create a distraction from the Obamacare rollout debacle.

"Sounds to me like Harry Reid is trying to change the subject and if I were taking all the incoming fire that he is taking over Obamacare I'd try to change the subject too," House Speaker John Boehner said in his weekly press conference.

"This changes everything, this changes everything," Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, told reporters the nuclear option "puts on a chill on the entire United States Senate."

"I have reached to them. I spent an hour in Harry Reid's office. Come on. I reached out until my arms ache," McCain added. "They are governed by these hard over, newer members of Democratic senators who have never been a minority, who are primarily driving this issue and they succeeded and they will pay a very, very heavy price for it."

CNN's Ashley Killough and Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

Filed under: Congress Harry Reid Senate

pretty friggen sad!

Makes em look like a bunch a ****in *******, can't get **** their way so they change the rules to suit them. What are they gonna do when the republicans come into power and use this against them? They'll cry about it as though the repubs are the ones who did.

It's time to cut DC out like a cancer!

You ain't kiddin bout that!

When the majority party decides they can change the rules to suit them then there are no rules, only political anarchy. Reid needs to be thrown down the capital stairs until he is unrecognizable as a human.

What is the difference between DC and a cancer?




















No, I don't know either.

Reid didn't just decide they could change the rules. That ability was always there. It's only been over the past few years that the Republican Senators have been abusing the filibuster. The average length of judicial vacancies during this administration has grown to over 7 months. Average. It's not that Republicans have become "picky." These guys have even gone on to propose that those vacant seats simply go away, and claim that Obama's "stacking the courts" by trying to fill five years of vacant seats.

But it's OK. Nobody expects Republicans to take responsibility for their actions. Carry on.

keep on apologizing,they'll get to you yet,according to the history of Powergrabbers!
Keep your Eyes shut,so you won't see them coming!

I heard an interesting comment yesterday that the rule change was to allow Obama to stuff the DC circuit with far left judges who would defend Obama's Obamacare in it's probable upcoming court challenges.

As if the Democrats never abused the filibuster.

The republicans are taking responsibility by not letting the courts be filled will judges who will decide cases upon their beliefs instead if the law.


"I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority. I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rule change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it is good for our democracy."

-Barack Obama 2005

Wow....just, wow...

More BS, 225 years the rule stayed in place and now that the demofukcassdicklickercuntocrats can't get their way without opposition Reid changed the rules.

Before 1917, there was no such rule. Look it up.

Also, before very recently, no other minority party in Congress abused the filibuster to such an extent.

Still consuming the Stuff?

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate to move the previous question which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Vice President Aaron Burr argued in 1806 that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[2] In that same year, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[2] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837.[3] In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other senators sided with King, and Clay backed downWIKI

Another move the Dems will complain about when Reps retake control of the senate.

We're sorry....we didn't mean it

Seems a plan is only good while they're in power but when the other teams gets the ball.....FOUL!

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a pu$$y. He and all of his Ryno a$$hole buddies need to be fired.

John McLame needs to top that list!