Democrat Seeks To Change Presidential Removal Procedure

community
By:  @community, 4 months ago
Comments: 91 ..

Tags

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) filed a bill during the two-week April break that would let the vice president and former presidents collaborate to decide if a president is fit for office.

“It is hard to imagine a better group to work with the vice president to examine whether the president is able to discharge the duties of the office," Blumenauer said. When there are questions about the president’s ability to fulfill his or her constitutional responsibilities, it is in the country’s best interest to have a mechanism in place that works effectively."

According to The Hill, Blumenauer’s proposal stems from the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, which the Democrat claims would fall short in cases of emotional or mental incapacity.

The amendment mandates that the vice president becomes the president if the sitting president dies or resigns. It also lets the VP take over, if the VP and a majority of Cabinet officers agree to the move.

In the event a president refused to step down, two-thirds of both the House and Senate have to vote in favor of removal to force a presidential resignation. 

But Blumenauer says the mechanism is flawed.

 

 

“Because the cabinet can be fired by the president, there is a natural bias that would make them reluctant to acknowledge the president’s inability to serve. It’s time to revisit and strengthen the Amendment and make sure there is a reliable mechanism in place if the president becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of office,” Blumenauer said.

Blumenauer’s bill aims to have former presidents and vice presidents collaborate with the current vice president instead.

Blumenauer discussed his idea on the House floor back in February.

Several Democratic lawmakers have publicly questioned President Trump’s psychological state since his election.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/democrat-seeks-change-presidential-removal-procedure

Flagging unavailable
96WS6
link 04/20/17 08:40:41AM @96ws6:

More short shortsightedness

Flagging unavailable
 
Gunny
link 04/20/17 08:49:58AM @gunny:

Obama hiding away on a yacht.  Afraid to return to the US.One of their governmental aides with a TS clearance indicted for treason. Giving secrets to the Chinese.  Yup the DNC is in shambles.  Pelosi is brain dead, Winters has Dementia. Schumer is just plain crazy.

What next for the party of beatens.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
PJ
link 04/20/17 09:02:34AM @pj:

Guess what, he's no longer President.  Let it go.

Flagging unavailable
 
Gunny
link 04/20/17 09:11:49AM @gunny:

Guess what he can still be indicted for what he did while in office.  If he is not guilty after the trial he will be let go.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
PJ
link 04/20/17 09:19:50AM @pj:

This article is about kicking out your hero hope because he's mentally unstable and unfit like many of his supporters.

Do you want your hero hauled out of Office and his agenda to destroy the universe ruined before he can fully implement it?

Flagging unavailable
 
Gunny
link 04/20/17 09:48:57AM @gunny:

Aw, I see... never said he was my hero, but he was 100% better than that bitch Hillary. who pimped for her husband.

As long as he drains the swamp in DC.  May I ask you a question, are you still working for the government?  and if so why are you on here instead of doing what you are paid to do every day.?  And people wonder why Trump is gonna get rid of those getting paid to sit and play on a computer all day and or watch porn all day.

 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
PJ
link 04/20/17 09:55:01AM @pj:

Very nice Gunny.  I'm off today.  I do have leave and recently went to settlement on my house so I'm still setting up my new place.  

Flagging unavailable
 
Gunny
link 04/20/17 09:55:51AM @gunny:

But you are on here EVERYDAY?

Flagging unavailable
 
PJ
link 04/20/17 09:58:15AM @pj:

Gunny you don't know my schedule for work so fuck off.  

Flagging unavailable
 
Gunny
link 04/20/17 10:08:28AM @gunny:

Don't need to know, Government workers should not be on the computer to social sites EVERYDAY, during work hours.

This is why you are so upset with Trump he is going to drain the swamp, evidently you are with in that swamp.

"Fuck Off" such nastiness.  For shame.!!!!

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 04/20/17 10:43:19AM @a-macarthur:

Irony isn’t a concept with which President Donald J. Trump is familiar.

In his Inaugural Address, having nominated the wealthiest cabinet in American history, he proclaimed, “For too long, a small group in our nations capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished—but the people did not share in its wealth.”

Under Trump, an even smaller group will flourish—in particular, a cadre of former Goldman Sachs executives. To put the matter bluntly, two of them (along with the Federal Reserve) are likely to control our economy and financial system in the years to come.

https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-not-draining-the-swamp-hes-filling-it/

So much for "draining the swamp".

But, for the record, I disagree with Blumenauer's proposal.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Trump has demonstrated by virtue of his incompetence, saber rattling and dishonesty, that he is indeed unable to discharge the POWERS of his office in ways that do not endanger America's security, the quality of life of its poor and middle class and the very air we breathe.

Trump has made it easier for employers to fuck workers out of wages, for investment companies to cheat elderly investors, for employers to allow workers in mines, etc. to be injured or killed … and he tried to take health insurance from 24 million Americans in order to give tax breaks to the top 10% of millionaires and billionaires …

The current protocols for impeachment and dismissal are more than adequate, however, a partisan Congress in bed with Trump, will stay in bed with him and avoid protocol until such time, if ever, it sees Trump as costing Republicans seats in the House and Senate.

 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Jerry Verlinger
link 04/20/17 06:27:30PM @jerry-verlinger:

Under Trump, an even smaller group will flourish—in particular, a cadre of former Goldman Sachs executives. To put the matter bluntly, two of them (along with the Federal Reserve) are likely to control our economy and financial system in the years to come.

Marking the beginning of the American Oligarchy.

Flagging unavailable
 
Jerry Verlinger
link 04/20/17 06:23:15PM @jerry-verlinger:

Obama hiding away on a yacht.  Afraid to return to the US.

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

Flagging unavailable
 
No Fear
link 04/20/17 06:32:52PM @no-fear:

Comment removed for context [ph] I read one post from you and I think the same.  

I read the post you quoted and it's as good as any one liner on the late shows.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Jerry Verlinger
link 04/20/17 06:59:57PM @jerry-verlinger:

"Statements like that shows me there are people in the right wing of American politics that are crazy or so disoriented they are unable to think in a sane or reasonable manner. "

I read one post from you and I think the same.

Keep reading my post and you will be totally fucking amazed. 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Gunny
link 04/20/17 06:49:29PM @gunny:

Statements like your create hate and discontent among the members of NT.

Plus a personal attack. flagged for such.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Jerry Verlinger
link 04/20/17 07:09:29PM @jerry-verlinger:

Plus a personal attack. flagged for such.

There is nothing personal in that comment. It is a general negative comment about some politically right wing people.

Why are you so upset over that comment? Me thinks you took the comment as a personal attack.

(Some people get really upset when they see the word "crazy")

Flagging unavailable
 
Gunny
link 04/20/17 07:17:27PM @gunny:

You forget your history of calling me crazy. in all you comments to me and this one was to me. You mention the crazy aspect. You may not have mentioned my name but skirting the CoC is still a CoC violation with the flags option.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Jerry Verlinger
link 04/20/17 07:44:23PM @jerry-verlinger:

You forget your history of calling me crazy.

That's one thing I will never forget. One way or another you constantly find a way to bring it up.

in all you comments to me and this one was to me.

You're dreaming. You were the furthest thing from my mind when I posted that comment. 

You mention the crazy aspect. You may not have mentioned my name but skirting the CoC is still a CoC violation with the flags option.

You need to stop taking things so personal, this article and the comments made here are not all about you.

Flagging unavailable
 
No Fear
link 04/20/17 09:00:57PM @no-fear:

Oh give it up, You are not fooling anybody.

Flagging unavailable
 
Jerry Verlinger
link 04/21/17 02:34:36PM @jerry-verlinger:

Obama hiding away on a yacht.  Afraid to return to the US.

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

I do not recall what I said in that removed comment, but I doubt it was actually a CoC violation.

This sites practice of removing comments without notifying the poster they supposedly violated the CoC often creates a big problem. 

In the first place, the poster may not ever realize they had a comment removed, unless they have a reason to revisit the comment where the alleged violation occurred. 

Secondly, in the probable event the poster does not know exactly what they said, they likely do not know why the comment was deleted.

In this case, both of those factors occurred. 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Dean Moriarty
link 04/21/17 03:16:57PM @dean-moriarty:

I motion that we leave the comments in place and simply change them to the color Yankee Doodle Dandelion. That way nobody misses out on the fun and the violation can still go down on your permanent record. 

Flagging unavailable
 
PJ
link 04/20/17 09:05:49AM @pj:

This is a very bad idea.  There are already ways to remove an unfit President and this would take away the power from the people.  This is dangerous and stupid.

Trump and his idiot heirs will hang themselves eventually when their constant ethic violations catch up with them.

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/20/17 09:28:20AM @96ws6:

PJ I must say I am impressed that you see the true danger of this stupid move.  Most liberals are 100% behind it.   I think the nuclear option was equally as short sighted.

Flagging unavailable
 
PJ
link 04/20/17 09:52:09AM @pj:

There is your error.  I am not a liberal but because I do have some liberal leanings I have been attacked constantly on this site as a liberal and laughed at when I say I am moderate on some issues.  I guess my views about women have upset many of the men here so I'm labeled a democrat.  Which is silly because it only reinforces the common belief that republicans don't value women aside from fuck toys and being able to control them.  

Flagging unavailable
 
Dean Moriarty
link 04/20/17 10:26:07AM @dean-moriarty:

Your views about women cowering in fear about a guy says grab them by the pussy are indeed amusing. I've yet to see a man cower in fear of a woman that says grab em by the balls. 

Flagging unavailable
 
1ofmany
link 04/20/17 11:12:03AM @1ofmany:

I've yet to see a man cower in fear of a woman that says grab em by the balls.

She can't do it unless you let her and, if you let her, its foreplay. But Trump was right. There are lots of floozies that will let him grab their pussy the same they would happily have it grabbed by movie stars, musicians, ball players, Bill Clinton, etc. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
link 04/20/17 12:38:56PM @sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom:

Your views about women cowering in fear about a guy says grab them by the pussy are indeed amusing.

It's not about cowering in fear.  It's about the message being conveyed, and the example being set...by the President of the United States.

Flagging unavailable
 
Spikegary
link 04/20/17 02:33:09PM @spikegary:

Is this something he said since he was the President?  Or something that he said while campaigning?  Or something that was said a decade ago?  If the person that taped it was so incensed, why did it take 10+ years to get upset?  No, the person was and is an opportunist.  I'm sure most of us would hate to have our life over the decades dissected and published for the world to see-we've all done stupid shit, some more epic than others.

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/20/17 10:45:16AM @96ws6:

I'm convinced.  A true liberal never would have called this out for what it really is, just ask JR.   I must admit you are certainly left leaning and a little over the top on what you generally describe as "pussy control" though.

Flagging unavailable
 
No Fear
link 04/20/17 02:48:05PM @no-fear:

"Which is silly because it only reinforces the common belief that republicans don't value women aside from fuck toys and being able to control them."

You are mistaken.  Men in general are thought of in that way.  It has nothing to do with the GOP.

 

 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Gunny
link 04/20/17 03:42:20PM @gunny:

Amen brother.  We are usually referred to as dogs.  Meaning we will hump any female.  misconception by those that believe all men are dogs.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
No Fear
link 04/20/17 06:22:50PM @no-fear:

Plus last I heard there are plenty of women in the GOP.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/22/17 09:59:56PM @perrie-halpern:

Below thread removed for being off topic 

Flagging unavailable
 
Jerry Verlinger
link 04/20/17 06:34:42PM @jerry-verlinger:

Trump and his idiot heirs will hang themselves eventually when their constant ethic violations catch up with them.

There are a lot of Americans that feel the same way.

I've heard there are actually voting pools available that are based on the time that will happen.

My guess is, Trump will be in office for less than two years. 

(If the country can survive under a Trump presidency for that long)

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 04/20/17 09:23:10AM @s:

This is a shiny thing to distract the hate filled extremists who constitute the base of the democratic party.

It will go nowhere. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Jerry Verlinger
link 04/20/17 06:36:24PM @jerry-verlinger:

It will go nowhere. 

I would not place a bet on that.

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/21/17 04:05:07PM @96ws6:

I would.

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 04/21/17 08:08:24PM @cerenkov:

So would anyone with the least understanding of poltics.

Flagging unavailable
 
Jerry Verlinger
link 04/21/17 08:43:22PM @jerry-verlinger:

I would.

The incompetence being demonstrated by President  Donald trump, demonstrates exactly why article 4 of the 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution.

Trump cannot do the job, and is going to bring us into an actual war that could possibly include nuclear weapons. 

The guy is a liar, has zero scruples, has no control over his mouth and is the most dangerous of the 14 Presidents that have been in office during my lifetime.

As President, Donald Trump is one scary and dangerous person. He has to be removed from the office as soon as possible, before he scares Kim Jong-un into doing something really stupid, or fires up Putin into doing something way too aggressive. 

This multi-billionaire President and the billionaires in his cabinet are bringing us into an oligarchy that we are going to find very difficult to get out of.

Mark my words, the worst of Donald Trump is yet to come. We do not yet know how big a mistake we have made.

Flagging unavailable
 
Petey Coober
link 04/21/17 08:58:14PM @petey-coober:

before he scares Kim Jong-un into doing something really stupid

Kim Jong-Un is fully capable of "doing something really stupid" all by himself w/o any prompting from Trump ...

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 04/21/17 09:14:19PM @cerenkov:

Exactly. Trump's bluster is finally encouraging China to do something about Kim.

Flagging unavailable
 
1ofmany
link 04/20/17 09:45:45AM @1ofmany:

Because the cabinet can be fired by the president, there is a natural bias that would make them reluctant to acknowledge the president’s inability to serve.

That's the point dummy. Involving the president's own cabinet appointees removes partisanship from the equation. If these people will risk their jobs to say that the president is crazy, then he might actually be crazy. 

Blumenauer has a zero chance of getting this bill through a republican congress or overcoming a veto. He should draft his bills on toilet paper so they will at least serve a useful alternative. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Spikegary
link 04/20/17 10:23:37AM @spikegary:

In related news, Representative Don Quixote (D-Calif) has not only voiced his support for this bill, but has vowed to hold his breath until it passes both houses and is signed into law.  The Congressman was unable to comment further, as he was starting to turn blue.......just another windmill....

Seriously, did they learn nothing from the whole 'Super-Majority' fiasco?  So, President Trump waits until his last day in office, then signs the bill into law, if his replacement is a Democrat, of course.  How stupid and short-sighted are these people?

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 04/20/17 10:35:53AM @cerenkov:

Very stupid and very short-sighted.

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/20/17 10:49:13AM @96ws6:

"How stupid and short-sighted are these people?"

 

Very.  How much more proof do you need?

Flagging unavailable
 
Jerry Verlinger
link 04/20/17 06:44:04PM @jerry-verlinger:

So, President Trump waits until his last day in office, then signs the bill into law

It can't wait that long. 


The veto becomes effective when the President fails to sign a bill after Congress has adjourned and is unable to override the veto. The authority of the pocket veto is derived from the Constitution's Article I, section 7, “the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case, it shall not be law.”Sep 29, 2016
Presidential Vetoes | US House of Representatives:

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/20/17 10:04:45PM @96ws6:

Says one of the shortsighted we speak of.  You would overturn the rules of democracy forever to get your way at the moment. Haven't you learned after the crap with Reid and, because of it,  the "nuclear option" with Gorsuch?  Do you not understand the power that is now in Trumps hands because of the actions of Obama you cheered?  When will you learn?

Flagging unavailable
 
Spikegary
link 04/21/17 06:52:20AM @spikegary:

So, working with the Congress and Senate, the bill doesn't get debated and voted on until the Republicans are good and ready (for examples of this, just read the history of Harry Reid as Senate majority Leader).  Do you really think that the Republicans will hesitate to use the rules of the game as the other side of the aisle did while they were in power?  Are you that naïve?

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/21/17 09:30:41AM @96ws6:

"Are you that naïve?"

After reading his posts on the subject and his cheering of the destruction of democracy you still have to ask?  

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 04/20/17 11:02:43AM @a-macarthur:

Ladies and gentlemen, I very much dislike deleting comments and do so very rarely; so please, for the good of the site, stop insulting one another and discuss the content of the article.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/20/17 11:54:11AM @perrie-halpern:

It is stupid and short sighted.. but no more than the nuclear option that was done for SCOTUS. As we say in NY, What goes around comes around, and none of these people seem to see this. 

This time, if this passed, all it would take is a power hungry VP. How utterly dangerous and undemocratic. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 04/20/17 12:05:23PM @cerenkov:

The Republicans probably wouldn't have invoked that option if Reid hadn't already used it so heavily.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/20/17 12:21:50PM @perrie-halpern:

Reid used it once, to stop filibusters, which was on a huge upswing over the last 10 years. That is a far cry from using it for a SCOTUS position. It will come back and bite them in the butt eventually. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 04/20/17 12:35:49PM @cerenkov:

Just as Reid's action are biting the Dems. They brought this on themselves.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/20/17 12:53:40PM @perrie-halpern:

Partisan Politics 101:

The republicans used the most filibusters ever during the Obama years, with a record 307, as compared to Bush, with 130 over both their 8 years. Literally that is 3 times the rate of the democrats. Reid then called for the nuclear option. That was just in the congress, and not for a lifetime position, and not exactly uncalled for given the outrageous number of republican filibusters. In return for that nuclear option, the republicans used it on a SCOTUS position. These are not equal. Also, this is after the fact that the republicans wouldn't even consider a hearing on Obama's pick. 

There will be payback for this. 

I have no dog in this fight. I agree that it is a very dangerous move for this piece of legislation to pass. But I am just pointing out how our congress is very short sighted and that it goes both ways. 

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/20/17 12:59:53PM @96ws6:

"In return for that nuclear option, the republicans used it on a SCOTUS position. These are not equal."

 

Regardless.   You know you are blaming those that USED the rule instead of the Dumb ass that MADE it right?  Sorry but the Dems brought this on on themselves.  Change the rules and only expect your side will take advantage of them?  Please.  That being said, sooner or later the Repubs will pay for the nuclear SCOTUS option just as the Dems have already paid for Reid's stupidity.

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 04/20/17 01:04:03PM @s:

Democrats were also bragging as late as October they would use the nuclear option if Republicans opposed President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees.  

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/20/17 01:09:46PM @96ws6:

Well you know that holds no weight with liberals.   What's OK for liberals is almost never OK for everyone else.   They play by a different set of rules.

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 04/20/17 01:02:29PM @s:

and not for a lifetime positio

Circuit court positions are life time positions. What are you talking about?

th a record 307, as compared to Bush, with 130 over both their 8 years

Those numbers are partisan bullshit. They count parliamentary moves by Reid as "filibusters."  On numerous occasions, I've posted the explanations for the fake numbers but people prefer their partisan talking points than actual facts, so I'm not going to bother.

By all means though, find a list of 307 nominees that at least  41 Republican Senators successfully kept from assuming office.  

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/20/17 02:13:12PM @perrie-halpern:

Sean,

and not for a lifetime positio

Circuit court positions are life time positions. What are you talking about?

I misspoke. A circuit judge isn't one of our checks and balances. Their importance is not on a par. 

Those numbers are partisan bullshit. 

First of all, I am not a dem so I am not being partisan, but you are. I am not going to bother producing a chart to show you that I am right, since you have made up your mind already. 

By all means though, find a list of 307 nominees that at least  41 Republican Senators successfully kept from assuming office.

What are you talking about? I am talking about straight up filibusters, not nominations. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 04/20/17 02:41:45PM @s:

You used the  " lifetime position"   Argument, not me. Reid used  the nuclear option to appoint people to lifetime positions. That's indisputable.  And of course the Supreme Court is the most important of the appealte courts, that goes without saying.

you are relying on debunked partisan  talking points that arent relevant. Whether you consider yourself partisan or not, the talking points you are relying on certainly are. Read the congressional research services papers on the filibuster if you want actual facts.

of course the number of nominees filibustered by the republicans  is relevant. It's the only relevant number, since the nuclear option only applies to nominations.  If you believe your claim that Reid was justified in employing the nuclear option, you should be able to provide some proof of widespread successful filibustering of obama nominations.   

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/21/17 02:02:47PM @perrie-halpern:

you are relying on debunked partisan  talking points that arent relevant. Whether you consider yourself partisan or not, the talking points you are relying on certainly are. Read the congressional research services papers on the filibuster if you want actual facts.

I have no idea what you are referring to here. I think we are having some sort of communication issue. So let me clarify. The republicans used a record number of filibusters during the Obama administration. That has nada to do with the nuclear option. I do know that Reid changed the rules and basically invented the nuclear option, which was a mistake.. But I looked all over the internet to see how many times Reid supposed used the nuclear option and I can only find two.. not the several you said in a later post. 

since their partisan filubstsr of gorsuch was unprecedented. 

So was not giving even allowing a hearing of Garland. 

of course the number of nominees filibustered by the republicans  is relevant. It's the only relevant number, since the nuclear option only applies to nominations.  If you believe your claim that Reid was justified in employing the nuclear option, you should be able to provide some proof of widespread successful filibuster of obama nominations.  

Sean, I was not just talking about nominations. I was talking about filibustering in general. One thing leads to another. Over filibustering, lead to frustration, which lead to the nuclear option, which was a big mistake. 

And now we are looking at another with this new bill. 

That was my point. 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Spikegary
link 04/20/17 02:41:09PM @spikegary:

If we're going to parse this out, then you should also include the number of Republican initiatives that Harry Reid would not let off his desk to even see the light of day.  Pretty much worse than a filibuster to not allow debate.  Need to factor all these things in to figure out how we got where we are today.

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 04/20/17 12:58:32PM @s:

Reid employed the nuclear option significantly  more than one time. 

Also, Reid and the democrats were the first party to ever use the filibuster as a partisan tactic against Judges.  The whole filibuster/nuclear escalation began when when Miguel Estrada was filibustered for the Circuit Court because Democrats feared Bush would get credit for nominating the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court.  

Using the nuclear option for the Supreme Court was the logical end of the game Harry Reid  started with the previously unprecedented use of the partisan filibuster of judges. 

Now we are back to the standard the Senate operated at before the  Harry Reid torched tradition, a majority of votes will get a nominee confirmed. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/20/17 01:20:31PM @perrie-halpern:

Reid employed the nuclear option significantly  more than one time. 

Please prove that. I did my research. He used it once during the Bush years and once during Obama's.

Also, Reid and the democrats were the first party to ever use the filibuster as a partisan tactic against Judges.  The whole filibuster/nuclear escalation began when when Miguel Estrada was filibustered for the Circuit Court because Democrats feared Bush would get credit for nominating the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court.

And that is the one of them I am talking about. But give us a break Sean. The republicans set a record number of filibusters during the Obama years. Did they not think there would be a reaction to it. If you abuse a procedure, there is always a reaction. 

Using the nuclear option for the Supreme Court was the logical end of the game Harry Reid  started with the previously unprecedented use of the partisan filibuster of judges. 

I disagree. The nuclear option for one of the highest positions in the land, and not some circuit judge. It is setting a precedence for other SCOTUS positions. 

Now we are back to the standard the Senate operated at before the Harry Reid torched tradition, a majority of votes will get a nominee confirmed. 

How do you get that? The Republicans just did it for a SCOTUS position. They doubled downed on Harry Reid. 

I just don't understand how you can't see that. I can clearly see how what the dems are trying to do with this piece of legislation. You need to look past the partisan politics. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 04/20/17 02:56:48PM @s:

 

I don't think you understand what the nuclear option is. Reid would never have deployed it during the bush years, unless he was trying to get a bush nominee confirmed. the nuclear option was a rule change that allowed the majority to approve a nomination and only a nomination with a simple majority of votes.  It goes without saying that Reid didn't change the senate rules under George bush to alllow bush nominees to avoid being filibustered.

again, look it up, Reid changed the rules to Get three nominations passed originally in Twenty thirteen. It was then used on numerous occasions  the next year before democrats lost control of the senate. So to say is was used once is simply false.

its amusing that you blame republicans for using a tactic Harry Reid invented.  What did Reid expect would happen? By your logic, democrats shouldn't be mad that McConnell wnet nuclear over the Supreme Court, since their partisan filubstsr of gorsuch was unprecedented. 

McConnell ended the filibuster fight started by Harry Reid with the first partisan filibusters of judges in senate history. . Reid started  the fight and he ultimately lost. Simple as that.

Also, it's a return to the status quo because Supreme Court justices were always able to be confirmed by a simple majority vote, before democrats started employing the partisan filibuster under Reid. The democrats abused the filibuster, it was taken away, and now we are back where the senate was for over two hundred years, where a majority of support was enough for a Supreme Court confirmation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
TTGA
link 04/20/17 01:20:46PM @ttga:

Reid used it once, to stop filibusters

And McConnell used it once, to stop a filibuster.  Reid should have known (in fact, Carl Levin D-Mi came right out and told him) that, once part of the filibuster rule is gone, the ice is broken and it's all gone.  There was never a chance that it would stay in place after 2013.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/20/17 01:25:36PM @perrie-halpern:

TTGA, 

I am not saying that isn't true. But you are missing the issue of the abuse of the filibusters in the first place. But yes, now the barn door is open. In my opinion, the blame is on both of them; the republicans for over using filibusters and the dems for using the nuclear option. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/20/17 01:31:35PM @perrie-halpern:

Democrats were also bragging as late as October they would use the nuclear option if Republicans opposed President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees.  

Well you know that holds no weight with liberals.   What's OK for liberals is almost never OK for everyone else.   They play by a different set of rules.

Well hold on there guys. First of bragging about using it and using it are two different things. And for the record, I thought what the republicans did to Garland was the pits. He had every right to a hearing. 

As for liberals, are you saying democrats or liberals? They are different you know. And I think both sides play dirty politics, hence why our country has moved to these more radical measures. 

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/20/17 01:32:23PM @96ws6:

Yea he wouldn't even listen to another Democrat!

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/21/17 04:07:30PM @96ws6:

They certainly wouldn't have used it had the Dems not changed the laws.  PERIOD!!!!!

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/20/17 12:51:53PM @96ws6:

I agree Perrie the nuclear option on SCOTUS was as short sighted as Reed doing the same for appointees,

Reid used it once, to stop filibusters, which was on a huge upswing over the last 10 years. That is a far cry from using it for a SCOTUS position. It will come back and bite them in the butt eventually.

Not to be outdone, now the Dems want to be able to choose your president for you.  Evidently picking the Democratic candidate for you is not enough

 

Pure INSANITY

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/20/17 12:55:44PM @perrie-halpern:

Thank you '96! I think this business with removing a seated president is beyond dangerous. This is a precedent that could be so abused that it could undermine the republic. How utterly short sighted. 

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 04/20/17 01:05:59PM @96ws6:

And yet there are foolish partizan hacks cheering it.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 04/20/17 01:21:03PM @perrie-halpern:

Oh I know. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Randy
link 04/20/17 11:11:42PM @randy:

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) filed a bill during the two-week April break that would let the vice president and former presidents collaborate to decide if a president is fit for office

Goes a bit too far. I'm happy with letting the VP and members of the Cabinet or Congress under Section 4 of the 25th keep their place in deciding if Trump is bat shit crazy (he's really not that crazy, just incredibly incompetent and in waaaaaaaay over his head) and needs to be removed from office. Now I don't think he's fit for office on that basis, but that won't be shown until he bumbles us into a war just by a complete fuck up on his own. Which he will.

Flagging unavailable
 
Randy
link 04/21/17 02:31:12AM @randy:

The real question is will VP Pence, the Cabinet and especially the GOP Congress act invoke the 25th Amendment in America's best interests or will they, as they are now and have been so far, let scandal after scandal and failure after failure and foreign policy screw up after foreign policy screw up continue, just because they have a pliable, though massively corrupt person sitting in the Oval Office, who is so intertwined with the Russians that it is impossible to tell where Trump leaves off and Putin begins, before they act to remove this incredibly defective, obviously defective and even dangerous national security risk? Trump is getting close to being proved to be nothing less then a Russian asset. The question is not that. The question is how many Republicans in the House and Senate will put their Party desires over who they are and what they believe in as patriotic Americans. In other words, are they Americans first? Or are they Republicans first and thereby willing to lean Russian first? Only they can answer this question that holds our nations future in the balance.

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 04/21/17 08:55:50AM @cerenkov:

We will not fundamentally undermine the office of the president based solely on Russian birtherism from the lunatic fringe.

Flagging unavailable
 
Spikegary
link 04/21/17 06:59:54AM @spikegary:

You should remove names from your thoughts and just use the offices.  Is it a good idea, regardless of who is in that office, for the President, duly elected by the citizens of the United States to be removed by the VP, Cabinet and ex-Presidents?  In most places, that would be called a coup.

Let me ask, if a Republican had fielded legislation akin to this when Presdient Obama was in office, would you be climbing onboard this particular train?

Flagging unavailable
 
Randy
link 04/22/17 01:52:05AM @randy:

In most places, that would be called a coup.

In the United States of America it called Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It has to be there to remove a President who can no longer perform the duties of their office for either physical or mental reasons. We can not have a President who is so physically disabled (such as a coma) or obviously Mad (insane) or even dangerously incompetent, running the country and this clause must remain in force. I don't agree at all with the new proposed bill, but I am a HUGH advocate for Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, it's meaning and if necessary it's use. No matter the political party of the President.

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 04/21/17 02:16:06PM @dowser:

Personally, I think it is going to come back and bite them.  NOT a good idea.

Flagging unavailable
 

Share This

Who is online








Visitors: 47