Harry Reid's grab for power

You know I did go to Naval Nuclear Power School in Orlando, FL. Class 7902, section six. You wanna talk nuclear physics? Or reactor principals?

Oopsie Mr. Goodbar, you stepped on your crank. Patricia Millett is the CURRENT nominee for a position that became available in 2005. Lets see, who was the president in 2005 and who kept his nominee from being voted on....oh, thats right, it was Harry Reid and the democratically controlled Senate that prevented an up or down vote. Sounds like they owe George Bush a nominee. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

looks like you've been huffing too much floor cleaner ... step away from the mop bucket, and crack the broom closet door

You are beyond help, stupid ignorant IBBuffoon.

You lie, you deny, you rant. You may not be the most evil person on here but you are clearly the most delusional. Originally Posted by Old-T

If factually destroying your delusional rants is "ranting", Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, so be it. The title on that chart clearly states "Socialism", and your ignorant ass tries to pretend that it doesn't, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man.

suitable for no response to any of his tripe ... Originally Posted by CJ7

In your case, CBJ7, your most intelligent response is to remain quiet.

7am on a Saturday morning... You're up early Corpy!

You shit in the bed again?

Actually, if the Feds would enforce current law, there wouldn't be as many immigrants to care for. Why should my tax money be used to support criminals, that is, people who are here illegally?

If California wants to keep them, they can pay for them. Yeah. California is more progressive. They are also bankrupt. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why should California have to pay for them if the Feds are responsible?

You know I did go to Naval Nuclear Power School in Orlando, FL. Class 7902, section six. You wanna talk nuclear physics? Or reactor principals? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Putting our typical arguing aside, you might want to be a bit more careful. I don't know how small or large that section of that class was, but it seems you are getting a bit close to self-outing here. I know I would not feel comfortable providing that much of a pointer back to myself that narrows the search envelope in case someone wanted to find out about me.

Putting out typical arguing aside, you might want to be a bit more careful. I don't know how small or large that section of that class was, but it seems you are getting a bit close to self-outing here. I know I would not feel comfortable providing that much of a pointer back to myself that narrows the search envelope in case someone wanted to find out about me. Originally Posted by Old-T

That's what chest-beating does ...

..... then "they" hand out a list of their favorite firearms they are keeping "safe" at home!

Anyone recall what Sen. Barack Obama had to say on the subject back in 2005?

"Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster... then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse...

I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they believe they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy...

What (Americans) don’t expect is for one Party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game, so that they can make all the decisions while the other Party is told to sit down and keep quiet."


Our Hypocrite-In-Chief is clearly a man of principle!

So changing from "filibustering only on rare occasions for a truly poor nomination" to "filibustering almost every nomination to intentionally undermine the judicial system" is somehow in your mind not changing the rules?

Typical RWW lying by selective truth.

Not to mention... Chief Justice John Roberts (hardly a liberal) has called this a "judicial emergency"... and has called for an end to the gridlock in the senate*.

This is unprecedented.

* http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicin...-endreport.pdf Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

"I will not negotiate..." is what's unprecedented. Plus all the political vitriol coming from the President is unprecedented.

When President Obama first took office many of his appointments were found unsuitable, some even laughably, by both parties. His promise not to hire lobbyists was a joke.

I seem to recall when Federal Judges were appointed to some of the higher positions even excluding the Supreme Court you'd find a thumbnail sketch of how they stood on key issues and their educational and judicial background. I'm not seeing this in the papers or on the web. This concerns me given Obama past choices.

The Dems are doing this in order to pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with its nominees even though it is the MOST UNDERWORKED appellate circuit in the country. The DC Circuit handled only 149 appeals per active judge in the year through September versus a national average of 383 appeals and a high of 778 appeals per active judge in the overburdened 11th District Court. Those are facts.

Why do the Dems keep trying to add judges where they aren't needed? Because the DC Circuit is the one that hears most of the legal challenges to Obama's relentless campaign to stuff his costly and damaging ideological agenda down our throats via executive orders and regulatory overreach.

If it's a "judicial emergency" then why don't the Dems nominate judges where they ARE needed? Why do they act like firefighters hosing down a house that isn't on fire?

This is equivalent to FDR's 1937 attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

This table is trotted out by people who use it to prop up superficial arguments and are too lazy to drill down and see what is behind the numbers.

Average incomes are higher in the blue states, so naturally they pay more in federal taxes. Then after years of earning high incomes up north, they retire to red states and collect SS and Medicare benefits. So what? This doesn't mean the whole state of FL is on the federal dole - it just means a lot of retirees like to move to where it's warm and sunny.

Also, the numbers change all the time. Goodbar's table is from 2005. Compare it with the link showing 2010 data. How much of the 2005 ratio for LA reflects Katrina relief spending? I bet NJ swung to a heavy net beneficiary ratio this year with all the Hurricane Sandy money.

Bottom line - don't draw conclusions on any individual state, let alone the whole country, without taking the time to understand what's behind the data.

The Dems are doing this in order to pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with its nominees even though it is the MOST UNDERWORKED appellate circuit in the country. The DC Circuit handled only 149 appeals per active judge in the year through September versus a national average of 383 appeals and a high of 778 appeals per active judge in the overburdened 11th District Court. Those are facts.

Why do the Dems keep trying to add judges where they aren't needed? Because the DC Circuit is the one that hears most of the legal challenges to Obama's relentless campaign to stuff his costly and damaging ideological agenda down our throats via executive orders and regulatory overreach.

If it's a "judicial emergency" then why don't the Dems nominate judges where they ARE needed? Why do they act like firefighters hosing down a house that isn't on fire?

This is equivalent to FDR's 1937 attempt to pack the Supreme Court. Originally Posted by lustylad

False: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...court-appeals/

Anyone recall what Sen. Barack Obama had to say on the subject back in 2005?

"Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster... then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse...

I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they believe they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy...

What (Americans) don’t expect is for one Party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game, so that they can make all the decisions while the other Party is told to sit down and keep quiet."


Our Hypocrite-In-Chief is clearly a man of principle! Originally Posted by lustylad

There was flip-flopping on BOTH sides. Yes, Obama didn't support the rules then. He does now.

But Mcconnell wanted to get rid of the filibuster in 2005. Did you forget to mention that? And back then, Bush didn't face NEARLY the obstruction that Obama has:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ees-have-been/

Facts are painful at times...

Facts are painful at times... Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

So is negotiation and compromise. Bush did, Obama won't.