• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

The "nuclear option".

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

feets

Guest
So, yesterday Reid used the nuclear option to remove the filibuster in the senate for nominations.

While there is much talk about the hipocrisy of the action, the potential for it to cause more disfunction(more partisanship) and of course backfire on the dems when they no longer have the majority, all of which are valid, I see bigger implications.

This was a rule change in the senate. Simple as that. As such, the Senate sets it's own procedural rules. No problems there. I don't have a working knowledge of the Senate rules. I don't have to work within the Senate. I do have a working knowledge of the most commonly used set of Rules, Roberts Rule of Order and some variations.

Procedural rules are very important but I won't get into detail about that. What I will get into is if the rules have any teeth. Are they useful? Almost universally, no matter what the rules are, a change to the rules requires a 2/3 vote or some form of super majority. Without such a requirement, there are no rules. Without such a requirement, a simple majority always get what they want no matter what the rules state. How? It's really quite simple. Any simple majority(51%) can never be opposed when the rules can be changed with a simple majority vote. There is no protection of the minority. They(the rules and minority) may as well not exist. There are no rules because the simple majority can simply change them at any time with a simple majority vote.

That is what the senate did yesterday. They changed the rules with a simple majority vote because they did not have the 60% they needed to pass what they wanted. That means there are no rules. The simple majority rules.

If the rules for filibuster can be changed by simple majority(filibuster is a protection of the minority) as it was yesterday, there are no rules in the senate except majority rule.

Very dangerous IMO.
 
Last edited:

Highpockets

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
3,796
Location
New Jersey
So, yesterday Reid used the nuclear option to remove the filibuster in the senate for nominations.

While there is much talk about the hipocrisy of the action, the potential for it to cause more disfunction(more partisanship) and of course backfire on the dems when they no longer have the majority, all of which are valid, I see bigger implications.

This was a rule change in the senate. Simple as that. As such, the Senate sets it's own procedural rules. No problems there. I don't have a working knowledge of the Senate rules. I don't have to work within the Senate. I do have a working knowledge of the most commonly used set of Rules, Roberts Rule of Order and some variations.

Procedural rules are very important but I won't get into detail about that. What I will get into is if the rules have any teeth. Are they useful? Almost universally, no matter what the rules are, a change to the rules requires a 2/3 vote or some form of super majority. Without such a requirement, there are no rules. Without such a requirement, a simple majority always get what they want no matter what the rules state. How? It's really quite simple. Any simple majority(51%) can never be opposed when the rules can be changed with a simple majority vote. There is no protection of the minority. They(the rules and minority) may as well not exist. There are no rules because the simple majority can simply change them at any time with a simple majority vote.

That is what the senate did yesterday. They changed the rules with a simple majority vote because they did not have the 60% they needed to pass what they wanted. That means there are no rules. The simple majority rules.

If the rules for filibuster can be changed by simple majority(filibuster is a protection of the minority) as it was yesterday, there are no rules in the senate except majority rule.

Very dangerous IMO.
Yep, the courts will all be liberal leaning, and he'll appoint more radicals to posts in his club.

They got to remember though, what goes around, comes around. And when it's the R's turn they and the liberal press will go wild.

Reid and obama were both against doing that a while back, how soon they forget. :p I was against it before I was for it. :roll:
 
F

feets

Guest
This was just to block filibusters for staff appointments. It doesn't do anything for blocking filibusters for legislation. In other words, it's much ado about nothing.
Yes it does effect legislation. It establishes the fact that only a simple majority is needed to change the rules. There is nothing stopping a simple majority from simply changing the rules to pass legislation. There is no filibuster because the simple majority can simple vote to remove it.

If they can use a simple majority to block filibusters for staff appointments, there is no longer any filibuster for anything.

If you want to pass legislation with 51% of the vote you simply use that same 51% to block the filibuster.

If 2/3 of the vote is not needed for a rule change, there are no rules.
 
F

feets

Guest
No it doesn't.

This is nothing more than a bunch of fox news entertainment fodder. Not to worry, it won't change anything that means anything to anyone and that's a promise.
1. I don't watch FOX.

2. You promise? ROLFMAO

The majority just bent the minority over and you "promise" they are just going to put in the tip.:roll:

Your friend at band camp might have fell for that "promise", Me, not so much.

Nuclear option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The nuclear option, called the constitutional option by some proponents, is a generic term for a set of parliamentary maneuvers used in the United States Senate to achieve approval of certain motions by a majority vote, rather than the "super-majority" required by previous Senate rules and precedents. The nuclear option had arisen in reaction to the frequent use of Senate rules by a minority of Senators to block consideration of a nominee for an Executive Branch or judicial position (or less frequently, a bill or resolution). Between the 1970s and 2013, threats by the majority party to use some version of what is now known as the nuclear option resulted in some changes to Senate rules and practices to limit opportunities for blocking nominations, without actually invoking the nuclear option itself.[1] In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.

Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths majority ("duly chosen and sworn"[2] -- usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds majority ("present and voting"[2] -- 67 or fewer votes) for a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a de facto requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths majority is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court nominations.

In most proposed variations of the nuclear option, the presiding officer of the Senate would rule that a simple majority vote is sufficient to end debate, and if the ruling were challenged, a majority would be required to overturn the ruling. This would mean, for example, that 51 Senators who favor a nomination could use their majority to uphold the presiding officer's ruling that only 51 votes are needed to end debate and proceed to a final vote, and once the 51 had voted to end debate, they would then have sufficient votes to confirm the nomination. This would end what had effectively become a 60-vote requirement for confirmation of an executive or judicial nominee, or the passage of legislation.

Some variations of the nuclear option involve changing the Senate rules themselves, while others would use the maneuver to create a new precedent for particular types of measures, by having a majority of the Senate uphold the ruling of the presiding officer that a previous rule or precedent is no longer valid.
Precedent has now been set. The Nuclear Option is now open for use for anything except instances where the constitution requires 2/3 vote, like treaties.

Your "promise" holds as much water as Obama's promise that you can keep your healthcare plan.
 
Last edited:
F

feets

Guest
Here is a whole bunch of flip floppers on the nuclear option! Obama,Harry Reid,Hillary....what a bunch of hypocrits!
Quote: The Democrats on the nuclear option... "this is the way democracy ends"!
Obama and Democrats on Reconciliation/Nuclear Option 2005 - YouTube
Careful Rob. Republicans have threatened to use the nuclear option themselves. The hypocrisy is on both sides. In fact, Obama, Reid and Hillary made those statements when Republicans were saying they were going to use the nuclear option that they now say is bad.

Both sides have flip flopped.
 

kayn1n32008

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,500
Location
In the 'patch
Careful Rob. Republicans have threatened to use the nuclear option themselves. The hypocrisy is on both sides. In fact, Obama, Reid and Hillary made those statements when Republicans were saying they were going to use the nuclear option that they now say is bad.

Both sides have flip flopped.
Come on feets, Rob looks though rose glasses, his beloved repukecans never do any wrong;)


Sent from an unknown place...
 

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Careful Rob. Republicans have threatened to use the nuclear option themselves. The hypocrisy is on both sides. In fact, Obama, Reid and Hillary made those statements when Republicans were saying they were going to use the nuclear option that they now say is bad.

Both sides have flip flopped.
Im not upset. Im as happy as Chris Christie at a Five Guys! :) When we take the majority we will now have all the power. :lol: This will all back fire on those dumb Dems. :lol:

Legal expert says Senate Dems' nuclear option could lead to 'mass destruction' | Fox News
 
Last edited:

rapidcharger

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
2,247
Location
The land of broken calculators.
Can you offer anything in the form of debate other than, 'Nuh uh!' and a promise?
I don't care to debate this issue with you.
I wish only to opine.

You should try doing that a little more instead of being a troll. You'd think someone who claims to be here "just to learn" and "not be a troll" would do a little less debating and a lot more reading.
 
F

feets

Guest
I don't care to debate this issue with you.
I wish only to opine.
That's because the same thing happens every time you take on the country boy.

It always turns out like this: Slap scene from Trinity is still my name - YouTube

That's HP watchin' my back. :D

On a more serious note, since you often like to suggest college for those that ask you to explain your position, academics require that you defend your position. In fact, they teach you how to do this in English 101.

For a person that hangs his hat on College education and has repeatedly accused me of not having one, you are very quick to abandon the principles you should have learned.

Maybe you just need a refresher.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2301017_write-english-101-essay.html

Formulating a thesis is often the most difficult step, especially for students new to academic writing. Thesis statements can take on many different forms, but the most important thing is that you must be able to defend it. For example, let's say your assignment is to write about a meaningful event in your life (this is a common English 101 assignment). You don't want to simply fill five pages narrating the events of your first Little League baseball game. You want to formulate a thesis statement that essentially says "My first Little League baseball game was a meaningful event in my life because . . ." That is a proposition that you must then defend using evidence (which we'll get to in a minute). Your wording may vary depending on your instructor's requirements, but you are getting across the same point.
2

You must defend your thesis with evidence, or what comes after the "because." You will want to come up with some reasons why your first Little League game was a significant event in your life. Perhaps it was because it taught you about teamwork, persistence and losing gracefully. The number of reasons you have will vary depending on the assignment and the required length, but if you are in doubt, three is a good place to start.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/how_2301017_write-english-101-essay.html#ixzz2lWBWvnns
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top