But they only made the change for judicial appointments. They specifically restricted it to that. This is simply a fact. To make an additional change requires 60 votes. These are the facts
A touch more help for ya Vegas http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/11/the-next-congress-and-the-nuclear-option/ Does that help? - - - Updated - - - You not reading what I posted? It only takes a majority to make the changes...reread there Giant
You really do not know what a filibuster is. The democrats can block any bill with it. Bills start in the house but must go thru the senate to become law. You are just flat out wrong - - - Updated - - - Wrong. Reid was only able to change it when he had 60 votes. This is a fact
Wrong again and once more you didn't read what I posted....my old grandpappy used to say, when you are in a hole it's time to stop digging. You should stop digging. One of my articles quoted what he had for votes and it wasn't 60. You should try again, eh? Here let me help http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters
It was 60 and it had to be done in the first two years of the Obama administration because that is the only time he had it. Look you got this one wrong. You will learn what the filibuster is
LOL you have yet to post one shred of evidence, but you knew that right? I provided you with everything you needed to draw an intelligent and informed decision, you lost...time to move on
I wish you the best. The democrats will now become the new party of no. Good luck - - - Updated - - - By the way if this were true you do know the GOP could have passed any law they wanted in the last two years. They had a majority. You do know this don't you? Why didn't they repeal the ACA? Lol
They were always the party of NO so long as a republican is president. But watch Mitch work his way around them. Harry Reid bragged he put a bomb in the senate on procedures. We will see if that works or not. McConnell still has the nuclear option.
So your rebuttal to my factual presentation to your false assertions about nuclear options, filibusters and how many votes it took Harry is "you wish me the best" and "why didn't they repeal the ACA"? Well in my posts I provided you all you need to know. The best you can hope for is that the party of no doesn't become collateral damage to what Harry Reid started because the democrats are basically neutered if the republicans want them to be. One further thing I mentioned that should depress you even more....2018 senate elections could negate the need for a nuclear option.
Vegas still thinks the nuclear option doesn't apply to filibusters or legislation despite the proof provided, research is not a liberal strong point.
More nuclear option info http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/how_harry_reid_screwed_over_chuck_schumer.html or http://nypost.com/2016/11/10/harry-reid-rule-could-help-trump-confirm-his-cabinet-choices/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option Lets pass some legislation...eh? I mean it was OK with Harry and Obama applauded it.
Nominations. You are flat wrong. Name one piece of legislation the democrats passed this way. This is priceless
Good diversion. No wait poor diversion, we weren't talking about legislation that was passed with the nuclear option, we were talking about whether or not it could be used and it can. You are starting to sound desperate now. Lol!
Your god Hillary Clinton Lost, This is Great ! Tell us some more salient Democrat talking points, how you love Gun Control that only affects Law Abiding Citizens etc....
I'm obviously coming into this discussion late.... but this statement I take issue with in the strongest terms. The "living document" argument is an insult to the Constitution and to the Founders. You can't just explain away the Constitution when you find it convenient. Yes, the Founders understood that changing times would require the Constitution to change with it... but ONLY with the insistence of a supermajority of the American people; i.e. via the AMENDMENT PROCESS.
You know how illogical and intentionally diversional your statement sounds when you responded to this comment by myself? "we weren't talking about legislation that was passed with the nuclear option, we were talking about whether or not it could be used and it can." Your previous comments went like this, Which I proved wrong. You also said Which I also proved wrong. Then there was this comment by you and step by step I posted links proving you wrong So you finally came to this ridiculous argument you are making now and you are sounding very childish. Take a step back take some breaths and admit you just can't say you were wrong. It sounds much better than continuing this feeble argument.
Weak, try again, I posted a link as proof and you posted .......... ? Man this feels like discussing with a 10 year old only the 10 year old has an excuse. Come on, admit you just flat out got it wrong, you'll feel better and earn the respect of all the posters here.
