President Donald Trump

[DMT]

'Its up to Mitch, but i say go for it'---Trump.
Really not much of a plead there

So you take Trump at his word? You honestly think he's not going to apply pressure? The guy contradicts himself constantly and has demonstrated throughout his entire life that he is a bully. It amazes me that someone who supported Sanders is so willing to go along with Trump's bs.

[GwynnInTheHall]

'Its up to Mitch, but i say go for it'---Trump.
Really not much of a plead there

"If we end up with that gridlock I would say if you can, Mitch, go nuclear,"

First part of the statement.

[GwynnInTheHall]

"If we end up with that gridlock I would say if you can, Mitch, go nuclear,"

First part of the statement.

Again, he didn't ask or plead he told them what to do as he continues to do.

[nots]

IMO, Garland should have gotten a hearing. The Constitution didn't set a time frame for hearings to be held and the GOP rolled the dice and won. But it is a bad precedent as it further erodes the collegiality of the Senate. I think 6 months out from an election is a fair amount of time for a nomination and hearings. I think Congress should codify that.
I also think the Democrats don't have much moral high ground to stand on here either. In 1992 (an election year), John Roberts was nominated for District court Judge. The head of the judiciary committee (Biden) kept that nomination in committee all the way thru the election. As noted earlier, Harry Reid altered the rules of the Senate to allow confirmations to be by simple majority, which also greatly eroded the collegiality of the Senate. Now the Democrats are getting hurt by that, as the GOP undoubtably will be hurt in he future.
I wish the GOP would step up and say that we will not use the nuclear option. If you want to filibuster Gorsich, go ahead but we will not erode the last piece of judicial nomination bedrock. If they filibuster, nominate someone else. After 3 or 4 of these filibusters, I actually think public opinion would start to weigh heavily on the Democrats and they would eventually have to confirm someone. I don't think they could hold out for 4 years.
Sadly, I realize this has no chance of happening. the well is already poisoned. And Trump is a hard charger that certainly isn't going to back down and look weak. So he will be confirmed, both sides will have acted childishly and the divide will grow even wider.

[Redbirds Fan]

Prior to Reid invoking it with the District court nominees, had it ever been used for any court nominee?
And 'pleaded' is an overstatment if read exactky what Trump said

When Bill Frist was trying to gather enough votes for the nuclear option during the Bush presidency, John McCain and others cut the famous "Gang of 14" deal with Democrats to avoid it and get certain Bush nominees approved, including William Pryor (who came dangerously close to being a SCOTUS nominee). The Republicans wouldn't budge in 2013 on Court of Appeals nominees in particular. The overwhelming majority of Obama's District Court nominees received well over 60 votes, for whatever that is worth.

[Redbirds Fan]

IMO, Garland should have gotten a hearing. The Constitution didn't set a time frame for hearings to be held and the GOP rolled the dice and won. But it is a bad precedent as it further erodes the collegiality of the Senate. I think 6 months out from an election is a fair amount of time for a nomination and hearings. I think Congress should codify that.
I also think the Democrats don't have much moral high ground to stand on here either. In 1992 (an election year), John Roberts was nominated for District court Judge. The head of the judiciary committee (Biden) kept that nomination in committee all the way thru the election. As noted earlier, Harry Reid altered the rules of the Senate to allow confirmations to be by simple majority, which also greatly eroded the collegiality of the Senate. Now the Democrats are getting hurt by that, as the GOP undoubtably will be hurt in he future.
I wish the GOP would step up and say that we will not use the nuclear option. If you want to filibuster Gorsich, go ahead but we will not erode the last piece of judicial nomination bedrock. If they filibuster, nominate someone else. After 3 or 4 of these filibusters, I actually think public opinion would start to weigh heavily on the Democrats and they would eventually have to confirm someone. I don't think they could hold out for 4 years.
Sadly, I realize this has no chance of happening. the well is already poisoned. And Trump is a hard charger that certainly isn't going to back down and look weak. So he will be confirmed, both sides will have acted childishly and the divide will grow even wider.

There is more to the history of the "nuclear option" than the Harry Reid story.

[GwynnInTheHall]

IMO, Garland should have gotten a hearing. The Constitution didn't set a time frame for hearings to be held and the GOP rolled the dice and won. But it is a bad precedent as it further erodes the collegiality of the Senate. I think 6 months out from an election is a fair amount of time for a nomination and hearings. I think Congress should codify that.
I also think the Democrats don't have much moral high ground to stand on here either. In 1992 (an election year), John Roberts was nominated for District court Judge. The head of the judiciary committee (Biden) kept that nomination in committee all the way thru the election. As noted earlier, Harry Reid altered the rules of the Senate to allow confirmations to be by simple majority, which also greatly eroded the collegiality of the Senate. Now the Democrats are getting hurt by that, as the GOP undoubtably will be hurt in he future.
I wish the GOP would step up and say that we will not use the nuclear option. If you want to filibuster Gorsich, go ahead but we will not erode the last piece of judicial nomination bedrock. If they filibuster, nominate someone else. After 3 or 4 of these filibusters, I actually think public opinion would start to weigh heavily on the Democrats and they would eventually have to confirm someone. I don't think they could hold out for 4 years.
Sadly, I realize this has no chance of happening. the well is already poisoned. And Trump is a hard charger that certainly isn't going to back down and look weak. So he will be confirmed, both sides will have acted childishly and the divide will grow even wider.

The American People are paying attention for once and I guarantee, things will be different in the future. You are correct that this is childish and that it started long ago, but as each day passes more and more citizens become activists to end this crap on both sides of the aisle. I've put myself, as one example. in a position to be able to dedicate time to activism, politics and changing the system. I meet people everyday doing similar things, getting involved, trying to affect change.

Trump's victory is in theory only as thousands and possible millions are mobilizing to stop him and his shit, this is not only going to affect him and his policy, but both parties and their efforts to maintain the status quo--Things are going to change and WE are going to change it.

So those of you being glib regarding Trumps complete incompetence, THANK YOU. You're giving us, those who want change, exactly what we've needed to motivate others to BE that change.

[cardboardbox]

I dont think Gorsuch will be filibustered. He's too good a nominee... 8+ dems will vote for him.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I dont think Gorsuch will be filibustered. He's too good a nominee... 8+ dems will vote for him.

I'll take that bet.

[chancellor]

There is no "Reid rule". If you are referring to the 'nuclear option' Trump has pleaded for McConnell to invoke, it has never (ever) been used for Supreme Court nominees.

And before Reid, it had never been used for Cabinet members and other federal judicial posts. Hence, the extension of the nuclear option is now fondly referred to as the Reid rule. It's a nice legacy for him.

[chancellor]

IMO, Garland should have gotten a hearing. The Constitution didn't set a time frame for hearings to be held and the GOP rolled the dice and won. But it is a bad precedent as it further erodes the collegiality of the Senate. I think 6 months out from an election is a fair amount of time for a nomination and hearings. I think Congress should codify that.
I also think the Democrats don't have much moral high ground to stand on here either. In 1992 (an election year), John Roberts was nominated for District court Judge. The head of the judiciary committee (Biden) kept that nomination in committee all the way thru the election. As noted earlier, Harry Reid altered the rules of the Senate to allow confirmations to be by simple majority, which also greatly eroded the collegiality of the Senate. Now the Democrats are getting hurt by that, as the GOP undoubtably will be hurt in he future.
I wish the GOP would step up and say that we will not use the nuclear option. If you want to filibuster Gorsich, go ahead but we will not erode the last piece of judicial nomination bedrock. If they filibuster, nominate someone else. After 3 or 4 of these filibusters, I actually think public opinion would start to weigh heavily on the Democrats and they would eventually have to confirm someone. I don't think they could hold out for 4 years.
Sadly, I realize this has no chance of happening. the well is already poisoned. And Trump is a hard charger that certainly isn't going to back down and look weak. So he will be confirmed, both sides will have acted childishly and the divide will grow even wider.

And here's where we part ways. The Dems have been weaponizing the executive branch and the Senate for years. As Trump's predecessor was fond of saying, elections have consequences - and before we give an inch, the Dems need to learn that sword cuts both ways.

[GwynnInTheHall]

And before Reid, it had never been used for Cabinet members and other federal judicial posts. Hence, the extension of the nuclear option is now fondly referred to as the Reid rule. It's a nice legacy for him.

I was glad to work hard to get his replacement elected, you're welcome.

[Bernie Brewer]

I don't know, you'd have to ask Elizabeth Warren and others who have stated multiple times that heightened regulations isn't hurting any banks, including small banks. Warren is the most ardent supporter of the CFPB, and last week when Trump talked about firing the CFPB director, who reports to no one unlike nearly every department head of a governmental agency in Washingtonin, she and others said they would support him suing the US Government. Trump has indicated he wants to replace the head with a committee or board of governors. When Warren and Dems talk about small banks not being impacted they typically reference profits as their proof. What they fail to recognize and/or mention is industry consolidation, some from failures, but most from mergers and consolidation of charters, with the single largest factor cited as being significantly increased cost of compliance with regulations. The number of indolent banks and thrifts decreased from nearly 8,000 pre- recession to just over 5,300 now. I'll look at the FDIC website for the exact totals, but these are close. As a small bank President, we have a cost of compliance on new regulation that was enacted since the recession of nearly 100%. We are no longer able to compete with Fannie and Freddie's because of oppressive consumer regulations for residential real estate lending. Since the election, the stock market has resulted in what is now being called the "Trump Bump" in bank stocks, which is solely based on the belief that the Congess is going to pull back on regulation.

I know this is for a post from like forever ago (#175 from 01/27/17). But here the current numbers.
The United States had 5,521 community banks as of Sept. 30, down more than 25 percent from 7,442 at the end of 2008, when the banking crisis was still in its early days, according to the Independent Community Bankers of America, an industry group. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has reported nearly 500 bank failures since 2009, most of them small banks. Others have merged to cut costs and stay in business, but many have struggled even as the economy has recovered. This is down from 18,033 in the 1985 according to the FDIC.

[nullnor]

Bill Maher should apologize for?

[Redbirds Fan]

And before Reid, it had never been used for Cabinet members and other federal judicial posts. Hence, the extension of the nuclear option is now fondly referred to as the Reid rule. It's a nice legacy for him.

There is a lot of history to the nuclear option, especially from 2005 forward. It provides some excellent context, and underscores that fact that there can be a difference between opposition and obstructionism.