Senate Vote

[Sonney]

Will the Senate vote that allows for a majority control, will it effect the acceptance or rejection of the UN treaty on gun control that was signed by this President.

Sonney

 

[EvilElmo]

What they did was take the number of votes required to stop a filibuster from 60 down to 50. That doesn't change the number of votes required to ratify a treaty (2/3 majority). It would theoretically make it easier for them to bring a vote on the treaty to the floor but it doesn't change the numbers required to actually approve it.

 

[BogWalker]

I don't see why the Demonrats are making such a big deal of this. In the scheme of things this is really a very minor victory, not the end game like they keep acting like it is.

 

[Mgderf]

I don't see why the Demonrats are making such a big deal of this. In the scheme of things this is really a very minor victory, not the end game like they keep acting like it is.

Oh this has much, MUCH larger ramifications than just stopping a filibuster.
If you think this is the end of this, you've got another think coming.

The Senate just changed the way things have been done in Washington for more than 200 years.

No, it;s not a victory for the Democrats, but it's not necessarily a victory for the Republicans either.

It IS a loss for the American populace.

 

[BravoMike]

1. The Dems will be crying foul when they no longer have the majority in the Senate.

2. I thought this was only to stop the filibuster for when there are nominated positions, am I wrong?

 

[Mgderf]

1. The Dems will be crying foul when they no longer have the majority in the Senate.

2. I thought this was only to stop the filibuster for when there are nominated positions, am I wrong?

That is so, for now.

Many feel it will ultimately spread to legislation.
Afterall, they changed this rule, what's to stop them from changing the next one?

 

[in625shooter]

What they did was take the number of votes required to stop a filibuster from 60 down to 50. That doesn't change the number of votes required to ratify a treaty (2/3 majority). It would theoretically make it easier for them to bring a vote on the treaty to the floor but it doesn't change the numbers required to actually approve it.

Although silly for the Dems to do The Nuclear option as you refer to only applied on votes for some court appointees. Any Legislation and other items still need 2/3rd majority.

 

[BravoMike]

That is so, for now.

Many feel it will ultimately spread to legislation.
Afterall, they changed this rule, what's to stop them from changing the next one?

Very true and thanks for clarifying. They didn't change the filibuster rules for Supreme Court nominations either, but they did set some precedence that is shifting the balance of powers to be more unilateral.

 

[Cynical]

Oh this has much, MUCH larger ramifications than just stopping a filibuster.
If you think this is the end of this, you've got another think coming.

The Senate just changed the way things have been done in Washington for more than 200 years.

No, it;s not a victory for the Democrats, but it's not necessarily a victory for the Republicans either.

It IS a loss for the American populace.

It will change things when the app. court is filled with left leaning judges. When a new reg. or law is made it goes through them in D.C. Before its all over we have the fundamental transformation that we were all waiting for. What exactly are we transforming into? I will hazard a guess that the ruling elite will let us know after it is too late to fix.

 

[jake blue]

When has a power grab ever stopped at just a minor procedural change... first it's to stop filibusters, next it's to protect the population from themselves.

 

[24Carat]

Hmmmmm, what to do, what to do?

I'm thinking I am going to buy more guns and ammo.

 

[mbills2223]

Oh this has much, MUCH larger ramifications than just stopping a filibuster.
If you think this is the end of this, you've got another think coming.

The Senate just changed the way things have been done in Washington for more than 200 years.

No, it;s not a victory for the Democrats, but it's not necessarily a victory for the Republicans either.

It IS a loss for the American populace.

 

[spearheadersarge]

Recall that the new Assault weapons Ban and Gun Control failed by only a few short votes and you can see where this action becomes very dangerous to gun owners. I for one do not doubt that they had more than packing the DC Court of Appeals on their mind when this was pushed through. Obama and his minions can not get their agenda done legislatively and need every crooked avenue available to find ways of furthering their evil agenda. Don't be surprised when it comes, you heard it here first!

 

[Frankingun]

I wonder if the Dems think they'll lose the Senate next fall, so the quicker they can pack the courts, the better.

 

[Hoosier Wolf]

The next election isn't looking good for them so I think you are on to something.

in reply to an earlier post. Yes we the citizens are the ones who lost. Big time.