Appendage to my thoughts on the nuclear option

This might sound a little goofy but I thought of an analogy relating to the nuclear deal.

Let's compare the Senate to a married couple. How many marriages are there were the two parties disagree on important sensitive topics. Quite a few. How many family counselors would suggest that one try to get around their partner rather than compromise. None. In fact people doing that is the reason that we have family counselors. In a successful marriage the two involved will discuss the issue in a civil manner and then meet somewhere in the middle. It appears to me that Harry Reid doesn't want to do that. In the week following Chris Christie's reelection he said that what happens in New Jersey is they discuss an issue, argue about it, come to an agreement, and then move on. The Senate democrats seem to have given up. And I don't anticipate that republican house majority is going to be easier to get along with as a result of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4e1-d_Pd3w

Thoughts on the Senate's Nuclear Option

 Harry Reid led the senate to invoking the nuclear option. From what I understand this means that they voted to give themselves more power. I'm not happy about this.

It seems that the democrats want to figure out how to get around the republicans rather than figure out how to get along with them. What else makes this case is the health care reform. They may have met in a room with republicans and opened their mouths and talked about health care but in my perception that was sort of fake. It seems that back then rather than figure out a way to get along with the republicans to pass health reform they wanted to figure out a way to get around them by passing the bill through the back door, namely reconciliation.

I think what the democrats are forgetting is that the republicans could very well come back into power in the next few years and that nuclear option will be just as readily available to them.

People are always frustrated that congress can't get much done. This sounds weird but I sort of think that that's kind of a good thing. There are 50 states in the USA and they are very different. I'm not sure that 51 senators is justification to pass federal legislation. I'm a believer in states' rights. People want to look to Washington to solve problems. I think people need to get into the habit of looking to places like Boston, Austin, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Bismark, Tallahassee, etc.

However, appointments of federal judges is by definition not a state issue. Democrats want people to think that republicans are too stubborn to get anyone appointed. Maybe the problem is that the democrats are too stubborn. Among Justices who are serving or recently have served on the Supreme Court there are some who received over 80 yea votes. These ones were appointed by Presidents Reagen and Clinton. Presidents Bush 43 and Obama have both appointed 2 justices that do not fit this description. But I think it's proven that the senate can get along on these things. But it seems that they don't want to.