The bad amendments, all from Republicans, would have: undercut Clean Air Act protections against mercury and other toxic pollutants from industrial boilers; opened up all of America's outer continental shelf, as well as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to oil drilling; and overturned President Obama's wise decision to delay the environmentally risky Keystone XL oil pipeline.
The problem lies in two other, very bad amendments that were added to the appropriations bill on the House floor.
Don't block Obama, but find ways to compromise with him without adding bad amendments to otherwise good legislature.
As long as Republicans are interested in opening the door to the process, it might as well be opened all the way and finally wipe those "bad" Amendments off the books.
We worked night and day to improve it and to block bad amendments, with the help of grassroots bankers across the country, who we estimate have sent 300,000 letters to Congress this year.
He's the kind of lawyer who gives the fifth amendment a bad name, but who definitely knows his way round a blowdry.
So apart from the obvious contradictions of claiming to be a populist, patriotic movement while attacking the popular vote and the democratic traditions of our nation, why else is repealing the 17th Amendment a bad idea?
But that doesn't mean that Clinton's call for an amendment is a bad idea.
Similarly, didn't Ms. Murkowski realize that the Blunt amendment was a bad idea before her constituents heard about it on television?
Senator Dave Durenberger, a Minnesota Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, urged defeat of the amendment on the ground that a bad precedent would be set if specific amendments were placed in public on a bill whose content is not revealed.
