Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
Democrat/progressives being BULLY obstructionist and playing politics with people's live all rolled into one...how cute...but keep 
links in article at site
SNIP:
The Senate majority leader’s hostility toward amendments is finally catching up to him.
By Andrew Stiles
It took a while, but the media seem to have finally noticed Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s unprecedented obstructionism.
The New York Times reported last week on Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control” over the amendments process in the Senate. Why are more people finally catching on to Reid’s flagrant disregard for Senate customs? In part because conservatives aren’t the only ones complaining.
Democrats such as Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — who wants to repeal Obamacare’s medical-device tax — and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — who has waged a highly publicized campaign to reform the way the military handles sexual-assault cases — have been denied votes on their proposed amendments to various bills. Gillibrand had hoped to attach her sexual-assault amendment to the defense-appropriations bill that passed in December, but no amendments were allowed. Klobuchar has called for “a more open amendment process” because she’d like a vote on repealing the medical-device tax.
Moderate Republicans who occasionally vote with Democrats and help broker bipartisan compromise are annoyed as well. Senator Lisa Murkowki of Alaska told the New York Times she was “kind of fed up” with Reid’s obstructionism. “He’s a leader. Why is he not leading this Senate? Why is he choosing to ignore the fact that he has a minority party that he needs to work with, that actually has some decent ideas? Why is he bringing down the institution of the Senate?”
Reid’s tight control of the amendments process has become a point of contention in the debate over unemployment benefits, which he’d like to extend without providing funding for the program. After signaling that he would not allow any Republican amendments on a bill to temporarily extend the benefits, Reid appears to be backing down, however begrudgingly. “I am open to considering a reasonable number of relevant amendments to [the bill], if that’s what it takes to end Republican obstruction,” he said Monday on Twitter.
Allowing a “reasonable number of relevant amendments” from the minority party has not always been considered a concession in the Senate. It was once referred to as “regular order.” Despite Reid’s claims that he has been “very generous with amendments,” the number of amendment votes per year (not counting non-binding budget amendments, which by law cannot be limited) has declined from 218 in 2007, when Reid became majority leader, to 67 in 2013. Since July of last year, Republicans have been allowed a grand total of four amendments.
ALL of it here
Harry Reid?s Obstructionism | National Review Online
links in article at site
SNIP:
The Senate majority leader’s hostility toward amendments is finally catching up to him.
By Andrew Stiles
It took a while, but the media seem to have finally noticed Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s unprecedented obstructionism.
The New York Times reported last week on Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control” over the amendments process in the Senate. Why are more people finally catching on to Reid’s flagrant disregard for Senate customs? In part because conservatives aren’t the only ones complaining.
Democrats such as Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — who wants to repeal Obamacare’s medical-device tax — and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — who has waged a highly publicized campaign to reform the way the military handles sexual-assault cases — have been denied votes on their proposed amendments to various bills. Gillibrand had hoped to attach her sexual-assault amendment to the defense-appropriations bill that passed in December, but no amendments were allowed. Klobuchar has called for “a more open amendment process” because she’d like a vote on repealing the medical-device tax.
Moderate Republicans who occasionally vote with Democrats and help broker bipartisan compromise are annoyed as well. Senator Lisa Murkowki of Alaska told the New York Times she was “kind of fed up” with Reid’s obstructionism. “He’s a leader. Why is he not leading this Senate? Why is he choosing to ignore the fact that he has a minority party that he needs to work with, that actually has some decent ideas? Why is he bringing down the institution of the Senate?”
Reid’s tight control of the amendments process has become a point of contention in the debate over unemployment benefits, which he’d like to extend without providing funding for the program. After signaling that he would not allow any Republican amendments on a bill to temporarily extend the benefits, Reid appears to be backing down, however begrudgingly. “I am open to considering a reasonable number of relevant amendments to [the bill], if that’s what it takes to end Republican obstruction,” he said Monday on Twitter.
Allowing a “reasonable number of relevant amendments” from the minority party has not always been considered a concession in the Senate. It was once referred to as “regular order.” Despite Reid’s claims that he has been “very generous with amendments,” the number of amendment votes per year (not counting non-binding budget amendments, which by law cannot be limited) has declined from 218 in 2007, when Reid became majority leader, to 67 in 2013. Since July of last year, Republicans have been allowed a grand total of four amendments.
the poor bully he is being forced
ALL of it here
Harry Reid?s Obstructionism | National Review Online
Last edited:
