Republican abuse of the filibuster

[Article 15]

GOP Disinformation Campaign on Filibustering Judges | People For the American Way Blog

Then why have the Senate Republicans continued to slow-walk every nomination that comes before them? Even those with no opposition at all are forced to wait for months before the GOP allows them a floor vote. The contrast with how quickly President Bush's committee-approved nominees were given a floor vote is shocking. An average 22-day wait for President Bush's district court nominees has ballooned to 90 for President Obama. For circuit courts, Senate Republicans have forced the average wait from 30 days (for Bush) to 137 (for Obama).

That's fucked up.

whats fucked up?

The content of the post that I quoted.

 

[rightwinger]

The Republican temper tantrum of 2009-2011 continues unchecked. They have resolved to bring government to it's knees until such time as the voters return them to power. They have made it clear that no government functions can be completed until their demands have been satisfied

Republicans would filibuster a cure for cancer if it had Obamas name on it

 

[Trajan]

The Republican temper tantrum of 2009-2011 continues unchecked. They have resolved to bring government to it's knees until such time as the voters return them to power. They have made it clear that no government functions can be completed until their demands have been satisfied

Republicans would filibuster a cure for cancer if it had Obamas name on it

ayovr tavgol nvwe, Thaepc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I support the use of a filibuster, but only the old-fashioned way - actually standing up there for hours, talking non-stop.

Threats of a filibuster are just a cop-out. We'd see a lot less actual filibusters, if people's bluffs were called.

 

[Trajan]

That's fucked up.

whats fucked up?

The content of the post that I quoted.

its 3/4ers BS. read the whole link and read what I posted.

 

[Trajan]

I support the use of a filibuster, but only the old-fashioned way - actually standing up there for hours, talking non-stop.

Threats of a filibuster are just a cop-out. We'd see a lot less actual filibusters, if people's bluffs were called.

I agree that IF anyone threatens one they should be made to actually do it, put up or shut up. they have both let each other off the hook in that sense, agreed.

however, I do not agree with Filibusters for Advice and Consent issues.
one of the consequences of winning an election is, you get to fill those posts with your selections and of losing, having to bite the bullet.

And "Holds" are BS too. some senator sits on a nominee just by putting a hold on them....some are also secret as well, you don't know how has the hold on a given nominee.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I support the use of a filibuster, but only the old-fashioned way - actually standing up there for hours, talking non-stop.

Threats of a filibuster are just a cop-out. We'd see a lot less actual filibusters, if people's bluffs were called.

I agree that IF anyone threatens one they should be made to actually do it, put up or shut up. they have both let each other off the hook in that sense, agreed.

however, I do not agree with Filibusters for Advice and Consent issues.
one of the consequences of winning an election is, you get to fill those posts with your selections and of losing, having to bite the bullet.

And "Holds" are BS too. some senator sits on a nominee just by putting a hold on them....some are also secret as well, you don't know how has the hold on a given nominee.

I agree completely.

 

[Article 15]

whats fucked up?

The content of the post that I quoted.

its 3/4ers BS. read the whole link and read what I posted.

And?

 

[Chris]

The filibuster is an unconstitutional parliamentary procedure that allows a senator to delay the Senate from voting on a matter by not yielding the floor.
Prior to Senate Rule 22, passed in 1975, the senator would simply have to keep talking without sitting down, drinking water, using the restroom, leaning on anything, or pausing.

The senator could stand and read from the Sunday comics for eternity or until the other members of the Senate simply got fed up and left.

The only way to force the senator to yield the floor is by a vote of 60, not the required 50 or 51 to pass almost all laws.

In 1975, the Senate decided that not only would they use the filibuster to deny Americans their right to a forward-moving governing body, but now with Senate Rule 22, they wouldn't even have to stand up and keep talking. They simply have to say that they will filibuster, and immediately a 60-vote super majority is required to move forward.

Our Founders knew that certain actions of the Senate were of paramount importance and should require more than the simple majority required to pass all other legislation.

In fact, they specifically stated in Article I that the only time a super majority was required was for impeachments or expelling members, ratifying constitutional amendments and treaties, and overriding vetoes from the president.

They even put in a tiebreaker rule for the Senate that required the vice president to vote on matters should the voting be deadlocked.

Our country is divided by political belief and parties, but we all hold true to our Constitution and the freedoms that it grants us.

If the people believe that for any matter to pass the Senate a 60-vote majority is required, then amend the Constitution to reflect that.

Fredericksburg.com - Senate 'super majority' rule: Unconstitutional?

 

[rdean]

It's pretty bad but filibuster reform will never happen, no one wants to give up the only weapon the minority has in congress. It's also too bad that it has come to such a horrible pass, that a tactic that was once saved for important stuff is now used uniformly to make the other party look bad at the expense of the country. GOP uber alles.

Your boy Barry should have thought of that before he blurted you "You got to ride in the back of the bus."

The biggest probelm Obama has is that he tries to pretend 2010 didn't happen.

Nothing President Obama has done was anything near what the Republicans and Bush did to Democrats between 2001 - 2006. And Democrats (who I think were spineless), quietly excepted a good deal of Bush policy, lest they be called traitors.

Republicans complain that Democrats use the "race" card, but considering the Republican Party is 90% white and based in the Deep South and many of it's members still treasure "Confederacy Month", who would think they don't have a lot of racial animosity? The unwarranted hate for Obama pretty much seals the deal.

They, on the other hand, play the "patriot card" constantly. It never stops. And yet, Republicans have damaged this country in ways al Qaeda could only dream about. Worse, the damage hasn't been superficial, but at the very foundation of the country and the fabric of society. The hate against minorities. The rise of the super rich. The ruin of our economy. The death and destruction in endless wars. They even let Bin Laden go and then ignored him. Of course, if he had been caught, America never would have let Republicans invaded Iraq and make all that money for their friends. Hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your boy Barry should have thought of that before he blurted you "You got to ride in the back of the bus."

The biggest probelm Obama has is that he tries to pretend 2010 didn't happen.

Nothing President Obama has done was anything near what the Republicans and Bush did to Democrats between 2001 - 2006. And Democrats (who I think were spineless), quietly excepted a good deal of Bush policy, lest they be called traitors.

Republicans complain that Democrats use the "race" card, but considering the Republican Party is 90% white and based in the Deep South and many of it's members still treasure "Confederacy Month", who would think they don't have a lot of racial animosity? The unwarranted hate for Obama pretty much seals the deal.

They, on the other hand, play the "patriot card" constantly. It never stops. And yet, Republicans have damaged this country in ways al Qaeda could only dream about. Worse, the damage hasn't been superficial, but at the very foundation of the country and the fabric of society. The hate against minorities. The rise of the super rich. The ruin of our economy. The death and destruction in endless wars. They even let Bin Laden go and then ignored him. Of course, if he had been caught, America never would have let Republicans invaded Iraq and make all that money for their friends. Hundreds of billions of dollars.

You keep claiming Republicans are racist it worked so well in 2010.

 

[Care4all]

its Christmas...so I will just call you a shit talking dope...and let you off easy.

Well then.....I guess it is difficult to refute your argument then

For all the smack talk, I imagine you have the Republican filibuster statistics at your fingertips. I am prepared to be amazed as you demonstrate for all how little Republicans actualy use the filibuster

you have no argument- in a chamber where in you have 3/5ths, you don't need the gop, thats one, another is "holds", everyone employs Holds.......

now, list the judges filibustered please, you made the claim, not me.

the Feb. 2010 till the present time frame please. I will wait.

and for an Obama sppter to pitch a bitch over filibustering of judges etc? you have some f*king nerve, really.

when all said and done,

what's the difference Trajan? honestly, is there a difference.....both, hold up judicial appointments....one through filibustering.... the other, via the front door never opening to even have the filibuster....BOTH slow down the business at hand.

 

[grunt11b]

Where was your complaint from 2008 to 2010"? If there was none, then shut the fuck up.

 

[Trajan]

Well then.....I guess it is difficult to refute your argument then

For all the smack talk, I imagine you have the Republican filibuster statistics at your fingertips. I am prepared to be amazed as you demonstrate for all how little Republicans actualy use the filibuster

you have no argument- in a chamber where in you have 3/5ths, you don't need the gop, thats one, another is "holds", everyone employs Holds.......

now, list the judges filibustered please, you made the claim, not me.

the Feb. 2010 till the present time frame please. I will wait.

and for an Obama sppter to pitch a bitch over filibustering of judges etc? you have some f*king nerve, really.

when all said and done,

what's the difference Trajan? honestly, is there a difference.....both, hold up judicial appointments....one through filibustering.... the other, via the front door never opening to even have the filibuster....BOTH slow down the business at hand.

none at all, if this had not become a filibuster argument having to do with the judiciary. I agree that they each use and abuse this mechanism.

BUT, I take umbrage when this benchmark is applied to the judicial branch. if there is one issue upon which the hyper partisanship in the process can be laid the one parties feet, it is this one.

I invite you to take a look at the senate voting record on nominees since Haynsworth in 1969.

Did you know that until 65, 80% of all nominations to the SC were confined by voice vote?


BUT, I take umbrage when this benchmark is applied to the judicial branch. if there is one issue upon which the hyper partisanship in the process can be laid the one parties feet, it is this one.

Haynsworth and Carswell started something, but Bork? well, thats how we got here. and yet dem nominees still acquired healthy majorities.

 

[Chris]

First, there hasnt been an actual filibuster in years.

Second, the chart fails to explain how it determines what an abuse of the filibuster is? How does it eliiminate legitimate uses? Does it consider any legitimate?

Third, how is the filibuster misused if the rules are followed?

The filibuster was supposed to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.

The Republicans have doubled it's use in the last two years.

I would like to see it done away with.

 

[bripat9643]

The filibuster was supposed to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.

The Republicans have doubled it's use in the last two years.

I would like to see it done away with.

These are extraordinary circumstances, dumbshit. We have a Marxist thug running the country who wants to "fundamentally transform America."

Hooray for the filibuster. This is exactly the circumstance it was intended for.

 

[Mr.Nick]

How does one abuse a filibuster???

Do you know what the concept of a filibuster is???

 

[bripat9643]

How does one abuse a filibuster???

Do you know what the concept of a filibuster is???

You "abuse" a filibuster whenever you filibuster a Democrat bill.

 

[Mr.Nick]

How does one abuse a filibuster???

Do you know what the concept of a filibuster is???

You "abuse" a filibuster whenever you filibuster a Democrat bill.

Very true....

I find it odd (well considering their stupidity, not really) that someone would have the audacity to use such language considering the notion it makes no fucking sense.

"abuse a filibuster"

What the fuck...

 

[Care4all]

I think any filibuster that the Senators are not willing to stand up at the podium and EXTEND THE DEBATE on the bill they are concerned about is AN ABUSE of the filibuster.

A filibuster IS SUPPOSE TO BE a measure that allows the minority voices to be heard..... to extend the DEBATE on a bill.

If the pussies are using the filibuster merely as a back door means to stop legislation of the majority from being passed, if they are solely being obstructionists, without standing up and speaking to the senate on the senate floor, as the filibuster was designed....then they are abusing the filibuster imo.....no matter which side of the aisle they are on....

the filibuster is for EXTENDED DEBATE, not to just shelf a bill.