This is your Democratically Controlled Congress

[Care4all]

the dems were obstructing appointments that they didnt have the constitutional authority to force a 60 vote majority on

thats simply NOT TRUE dive, appointments have NEVER BEEN EXCLUDED from filibuster....in fact, it is UNLAWFUL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL to stop a filibuster of an appointment as the repubs were planning to do with their ''nuclear option''...look at history, appointments were filibustered by both republicans and democrats in the past.... and there is NOTHING that state ANYWHERE that appointments can not be filibustered.

and all the filibustering that the repubs are doing now is perfectly legal as well, even though it is obsessive and overdone imo, it still is not against the constitutional Rules of the Senate....

i was just getting in a ''jab'' on how the repubs were screaming bloody murder when the dems did it!

 

[WillowTree]

You make the inane points of this board. Why do you even bother?

one would expect that of you, inane simply because they are critical of a liberal makes them inane. Inane but not untrue...democrats are very intolerant of critical comments.

 

[DiveCon]

Great attitude. Lets get nothing done as a country so the Republicans can get back at the Democrats for blocking appointments. Then you have the balls to come on to a message board to complain about the Dems getting nothing done, just to admit that the Republicans have been making it impossible? Get your story straight and grow up. How much more childish can you possibly be. You would rather get revenge then make our country better. Great set of priorities.

at least they are doing something to stop the bullshit the dems are trying to do

 

[DiveCon]

thats simply NOT TRUE dive, appointments have NEVER BEEN EXCLUDED from filibuster....in fact, it is UNLAWFUL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL to stop a filibuster of an appointment as the repubs were planning to do with their ''nuclear option''...look at history, appointments were filibustered by both republicans and democrats in the past.... and there is NOTHING that state ANYWHERE that appointments can not be filibustered.

and all the filibustering that the repubs are doing now is perfectly legal as well, even though it is obsessive and overdone imo, it still is not against the constitutional Rules of the Senate....

i was just getting in a ''jab'' on how the repubs were screaming bloody murder when the dems did it!

no where in the constitution does it say that it requires a 60 vote majority for "advise and consent"
its a simple majority
thus it is NOT constitutional to block appointments with a fillibuster


tell ya what, if Obama wins, the the GOP pulls what the dems did on appointments, you will see me saying the exact same thing
the executive has that authority to appoint, the senate has the authority to vote yes or no, not to keep a vote from happening

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

when republicans were in charge and senate dems filibustered a handfull of repub bills or apointmnts at most, in the senate, it was called ''OBSTRUCTION of the Senate'' or the dems were called Obstructionists by the republicans and i believe i read recently that the republicans in the senate have filibustered or stopped dem bills OVER 50 times since the democrats took power, january 2007!!! that's alot under any terms!!!

care

Appointments are the perogative of the executive branch.

Laws are not the perogative of any particular party.

 

[WillowTree]

at least they are doing something to stop the bullshit the dems are trying to do

more precisely,, "donkeyshit"

 

[DiveCon]

more precisely,, "donkeyshit"

the correction is noted, and accepted

 

[I Missthe North]

no where in the constitution does it say that it requires a 60 vote majority for "advise and consent"
its a simple majority
thus it is NOT constitutional to block appointments with a fillibuster

That logic is flawed. Filibusters of appointments have been going on for a very long time and there is absolutely nothing "unconstitutional" about it no matter how loud Republicans scream about it. Nothing about "advice and consent" implies that filibustering is illegal. The constitution is very vague on the issue and you can argue the intent of the writers all day, but even the court system agrees its OK (hence the reason they struck down Judicial Watches attempt at making the very same argument you are making here). I think they know a bit more about the law and the constitution then you do.

 

[DiveCon]

That logic is flawed. Filibusters of appointments have been going on for a very long time and there is absolutely nothing "unconstitutional" about it no matter how loud Republicans scream about it. Nothing about "advice and consent" implies that filibustering is illegal. The constitution is very vague on the issue and you can argue the intent of the writers all day, but even the court system agrees its OK (hence the reason they struck down Judicial Watches attempt at making the very same argument you are making here). I think they know a bit more about the law and the constitution then you do.

show me where fillibusters are constitional
where are they in the constitution


in regard to appointments

 

[I Missthe North]

show me where fillibusters are constitional
where are they in the constitution


in regard to appointments

I pose the same question to you. Show me where it says they are unconstitutional. The constitution does not address filibusters in any way shape or form, so saying that it claims that are unconstitutional is patently untrue. I love how Republicans just try to make up parts of the constitution these days whenever it is convenient. I now know where the rest of the party gets it delusions from.

 

[DiveCon]

I pose the same question to you. Show me where it says they are unconstitutional. The constitution does not address filibusters in any way shape or form, so saying that it claims that are unconstitutional is patently untrue. I love how Republicans just try to make up parts of the constitution these days whenever it is convenient. I now know where the rest of the party gets it delusions from.

i can not prove a negative
it is not possible
you show me where it is enumerated in the constitution

 

[Care4all]

no where in the constitution does it say that it requires a 60 vote majority for "advise and consent"
its a simple majority
thus it is NOT constitutional to block appointments with a fillibuster


tell ya what, if Obama wins, the the GOP pulls what the dems did on appointments, you will see me saying the exact same thing
the executive has that authority to appoint, the senate has the authority to vote yes or no, not to keep a vote from happening

quite contraire my dear dive,

the constitution names the members of the senate as the RULE MAKERS of the senate, and the filibuster IS A procedure in the senate rules, and according to senate rules it is NOT limited to just bills.

thus 100% CONSTITUTIONAL

 

[DiveCon]

quite contraire my dear dive,

the constitution names the members of the senate as the RULE MAKERS of the senate, and the filibuster IS A procedure in the senate rules, and according to senate rules it is NOT limited to just bills.

thus 100% CONSTITUTIONAL

not when it comes to appointments
the constitution does not allow the legislative to hinder appointments thats why its a simple majority and not a super majority to give "advise and consent"

 

[Care4all]

AND I MIGHT ADD, the nuclear option in which the repubs were going to use to stop the dems from filibustering appointments, was a RULE CHANGE....they were going to change the senate rules, w/o the 2/3rds vote required, thru a procedure...

but my point is, that filibustered appointments were constitutional via senate rules and to keep dems from using the filibuster would have taken a RULE CHANGE Dive....a rule change!!!!

oh yes siree, the filibuster for appointments is CONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[DiveCon]

AND I MIGHT ADD, the nuclear option in which the repubs were going to use to stop the dems from filibustering appointments, was a RULE CHANGE....they were going to change the senate rules, w/o the 2/3rds vote required, thru a procedure...

but my point is, that filibustered appointments were constitutional via senate rules and to keep dems from using the filibuster would have taken a RULE CHANGE Dive....a rule change!!!!

oh yes siree, the filibuster for appointments is CONSTITUTIONAL.

so, then you wont have a problem if the GOP does it to Obama, should he win


yeah, nice way to make sure the transition is smooth

 

[Care4all]

not when it comes to appointments
the constitution does not allow the legislative to hinder appointments thats why its a simple majority and not a super majority to give "advise and consent"

it is the DUTY, the constitutional REQUIREMENT of the senate to advise and if acceptable consent of the presidential appts....this in NO WAY suggests the president has free hand in his appointments....

yur just spouting what you were told, and have not spent time delving in to the rules, nor in to precedent imo....as i have stated, BOTH repubs and dems have filibustered appointments, several of them....because IT IS part of the senate rules.

 

[Care4all]

the president picks them, the senate vets them....and approves or disapproves of them, thru various procedural rules of the senate, filibustering is allowed in the rules.

 

[DiveCon]

it is the DUTY, the constitutional REQUIREMENT of the senate to advise and if acceptable consent of the presidential appts....this in NO WAY suggests the president has free hand in his appointments....

yur just spouting what you were told, and have not spent time delving in to the rules, nor in to precedent imo....as i have stated, BOTH repubs and dems have filibustered appointments, several of them....because IT IS part of the senate rules.

yes, and that means to vote YES or NO
not to obstruct the vote in the first place
you are way out of line if you think they can refuse to vote

 

[DiveCon]

the president picks them, the senate vets them....and approves or disapproves of them, thru various procedural rules of the senate, filibustering is allowed in the rules.

yes, and the senate vets them by having WHAT??????


A VOTE
a fillibuster is STOPPING that constitutional duty

 

[Care4all]

and be happy i'm right , the repubs will get to do the same with obama's picks!!! lol