This is your Democratically Controlled Congress

[DiveCon]

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

you are NOT right
and if they do, i will say the same thing to them

 

[Care4all]

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


A VOTE
a fillibuster is STOPPING that constitutional duty

as with all of their other duties in the senate that require votes to pass and go on to the president, if filibustered, it takes 60 votes....no difference for appointments, it is a procedure in the rules that requires more than a majority to pass.... there is only one exception to the filibuster in the rules of the senate which i believe is appropriation bills.

 

[I Missthe North]

you are NOT right
and if they do, i will say the same thing to them

I am sorry to break it to you man, but you are terribly wrong. It can't be unconstitutional if nothing in the constitution forbids it (or even discusses it for that matter). There is nothing concerning filibusters or slowing down the process in the whole document, so how can you argue that it is wrong? There is no basis for that argument other then the fact that a few Republicans were angry about it and just made it up on the spot.

 

[DiveCon]

I am sorry to break it to you man, but you are terribly wrong. It can't be unconstitutional if nothing in the constitution forbids it (or even discusses it for that matter). There is nothing concerning filibusters or slowing down the process in the whole document, so how can you argue that it is wrong? There is no basis for that argument other then the fact that a few Republicans were angry about it and just made it up on the spot.

if the senates constitutional duty is to have a vote, is not blocking that vote violating their duties?

 

[Care4all]

if the senates constitutional duty is to have a vote, is not blocking that vote violating their duties?

the short answer is no.

the filibuster is PART of the process on votes, and if a bill or an appointee is filibustered, it takes 60 people for cloture to bring it to a vote....if they can't come up with 60 senators to agree that this bill or this appointee is worth a full vote of the senate, then the cloture vote essentially is a NON CONSENT of the senate....for the appointee.

The Senate DID NOT CONSENT of the appointee....end of story.

This prevents the Majority from unrelentless rule, and forces the majority to negotiate and consider the voices of the few and their concerns, (the minority) through negotiation and compromise....

It honestly is a good rule Dive, it gives representation to all, instead of only the majority shoving appointees or bills down the throat of the minority.

If the filibuster were not available and everything was just a "majority" vote with no other options, then those elected in the minority to represent a good portion of American citizens, might as well go home and not participate in congress/the Senate.... at all....

We are NOT a democracy alone, we are a Democratic Republic, and i thank God for such!

soooooooooo, how'd i do? Did i convince you yet? lol

care

 

[DiveCon]

the short answer is no.

the filibuster is PART of the process on votes, and if a bill or an appointee is filibustered, it takes 60 people for cloture to bring it to a vote....if they can't come up with 60 senators to agree that this bill or this appointee is worth a full vote of the senate, then the cloture vote essentially is a NON CONSENT of the senate....for the appointee.

The Senate DID NOT CONSENT of the appointee....end of story.

This prevents the Majority from unrelentless rule, and forces the majority to negotiate and consider the voices of the few and their concerns, (the minority) through negotiation and compromise....

It honestly is a good rule Dive, it gives representation to all, instead of only the majority shoving appointees or bills down the throat of the minority.

If the filibuster were not available and everything was just a "majority" vote with no other options, then those elected in the minority to represent a good portion of American citizens, might as well go home and not participate in congress/the Senate.... at all....

We are NOT a democracy alone, we are a Democratic Republic, and i thank God for such!

soooooooooo, how'd i do? Did i convince you yet? lol

care

i agree the fillibusters are good to prevent the majority from slamming things through
however, if the framers of the constitution had wanted a super majority for appointees, they could have made it that way for advise and consent, however, they didnt
thus the original intent is being violated to use it in that mannor
and i will oppose it no matter what side is doing it
cause if any appointee deserved it, Justice Ginsburg should habe been
but the republican controlled senate approved her because that was their job

 

[Care4all]

i agree the fillibusters are good to prevent the majority from slamming things through
however, if the framers of the constitution had wanted a super majority for appointees, they could have made it that way for advise and consent, however, they didnt
thus the original intent is being violated to use it in that mannor
and i will oppose it no matter what side is doing it
cause if any appointee deserved it, Justice Ginsburg should habe been
but the republican controlled senate approved her because that was their job

the constitution gives this power to the Senate Rules...

the constitution doesn;t mention a super majority vote for normal legislation/bills either, but the filibuster is still constitutional because it is in the Rules the senate set forth.

appointments are much more important to all citizens than many of the bills that are passed, imo it only makes sense for the senate to have this filibuster rule to protect minorities from being bulldozed over by mob rule basically....