Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[paperview]

How often did Democrats filibuster judicial appointments when they were the minority party and Bush was President?

pretty often, as often as this? not sure. I'd say the term unprecedented though would not have been out place then either

There have been 160 filibusters of judicial appointments, ever. 80 have occurred over the past 4.5 years.

However, according to this piece, it appears that ~50 of Bush's appointees were either filibustered or delayed.

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm pretty sure it was about 10 judicial nominees that were filibustered by the Dems in what led up to the Gang of 14.

But I have to check that stat.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Do you have any perception of what Jack-booted power is?

Just a hint.....it doesn't involve votes

You support going in the direction of jack booted power, the minority has power for obvious reasons. Have you forgotten what those are?

Minority lacks power for a primary reason. They do not have the votes

yepp, in a democracy, the majority is supposed to rule. What kind of fucked up math is it to this that 60% has to be the threshold for absolute majority. Balderdash! Poppycock!

 

[paperview]

Says "at least ten" here:

"Republicans contend that their aggressive posture is merely a natural growth from a decades-long war over the federal judiciary, noting that what prompted the 2005 rules showdown were at least 10 filibusters of GOP judicial nominees. To date, only a handful of Obama’s judicial selections have gone to a vote and been filibustered by the minority."

Senate Democrats threaten to change filibuster rules on a party-line vote - The Washington Post

 

[Toro]

Use of nominee-blocking filibusters started up in earnest under President Clinton, who faced GOP filibusters over nine of his appointees. Democrats picked up the pace of obstruction in the Bush years, and Republicans retaliated further by threatening a filibuster on nearly all legislation and executive appointments in the Obama years.

Democrats say the obstruction is bringing government to a standstill. Americans might not care much about agency and lower-court appointees, but they actually do the work of government. Democrats complain of an explosion of GOP filibusters under President Obama: 27 executive nominees in his first term compared to seven under President George W. Bush.

Senate takes 'nuclear option' on filibusters: What does that mean? (+video) - CSMonitor.com

 

[Lumpy 1]

For pretty much most of our history, it didn't involve needing 60 votes for a president to receive "advice and consent" and install a nominee.

Seems like the jack boots are on the other foot.

Where did you learn your history and please explain in detail.

??

Are you arguing with my statement? You think it's not true?

The filibuster has been around since, what, the early 1800's, I guess yup.. your statement confuses me..

 

[Spoonman]

Not likely.

Particularly if there’s a preponderance of GOP/TPM candidates losing Senate elections, as occurred in 2010 and 2012.

please, the attack on 2nd amendment rights, obamacare, shit like this. the democrats have been their own worst enemy this year. republicans and the tea party will control the majority of the senate after 2014

I electoral history is our guide, and looking at the seats up for grabs, then the probability that the GOP will recapture the Senate is extremely high. But then again, I thought they were going to take the Senate in 2010, and dangnabbit if they didn't put up three of the whackiest, most fucked-up Tea Party clowns ever known to mankind...

Now, fast forward to 2012 and dangnabbit if the GOP didn't do it again by putting up at least two of the whackiest, most fucked-up Tea Party clowns ever known to mankind...

Let's wait until 2014 to see if I will be writing "dangnabbit" once again... ok?

a lot has changed since 2010, and it has not been in favor of the democrats.

 

[paperview]

Where did you learn your history and please explain in detail.

??

Are you arguing with my statement? You think it's not true?

The filibuster has been around since, what, the early 1800's, I guess yup.. your statement confuses me..

We are talking about filibustering of judicial nominees. That is a relatively new thing in American politics, or didn't you know?

For most of our history, a mere simple majority was what was needed to approve a nominee.

 

[Toro]

As I understand it, the rules of the filibuster has changed pretty dramatically over the past few decades. It used to be that to filibuster, you actually had to filibuster. Now, all you have to do is threaten to filibuster and that's considered a filibuster.

At least Ted Cruz had the balls to read Cat in the Hat on the Senate floor.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As I understand it, the rules of the filibuster has changed pretty dramatically over the past few decades. It used to be that to filibuster, you actually had to filibuster. Now, all you have to do is threaten to filibuster and that's considered a filibuster.

At least Ted Cruz had the balls to read Cat in the Hat on the Senate floor.

Vero, e vero! Bravo, Signore! Grazie mille!

Yes, Calgary Cruz and Dr. Seuss, whodathunk.

 

[Amelia]

How often did Democrats filibuster judicial appointments when they were the minority party and Bush was President?

pretty often, as often as this? not sure. I'd say the term unprecedented though would not have been out place then either

There have been 160 filibusters of judicial appointments, ever. 80 have occurred over the past 4.5 years.

However, according to this piece, it appears that ~50 of Bush's appointees were either filibustered or delayed.

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And on top of that Reid took the extraordinary measure of holding pro forma Senate sessions so that Bush couldn't make recess appointments. (Then later when Obama declared the Senate in recess and made his appointments anyway, Reid refused to defend the right of the Senate to determine when it was in session.)

 

[Statistikhengst]

please, the attack on 2nd amendment rights, obamacare, shit like this. the democrats have been their own worst enemy this year. republicans and the tea party will control the majority of the senate after 2014

I electoral history is our guide, and looking at the seats up for grabs, then the probability that the GOP will recapture the Senate is extremely high. But then again, I thought they were going to take the Senate in 2010, and dangnabbit if they didn't put up three of the whackiest, most fucked-up Tea Party clowns ever known to mankind...

Now, fast forward to 2012 and dangnabbit if the GOP didn't do it again by putting up at least two of the whackiest, most fucked-up Tea Party clowns ever known to mankind...

Let's wait until 2014 to see if I will be writing "dangnabbit" once again... ok?

a lot has changed since 2010, and it has not been in favor of the democrats.

Actually, 2010 was the low water mark, not now.

 

[paperview]

Where did you learn your history and please explain in detail.

??

Are you arguing with my statement? You think it's not true?

The filibuster has been around since, what, the early 1800's, I guess yup.. your statement confuses me..

And...back then,. ..you know, all the way back aught05 - scads of Senators and close to everybody on the pubbie and con side called it unconstitutional to have anything BUT a simple majority vote.

Here. let this help:


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).

Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters

 

[Trajan]

How often did Democrats filibuster judicial appointments when they were the minority party and Bush was President?

pretty often, as often as this? not sure. I'd say the term unprecedented though would not have been out place then either

There have been 160 filibusters of judicial appointments, ever. 80 have occurred over the past 4.5 years.

However, according to this piece, it appears that ~50 of Bush's appointees were either filibustered or delayed.

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thx.
and to be fair-

Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

though there is something of a smoking gun in the 108th congress

On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be successfully filibustered.[citation needed] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[11] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.


I think the point is, they all played the game........with vigor.

so how many is to many? I'd say yes, we're there, its now a fight thats long past whatever point it was intended to mean or convey, escalation is like that.

is 30 more, " the red line"?


in any event I have said before and will again yes the pres. should be able to appoint on an up or down vote and no holds ( for extra points what dem. senator right now has a hold on a nominee to a post) and if the dems were the first to be crucified in such a way, maybe yea, I could see it, but they are not.........they have their own body count too.

But, this is not the way to do it, this pretty move much absolved the dem. party of any part they played as they win all the marbles.

 

[paperview]

As I understand it, the rules of the filibuster has changed pretty dramatically over the past few decades. It used to be that to filibuster, you actually had to filibuster. Now, all you have to do is threaten to filibuster and that's considered a filibuster.

At least Ted Cruz had the balls to read Cat in the Hat on the Senate floor.

And that wasn't even technically a filibuster.

 

[Trajan]

??

Are you arguing with my statement? You think it's not true?

The filibuster has been around since, what, the early 1800's, I guess yup.. your statement confuses me..

And...back then,. ..you know, all the way back aught05 - scads of Senators and close to everybody on the pubbie and con side called it unconstitutional to have anything BUT a simple majority vote.

Here. let this help:


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).

Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters

yes we get it, they were/are hypocrites,,,thats been established ...and so are the dems and so what, we are past that.

 

[Trajan]

pretty often, as often as this? not sure. I'd say the term unprecedented though would not have been out place then either

There have been 160 filibusters of judicial appointments, ever. 80 have occurred over the past 4.5 years.

However, according to this piece, it appears that ~50 of Bush's appointees were either filibustered or delayed.

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And on top of that Reid took the extraordinary measure of holding pro forma Senate sessions so that Bush couldn't make recess appointments. (Then later when Obama declared the Senate in recess and made his appointments anyway, Reid refused to defend the right of the Senate to determine when it was in session.)

yes , a particularly venal piece of work that was.....


and what court smacked obama down for that?

 

[Lumpy 1]

??

Are you arguing with my statement? You think it's not true?

The filibuster has been around since, what, the early 1800's, I guess yup.. your statement confuses me..

And...back then,. ..you know, all the way back aught05 - scads of Senators and close to everybody on the pubbie and con side called it unconstitutional to have anything BUT a simple majority vote.

Here. let this help:


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).

Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters

[ame=http://youtu.be/SjdbjrXiobQ]Obama and Democrats on Reconciliation/Nuclear Option 2005 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[paperview]

The filibuster has been around since, what, the early 1800's, I guess yup.. your statement confuses me..

And...back then,. ..you know, all the way back aught05 - scads of Senators and close to everybody on the pubbie and con side called it unconstitutional to have anything BUT a simple majority vote.

Here. let this help:


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).

Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters

yes we get it, they were/are hypocrites,,,thats been established ...and so are the dems and so what, we are past that.

Exuuuuuuuuuuuse me. The issue seemed to be that Lumpy here thought a supermajority was always needed and challenged my historical knowledge.

That was shown in stark evidence by the posting of those quotes, it was not.

I know it bugs the hayell out of some of you to see those biting words, but it provided a purpose to educate Lumpy on the issue, rather succinctly, I might add.

 

[freedombecki]

Yep....and, the chances of them doing that when they do?

Republicans are honorable people. I'm sure that they would not continue a Democrat process that they call tyranny

Double snicker. The first is over the thought that Republicans are somehow honorable.

The second, well, you already know.

Most of us Republicans are honorable. We do what we can to keep money in people's pockets by (1) Doing a budget (2) Sticking to the budget (3) Making sure nobody is selling ten-penny nails to the government for excessive amounts of money (4) Making department heads account for the money spent in the commission of their tasks (5) Making sure departments are working together and not against each other nor duplicating efforts. (6) Eliminating fraud in government (7) Doing our best to keep taxes at a minimum so people can spend their own money in the way they see fit (8) Supporting families and family values of decency in human dealings.

I'm sorry to see your opinion of us is so low. My experience has been just the opposite. It doesn't have to be, because I taught bible classes in my church for a dozen years when it was my turn to. I know what honesty and caring are. I also have known Republican Senators and Congressmen personally. They're nothing like what you're describing. And their votes that favor the American workers, small businesses, and justice issues were researched by them. They know who's naughty and who's nice. If someone is too naughty, no Republican congressperson I ever knew would route them into a position for which others would be better qualified, nor would they worry themselves with someone known for taking bribes which is illegal.

Just sayin'.

 

[mamooth]

One good thing about removing the filibuster is that it encourages centrism, crossover coalitions and listening to your constituents. A senator can't hide behind cloture votes any longer; votes have to be done openly, on the actual issue.

Say there was a Republican senator with a pro-labor constituency. With a filibuster in effect, he could refuse to vote for cloture, keeping his party happy. And he could spin about and then tell the folks back home, with a straight face, that he hadn't voted against any labor bills. With filibuster gone, he has to vote on the actual bill, and face the folks back home.

That can be taken as either expanding or restricting the power of centrists. Buck your party or your constituents, make a choice. Either way, it does force them to be more honest. Centrists have the power in the senate, if they want to use it. A bipartisan coalition can swing any vote.