Nominee dies waiting for a vote,Republican Senator wanted to "inflict pain" on Obama.

[FerrelGeek]

Pure bullshit. You can either condemn or applaud Repub obstructionism. Take your pick.

Again, when did I try to justify GOP policy generally? You're just seeing shadows here.

Johnnycake is a soulless automaton

 

[interchange]

It's easy to see which is more black -- the pot or the kettle. It's simply whichever you are not.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's easy to see which is more black -- the pot or the kettle. It's simply whichever you are not.

And it's easy to reach for false equivalency when you're on the wrong side of the facts.

 

[senseamp]

Thankfully I find this line of reasoning useless. Otherwise I would be tempted to discharge half of my patients from the hospital, because, honestly, they don't look anywhere near as sick as that guy down the hall.

All of this being said, since you are (at least in limited case) professing that filibuster is bad, do you have any ideas on what we can do about it?

Do you find colors other than black and white useless too?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If the extent of Repub obstructionism matched that I wouldn't be complaining.

You're preaching false equivalence. What a surprise.

Harry Reid’s level of obstructionism was unprecedented. He used the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters on executive-branch appointees and also refused to hold votes on hundreds and hundreds of bills from the House, including many of which had bipartisan support. He also did not allow Republicans to propose amendments. However, when Republicans gained control of the Senate, they immediately allowed Dems the opportunity to propose bill amendments. And you talk of false equivalence. lol

 

[interchange]

Do you find colors other than black and white useless too?

Please elaborate. I'd like to understand your criticism more, but I'm not sure of the nature in which you are applying it to my posts.

 

[interchange]

And it's easy to reach for false equivalency when you're on the wrong side of the facts.

Hi Jhhnn,

Perhaps you are not understanding. I am mocking the false equivalence because it obstructs us from actually paying attention to the serious problem of a Senate whose operations are built around filibuster, and one that has built it so strongly that it easily filibusters attempts to change the rules. It is archaic and absurd, and it should not be made into a partisan problem.

 

[Jhhnn]

Harry Reid’s level of obstructionism was unprecedented. He used the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters on executive-branch appointees and also refused to hold votes on hundreds and hundreds of bills from the House, including many of which had bipartisan support. He also did not allow Republicans to propose amendments. However, when Republicans gained control of the Senate, they immediately allowed Dems the opportunity to propose bill amendments. And you talk of false equivalence. lol

Side-shifting to Harry Reid, of course.The bills in question had zero chance of passage in the Senate. The sheer volume of them was intended to stop the Senate from doing anything at all other than endlessly debate & amend such hopeless bills. He basically applied the Hastert rule to the Senate to preserve its integrity.

Holding the other guy down is one way to come out on top which is what Repubs have done from 2008 forward. Even though they've been incompetent when in power they'll be damned if they'll let Obama & the Dems do any better.

 

[Jaskalas]

All of this being said, since you are (at least in limited case) professing that filibuster is bad, do you have any ideas on what we can do about it?

The Senate needs to operate on 51 votes, for nearly all things. Simple majority up/down.
And all nominees are due a vote.

 

[werepossum]

Thankfully I find this line of reasoning useless. Otherwise I would be tempted to discharge half of my patients from the hospital, because, honestly, they don't look anywhere near as sick as that guy down the hall.

All of this being said, since you are (at least in limited case) professing that filibuster is bad, do you have any ideas on what we can do about it?

Good point.

In my opinion, nominees, like budget bills, should be a simple majority vote. Although one could make an argument that this isn't appropriate for people appointed for life - there we do need things slowed down. The problem is that now things aren't slowed down so much as stopped. That's why I suggested time limits for hearings and votes, after which the nominee would be considered approved until such time as the Senate voted her down. That would also have the advantage of giving the Senate the ability to see the nominee in action before voting, and wouldn't waste time on nominees where both sides are in agreement. I think though that this would require a Constitutional Amendment to enact.

Side-shifting to Harry Reid, of course.The bills in question had zero chance of passage in the Senate. The sheer volume of them was intended to stop the Senate from doing anything at all other than endlessly debate & amend such hopeless bills. He basically applied the Hastert rule to the Senate to preserve its integrity.

Holding the other guy down is one way to come out on top which is what Repubs have done from 2008 forward. Even though they've been incompetent when in power they'll be damned if they'll let Obama & the Dems do any better.

lol As always when the Democrats and the Republicans do the exact same thing, the Democrats are saving the Republic and the Republicans are destroying the Democracy. One's programming allows no other answer.

The Senate needs to operate on 51 votes, for nearly all things. Simple majority up/down.

I actually like the filibuster's ability to slow down legislation. Just not budget/spending bills or nominees. Tradition is a fine thing, but should not be allowed to prevent doing one's job.

 

[Jaskalas]

I actually like the filibuster's ability to slow down legislation. Just not budget/spending bills or nominees. Tradition is a fine thing, but should not be allowed to prevent doing one's job.

If that has some meaning, then let it be that anything filibusterd is delayed by one month. One time only.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Side-shifting to Harry Reid, of course.The bills in question had zero chance of passage in the Senate. The sheer volume of them was intended to stop the Senate from doing anything at all other than endlessly debate & amend such hopeless bills. He basically applied the Hastert rule to the Senate to preserve its integrity.

Side-shifting? Oh...we can only talk about Republican obstructionism in Congress and make up horse shit to rationalize Reid's bad behavior. I get it...we can't have inconvenient facts that may threaten your twisted world view. Sorry about that....I almost forgot that your little bubble was so fragile.

 

[Jhhnn]

ol As always when the Democrats and the Republicans do the exact same thing, the Democrats are saving the Republic and the Republicans are destroying the Democracy. One's programming allows no other answer.

They're not the exact same thing at all. You knew that before posting.

 

[werepossum]

If that has some meaning, then let it be that anything filibusterd is delayed by one month. One time only.

I prefer that there be at least a little bit of bipartisanship when we enact new laws. I'm only suggesting that we ignore it for things that essentially prevent government from functioning. (Although one could make a valid argument that denying plum jobs to major political fund raisers is hardly preventing government from functioning and might in fact help keep government functioning.)

 

[interchange]

They're not the exact same thing at all. You knew that before posting.

Is one innocent and the other guilty? If not, then why are you hellbent on making this a partisan issue?

 

[Jhhnn]

Hi Jhhnn,

Perhaps you are not understanding. I am mocking the false equivalence because it obstructs us from actually paying attention to the serious problem of a Senate whose operations are built around filibuster, and one that has built it so strongly that it easily filibusters attempts to change the rules. It is archaic and absurd, and it should not be made into a partisan problem.

Talking about filibusters per se is tangential to the issue of presidential appointments. Butts' nomination never got far enough to be filibustered or voted upon.

This was linked earlier by somebody who had no idea what they were looking at-

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/02/let_the_majority_rule.html

Keep in mind that it's from 2010, prior to intensification of Repub efforts.

What's most striking, though, are the many cases in which the filibustering Senate minority has actually represented a majority of Americans. In fact, in 40 percent of the filibusters since 1991, the senators making up the "obstructionist" minority represented more people than the majority they defeated.

The traditional debate over the filibuster—which equates filibustering with a minority veto, and then argues the merits of giving the minority such a prerogative—entirely misses this fact. Democratic filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees were decried as undemocratic usurpations, for example. But nearly all of them fell into this category of "majority rule filibusters."

This example is typical of a more general partisan pattern. When Republicans have been in the majority, the filibustering minority has actually represented the majority of Americans 64 percent of the time. When Democrats have been in the majority, that figure plummets to 3 percent. So the charge that it is somehow hypocritical for Democrats to decry Republican filibusters as affronts to majority rule—if they also stand by their past decisions to filibuster the Republicans—is easily answered. When Democrats have filibustered Republicans in recent years, they have very often represented more Americans than the Republican majority; the same is almost never true in reverse.

I get that the Senate isn't truly democratic. I get that Nominees to the federal bench should be scrutinized more because of lifetime tenure. OTOH, any President deserves enough respect from the Senate to grant him what really are routine appointments that will pass into history with his administration. Any and all presidents need to get their team in place to effectively do the work of the people. Republicans have denied that to Obama at every turn, right down to the small matter of the Ambassador to the Bahamas.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is one innocent and the other guilty? If not, then why are you hellbent on making this a partisan issue?

Because Republicans have provided the most obstructionist congresses in history from 2008 forward. That's the real issue, not the filibuster per se.

 

[hal2kilo]

Talking about filibusters per se is tangential to the issue of presidential appointments. Butts' nomination never got far enough to be filibustered or voted upon.

This was linked earlier by somebody who had no idea what they were looking at-

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/02/let_the_majority_rule.html

Keep in mind that it's from 2010, prior to intensification of Repub efforts.



I get that the Senate isn't truly democratic. I get that Nominees to the federal bench should be scrutinized more because of lifetime tenure. OTOH, any President deserves enough respect from the Senate to grant him what really are routine appointments that will pass into history with his administration. Any and all presidents need to get their team in place to effectively do the work of the people. Republicans have denied that to Obama at every turn, right down to the small matter of the Ambassador to the Bahamas.

Republicans only believe elections have consequences when they are empowered. Notice when they just win an election. It's a MANDATE!!!!

 

[Zaap]

Was jhnnn in line for a free trip to the Bahamas or something?

We know you don't really give a flying rip about this. You just like to fly into a rage and spit all over your monitor over anything Republicans do.

They're all assholes, your precious Dims too. Not really that big a deal one person didn't get her political reward for being another politician's pal.

World war 3 didn't break out either because the all important role of ambassador to there wasn't filled with one of the president's cronies.

Move on. Plenty of other rich people will get their reward for giving money to politicians. Like the soap opera producer who gave Obama 80k and got her reward as ambassador to Hungary.

Oh the scandal when people don't get handed their political rewards!