Shelby puts blanket hold on all Obama's nominees -- Where are all the teabaggers now?

[CADsortaGUY]

So, not one righty who accused the Dems of blocking nominees for only 'political' and no legitimate reasons under Bush is willing to name five examples to back up their point (or even one example).

Highland and Corn need not bother posting, they lost their right to get read, but Genx, Cad, are still able to back up the claim if they agree with it.

Do your own homework. It's not my fault you want to ignore what went on and now want someone else to show history to you.

 

[highland145]

So, not one righty who accused the Dems of blocking nominees for only 'political' and no legitimate reasons under Bush is willing to name five examples to back up their point (or even one example).

Highland and Corn need not bother posting, they lost their right to get read, but Genx, Cad, are still able to back up the claim if they agree with it.

DON'T READ ME,DON'T READ ME, DON'T READ ME,DON'T READ ME,DON'T READ ME, DON'T READ ME,DON'T READ ME,DON'T READ ME, DON'T READ ME,DON'T READ ME,DON'T READ ME, DON'T READ ME.

I have been banned by Craig. LOL

 

[CallMeJoe]

Craig, get a clue. The Democrats had a 61 vote majority until YESTERDAY. The Democrats could pass ANY legislation they wanted and the GOP could have done NOTHING about it.
But wait, they didn't, why is that? Maybe because a lot of the Democrats are not as "progressive" as you wish they were.

58 Democrats + 2 Independents (one of whom actively campaigned for the Republican nominee in the last presidential election) = 61 vote majority?
Your math is as garbled as your ideology.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Craig, get a clue. The Democrats had a 61 vote majority until YESTERDAY. The Democrats could pass ANY legislation they wanted and the GOP could have done NOTHING about it.

But wait, they didn't, why is that? Maybe because a lot of the Democrats are not as "progressive" as you wish they were.

I'll forgive your math issue, but what you teabaggers don't understand is how entrenched the GOP is. The Dems seem to have people from the whole range of the spectrum (conservative->liberal), which is why it's actually hard for the Dems to get everyone on the same page. The Repubs were basically told by Michael Steele that their only goal until November is to make the Dems fail. Why you people support the sheep that make up your party in Congress is beyond me. But I do feel sorry that NONE of you can think for yourselves.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Craig, get a clue. The Democrats had a 61 vote majority until YESTERDAY. The Democrats could pass ANY legislation they wanted and the GOP could have done NOTHING about it.

But wait, they didn't, why is that? Maybe because a lot of the Democrats are not as "progressive" as you wish they were.

Not they didn't - do you know anything all all about the mix in the Senate?

It was 60 - 40 until yesterday, with 58 Democrats and 2 Independants caucusing with the Democrats.
They could have sided with the Republicans, but Libermann (Ct) and Sanders (Vt) loosely team with the Democrats.
Libermann plays the role of back-stabbing villain most of the time, and he will be dumped in the next cycle regardless.

 

[Patranus]

Not they didn't - do you know anything all all about the mix in the Senate?

It was 60 - 40 until yesterday, with 58 Democrats and 2 Independants caucusing with the Democrats.
They could have sided with the Republicans, but Libermann (Ct) and Sanders (Vt) loosely team with the Democrats.
Libermann plays the role of back-stabbing villain most of the time, and he will be dumped in the next cycle regardless.

60/61 - same thing in terms of being a filibuster proof majority.

The two "independants" in the Senate are not "loosely teamed" with the Democrats, they both caucus with the Democrats.

The fact still remains that the Democrats are the ones who could not agree on what they wanted while the GOP could agree they did not want what the Democrats were offering.

 

[Craig234]

60/61 - same thing in terms of being a filibuster proof majority.

The two "independants" in the Senate are not "loosely teamed" with the Democrats, they both caucus with the Democrats.

The fact still remains that the Democrats are the ones who could not agree on what they wanted while the GOP could agree they did not want what the Democrats were offering.

It doesn't matter if the Democrats have one, or two, or three, or four peple who vote against the rest. What matters is they have over 50 votes - doesn't matter if it's 52 or 55 or 58.

What does matter is that the Dems withover 50 votes who have enough to pass a bill can't because the Republicans abuse the filibuster to require 60 insteadof 50 - giving them a veto they don't deserve.

You don't get that and run around acting like the Dems 'only' having 56 votes is ok for the bill to lose.

WHy? Because you don't care if they abuse the rules - only that your side wins.

 

[Craig234]

Do your own homework. It's not my fault you want to ignore what went on and now want someone else to show history to you.

You made the claim, you prove it. It's not up to me to prove a negative when you make up and post lies without facts.

 

[Patranus]

It doesn't matter if the Democrats have one, or two, or three, or four peple who vote against the rest. What matters is they have over 50 votes - doesn't matter if it's 52 or 55 or 58.

What does matter is that the Dems withover 50 votes who have enough to pass a bill can't because the Republicans abuse the filibuster to require 60 insteadof 50 - giving them a veto they don't deserve.

You don't get that and run around acting like the Dems 'only' having 56 votes is ok for the bill to lose.

WHy? Because you don't care if they abuse the rules - only that your side wins.

Doesn't matter if you have 50 votes if it requires 60 to close debate
(I thought the "progressives" we all about communication and debate....)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I said that delaying Brown was wrong, not because of his party, but because it denied representation for political reasons. Now the Republicans seem to have blocked legitimate candidates from being appointed, again for political reason. That's also wrong.

No matter what has happened in the past, BOTH sides have legitimate reasons to use procedures to achieve certain goals, but at some point enough is enough. IMO this hold goes too far.

 

[Craig234]

Doesn't matter if you have 50 votes if it requires 60 to close debate
(I thought the "progressives" we all about communication and debate....)

No, it takes 51 to close debate. THat's how a majority works.

But there's something called a fillibuster designed for rare use to extend debate - which requires 60 votes to end by voting for "cloture" in a highed need to end a filiustered debate.

The Republicans have turned this into their personal minority veto to obstruct it wasn't designed for.

 

[MotF Bane]

Why yes, Republicans atorociously blocking good Democratic nominees under Clinton, leaving the courts in a crisis of being understaffed so they could keep seats open for the next president to appoint Federalist Society radicals, followed by the Dems allowing all kinds of terrible appointees to be approved while blocking a tiny number of the worst for good reason, is great grounds for Republicans to 'get even' by blocking all Obama nominees.

Just like impeaching Clinton was 'getting even' for the impeachment of innocent Richard Nixon.

Craig trots out his beloved "Federalist Society radicals" talking point. He hadn't used it in a while, it needed some fresh air.

 

[Jhhnn]

This explains the current Senate procedures wrt "holds"-

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E,*QLS>#@

Reid can, in fact, force the issue, but only for one nominee at a time. If he does so, Repubs will just hold progress on the rest of the Senate's business hostage. If they weren't behind Shelby, the matter would come to a close rather quickly. He's clearly not acting alone.

Essentially, every Obama nominee is being blocked, commencing from a certain date forward. This serves the nation not at all. It's a new way to run an extortion racket, unprecedented in recent history, maybe entirely unprecedented.

These aren't lifetime appointments to the federal bench, either, but appointments to head various executive agencies. Traditionally, the minority party has blocked such nominations sparingly, recognizing the chief executive's right and duty to operate the government for the benefit of the people. It's not like we'll be stuck with these people forever- the next president has the right and duty to appoint his own people, as have all those in the past.

At this point, I think Dems would do well to make sure this gets a lot of media coverage, for starters, and to exert their own kind of influence on other Repub Senators. They want to reduce the deficit, right? Just because money has been appropriated doesn't mean it has to be spent, not right away, anyhow, so the Admin can start economizing in their States...

It's not like they need all the Repubs, either- just a few need to be reasonable, after all. If their solidarity is unbreakable, well, then, Obama can make interim appointments for all his nominees, something that would definitely energize the Dem base, bet on it...

With their unprecedented actions, Repubs invite it, virtually demand it, so, uhh, Obama really should oblige them.

 

[Craig234]

I wonder how the 'news' coverage of the Republicans doing this will compare to the 24x7 coverage of, say, 'Obama called Palin a pig!!11!!"

 

[Double Trouble]

Wow... some really stupid posts by the usual suspects.

What Shelby is doing is wrong. If he has an issue with that particular contract and how it's being handled, there are better ways to go about it than a blanket hold. I'm sure there are plenty of nominees that should be blocked, but a blanket hold basically says "I don't care if you nominate good people or not, I'm going to block them anyway". Bad move. Hopefully the rest of the party will set Shelby straight.

 

[Ozoned]

That's an interesting claim. If you can document anything that is even close to the scale of Shelby's obstructionism I will concede the point. As it stands, you're comparing mountains to molehills.

How about some that Obama blocked?

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2...s.html?cid=6a00e008c6b4e588340120a8674f85970b

Or how about Reids tactics here to hold hostage some appointments in exchange for his preferred appointments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/washington/21recess.html?_r=1




Business as usual...

 

[2Xtreme21]

How about some that Obama blocked?

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2...s.html?cid=6a00e008c6b4e588340120a8674f85970b

Or how about Reids tactics here to hold hostage some appointments in exchange for his preferred appointments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/washington/21recess.html?_r=1




Business as usual...

Your first link:

I see one nominee. This is 70+ nominees.

Your second link:

...President Bush would again use a Congressional recess to install disputed executive branch appointees without Senate confirmation...

So, you're admitting the Republicans have always been a fan of sneaky tactics to get around proper procedure?

 

[CallMeJoe]

...So, you're admitting the Republicans have always been a fan of sneaky tactics to get around proper procedure?

There is nothing sneaky or improper about the use of recess appointments. It is a legitimate and lawful use of executive power. You may see President Obama resorting to this tactic in the face of determined Republican resistance.

 

[fallout man]

filibusters gone--
small dick men still wield power
i prefer coffee

 

[Ozoned]

Your first link:

I see one nominee. This is 70+ nominees.

Your second link:



So, you're admitting the Republicans have always been a fan of sneaky tactics to get around proper procedure?

And, according to news reports, Mr. Obama in late 2005 also put a hold on all Environmental Protection Agency nominees

Why would Bush need to use recess appointments?


Here is what I will admit. I hate earmarks. Shelby is a POS because he is a typical politician, not because he is a republican.

 

[Craig234]

There is nothing sneaky or improper about the use of recess appointments. It is a legitimate and lawful use of executive power. You may see President Obama resorting to this tactic in the face of determined Republican resistance.

IMO, recess appointments were created for urgent appointments while Congress was inrecess, not to be used to get bad appointees in office and avoid the Senate approval process.

Democrats have used them to get around Congress - Truman put a black judge on the federal court he knew the southerners would block; Clinton used them to fill some urgent spots Republicans were blocking.

Bush on the other hand used them in a calculated manner to prevent the constitutional process - he's say ok, you only approve almost all appointes and block a few? OK, some will get recess appointments.

So, to that extent, I think he was 'improper' to avoid the proper role for Congress to have a say in his appointment.

 

[caddlad]

dick men still wield power

Northrup Grumman has Shelby bent over a desk. They have given him $100,000 to secure this contract, so like Larry Craig (the last to employ this tactic, I understand), Shelby must tap his toe next to Northrup's toilet stall.

For $100,000 they shouldn't use any lube.

 

[stateofbeasley]

The unpleasant truth is that Richard Shelby's blanket hold is completely unsupportable.

American Conservative Magazine has a column blasting the move:

The American Conservative: The Big Hold-Up

What I find most irritating about Shelby’s tactic is that he pretends that his home-state projects are vital to national security. His spokesman even refers to the projects as “unaddressed national security concerns.” He does not try to defend his move as an attempt to secure money and jobs for his state, which is clearly what it is. Shelby’s move may be parochial and self-interested, but one could at least offer some minimal defense of his reasons, albeit not his methods, if he were willing to acknowledge that this is nothing more than an effort to get some federal money back home during an election year. Many of Shelby’s critics are attacking him for his parochialism, but he could at least make the case that he is trying to serve the interests of his constituents. Instead he feels compelled to pretend that this is some high-minded fight over principle and national security. This is cynical nonsense, and it makes his cause an entirely unsympathetic one.

There's just no way around it. If the Republicans are unwilling to take Shelby to task over this, then they cannot claim to be a party of principle.

Frankly, Shelby is a disgrace to the Conservative movement.

 

[Robor]

LOL, I warned you lefties about the same thing years ago in a thread started by BOBDN234: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1142984

Yep, you did. Only now there's a difference. The (R)'s FB pretty much everything. Hopefully the (D)'s have the stones to do the same (unlikely). :\

 

[Robor]

58 Democrats + 2 Independents (one of whom actively campaigned for the Republican nominee in the last presidential election) = 61 vote majority?
Your math is as garbled as your ideology.

Stop with your reality and facts. You're spoiling his (and others) myth. :awe: