Some truth on 'obstruction' and filibustering

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: sjwaste
Congress is simply too large. Any time you get 500+ together, groupthink is going to take over, and they're going to fight within their alliances/parties.

I dunno, I think Congress needs some shrinking. Even the Senate is too big. 1 rep from each state in the Senate, plus shrinking the House down to about 100 would probably be enough.

And by the way, this country is going nowhere until the majority realizes both parties stink and stops voting for them as the lesser of two evils. You might be a bleeding heart liberal or a nut house conservative or anywhere in the middle, but neither party supports the majority of your ideas. All they've done is grandstanded on a few minor, but easy to use as definitive issues, and gotten you to elect them so they can continue the status quo.

The repubs and dems in office right now have a lot more in common than not, and it's that which keeps us moving full speed ahead. Every candidate, D or R, promises chamge, but never delivers. Think it might just be empty rhetoric to get elected? And judging by the behavior in this forum, most are falling for it. If you're engaging in the Dems are better than Repubs debate, or vice versa, you've already taken the bait.

QUOTED FOR THE MOTHER FUCKING TRUTH!!!!!



Those are exactly my thoughts, unfortunately it will probably take some MAJOR events to change the way Americans vote. Its all about the R or D, and who is actually running or what their ideas are doesn't seem to make a damn bit of difference.

 

[Lemon law]

The flaw in the Cuda1447 argument is that really horrible results always changes the political status quo. The only thing that keeps the economy afloat now is massive borrowing,
when that ends as it must, a very bad recession will result. And unlike Reagan, GWB may not escape office before the piper gets paid.

When we have threads showing over a million jobs have been lost just this year, we have a mortgage meltdown and a return of inflation, that a big sign that the supply of foreign investors willing to lend us more money is drying up fast.

When 99.9% of the GWB domestic and foreign policy has been really bad, horrible results will follow.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Here's the fact: The Republicans have set a record for filibusters in the current congress - before it's half done! That's a trend to more than double the previous record.

Care to provide a link to back that up?

TIA

Fern

As I said, I haven't been able to find any coverage of the issue in the (liberal, ha) mainstream media, but plenty in smaller media and quotes from leaders.

Here is one article from last December when the record was already broken.

The Republicans are bickering over the exact number, but the point is clear on their behavior.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Here's the fact: The Republicans have set a record for filibusters in the current congress - before it's half done! That's a trend to more than double the previous record.

Care to provide a link to back that up?

TIA

Fern

As I said, I haven't been able to find any coverage of the issue in the (liberal, ha) mainstream media, but plenty in smaller media and quotes from leaders.

Here is one article from last December when the record was already broken.

The Republicans are bickering over the exact number, but the point is clear on their behavior.

OK, I've checked into it.

This involves the 60 vote rule in the Senate to bring cloture. I don't believe anybody's talking about the filibuster where Senators speak for hours on end, but rather a "proceedural filibuster".

The Senate is pretty evenly split between Dems & repubs, so for the Dems to get 60 votes is naturally going to be difficult.

I see nothing unusual here, or why it is outragious that Repubs don't for the Dem's bills.

The Dems control the committees, at least their bills actually get to floor.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Here's the fact: The Republicans have set a record for filibusters in the current congress - before it's half done! That's a trend to more than double the previous record.

Care to provide a link to back that up?

TIA

Fern

As I said, I haven't been able to find any coverage of the issue in the (liberal, ha) mainstream media, but plenty in smaller media and quotes from leaders.

Here is one article from last December when the record was already broken.

The Republicans are bickering over the exact number, but the point is clear on their behavior.

OK, I've checked into it.

This involves the 60 vote rule in the Senate to bring cloture. I don't believe anybody's talking about the filibuster where Senators speak for hours on end, but rather a "proceedural filibuster".

That's how flibusters are done for a long time now Same effect. It hasn't been needed for them to talk for hours in years and years, maybe decades, though the Republicans did try to stall a bill recently when they forced the clerk to read the whole thing outloud, 492 pages in 10 hours.

The Senate is pretty evenly split between Dems & repubs, so for the Dems to get 60 votes is naturally going to be difficult.

Uh, ya, parties rarely have 60+ Senators.

I see nothing unusual here, or why it is outragious that Repubs don't for the Dem's bills.

Of course you see nothing unusual in the rate of filibustering being over double that of the previous record, which itself was set by the Republicans under Clinton.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uhhh.... the only integrity that is lacking is coming from the likes of you who try to paint my objection to the lib's filibustering of judges as the same thing as filibustering/obstructing other things.
Judges deserve a up/down vote no matter which side puts them up as a nominee.

Still waiting on an explanation as to why one type of senate business 'deserves' a straight majority vote while other ones don't.

How many times do we have to go over this? Sheesh...

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

Why?

IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

Oh, cool, good thing they republicans didn't filibuster the shit out of Clinton's appointment job in 1993. I'd hate for you to look like a moron.

 

[kage69]

There have been a lot of threads created by the OP. None of them has any insight or earth shattering news. All of them contain diatribe condemning Republicans while touting the Democrats. This is the real problem with politics in this country. "My party can do no wrong, while the other can do nothing right." And/or "My party may have done something wrong, but yours did something as bad or worse," which is, of course, the famous "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

Wow. Way to address the issues! For a second there I thought you might actually have some substance there and try to articulate why Craig's thoughts are wrong. But no, you'd rather avoid the facts involved (or the "diatribe" as you put it) and try to invalidate certain uncomfortable portions of history by pulling the impartial routine.

Sorry, but the OP actually does offer some insight. And now it's your turn to enlighten us: why is it you can't bring yourself to voice up in the troll threads by Pabster, PJ, etc? I'm sure many of us already know.

But hey, thanks for demonstrating what you were attempting to condemn. I love it when you guys do that.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uhhh.... the only integrity that is lacking is coming from the likes of you who try to paint my objection to the lib's filibustering of judges as the same thing as filibustering/obstructing other things.
Judges deserve a up/down vote no matter which side puts them up as a nominee.

Still waiting on an explanation as to why one type of senate business 'deserves' a straight majority vote while other ones don't.

How many times do we have to go over this? Sheesh...

Your link does nothing to support your argument. Filibusters aren't even mentioned in the Constitution as they are part of the rules of the Senate.

I'm still waiting for you to explain yourself.

 

[Lemon law]

Not only is Eskimospy 100% correct, Cad's argument no longer applies. Cad totally forgets his own cited advice and consent of the the Senate clause. Back when the Republicans had a rubber stamp congress, the dems only filibustered really bad judges. Now that dems have a Senate majority, they stop bad judges in committee using the advice and consent requirement. And they simple tell GWB that his turkey is unacceptable, no filibuster is needed while fulfilling their constitutional role.

Cad is also not advised to hold his breath, the republirats in the house and Senate have done such a totally miserable job, that its very unlikely that Republicans will hold a majority in the House or Senate for a decade or two.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

Why?

IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

Oh, cool, good thing they republicans didn't filibuster the shit out of Clinton's appointment job in 1993. I'd hate for you to look like a moron.

Except the only one that IS a moron is you. No where did I suggest that it is OK for one party to use the filibuster(or threat...blah blah blah) for judges. Advise and Consent means getting a vote - What I and others were upset with the libs for was not allowing them to come up for a vote when they've already made it out of committee. Craig is trying to suggest that those objections are universal which just isn't the case.

 

[Lemon law]

Cad again distorts on two counts with---Except the only one that IS a moron is you. No where did I suggest that it is OK for one party to use the filibuster(or threat...blah blah blah) for judges. Advise and Consent means getting a vote - What I and others were upset with the libs for was not allowing them to come up for a vote when they've already made it out of committee. Craig is trying to suggest that those objections are universal which just isn't the case.

1. Cad is selectively upset with just libs as we can see. No mention of Republicans who abuse the filibuster more frequently.

2. Making it out of a Senate committee which can be packed but not filibustered is somewhat equivalent to getting the full approval of the Senate if the party in power votes party line. So the democrats sometime filibustered bad nominees in the full Senate.

3. Leaving the Cad argument that judges should get an up and down vote as a because Cad said so reasoning.

4. We will all probably be amazed how quickly Cad changes his tune if we end up with a democratic President and a democratic majority in the Senate. But then again, Cad may find himself with even less than 40 Republican Senators. And then he may find himself loving the diversity of Democratic party when a dem or two defects and helps sustain a filibuster of a too liberal judge.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Except the only one that IS a moron is you. No where did I suggest that it is OK for one party to use the filibuster(or threat...blah blah blah) for judges. Advise and Consent means getting a vote - What I and others were upset with the libs for was not allowing them to come up for a vote when they've already made it out of committee. Craig is trying to suggest that those objections are universal which just isn't the case.

So pretty much you've just made up a completely arbitrary point at which you think someone should get a majority vote.