Breaking: GOP warns of a senate shutdown over filibuster

[demopublican]

Amen to that. This is another sign of the GOP going off its collective rocker. Every poll you read talks about how disgusted the country is with Congress. The Dems need to get out there and explain how the GOP has exploded the use of the filibuster--no longer to argue actual bills or laws, but procedural, chicken **** stuff, for the sole purpose of deadlocking the process.

Good. I want the process dead locked. I voted for Obama in part because I like divided govt.

[ms maggie]

Good. I want the process dead locked. I voted for Obama in part because I like divided govt.

So no judges appointed? Empty Cabinet posts, no budget deal, go off the cliff. Sounds great.

[Jeebus]

So no judges appointed? Empty Cabinet posts, no budget deal, go off the cliff. Sounds great.

Oh the hypocrisy.

During President Bush’s first three years, Senate Democrats forced 19 cloture votes on judicial nominees; during President Obama’s first three years the Senate took only 6 such votes. Indeed, contrary what some Democrats now claim, the reality is that 84 percent of all votes to filibuster judicial nominees in American history have been cast by Democrats. For those same Democrats to claim Republican obstruction is the height of hypocrisy.

Of course, these desperate claims are entirely false: the Senate has already confirmed more of President Obama’s nominees (129) than it did during President George W. Bush’s entire second term (120), and has done so at an almost identical pace (average of 218 and 211 days, respectively, from nomination to confirmation). Indeed, not long ago Reid acknowledged that the Senate has “done a good job on nominations,” and a Judiciary Committee Democrat recently noted that we have been “speeding up the confirmation of judges.”

Claims of Republican obstruction are not only demonstrably false, they are highly hypocritical. The very Democrats now seeking to manufacture confirmation controversy personally devised and carried out a systematic effort to block President Bush’s judicial nominees through an unprecedented use of the Senate filibuster.

It is a matter of historical record that beginning in 2001, Senate Democrats dramatically changed the confirmation process. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats actively sought to block numerous judicial nominees, forcing more than 30 cloture votes as Republicans tried to end persistent Democratic filibuster efforts. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

[yeah]

only a few short weeks since the election and the gopers are back at it again. its like theyre trying to purposely sink this country. why do the gopers hate america so much ?

[Contumacious]

Just what we needed, another "expert" who thinks that font, size, and color make up for lack of truth.


No state was deprived of its equal suffrage -- it's that simple.

The following states did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment

Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Virginia

[ms maggie]

Oh the hypocrisy.

During President Bush’s first three years, Senate Democrats forced 19 cloture votes on judicial nominees; during President Obama’s first three years the Senate took only 6 such votes. Indeed, contrary what some Democrats now claim, the reality is that 84 percent of all votes to filibuster judicial nominees in American history have been cast by Democrats. For those same Democrats to claim Republican obstruction is the height of hypocrisy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...f0RU_blog.html

Look at the numbers. Not cherry picked numbers, the complete picture.

If you look at the graph, you have three major moments of discontinuity. One, around 1972, that appears to provoke reform of the filibuster rules so cloture is easier to achieve. Another, in the early 1990s, that seems covers the latter half of George H.W. Bush’s administration and the beginning of Bill Clinton’s presidency. And then the practice absolutely skyrockets when Barack Obama takes office.

[Calamari]

only a few short weeks since the election and the gopers are back at it again. its like theyre trying to purposely sink this country. why do the gopers hate america so much ?

If they can't have it, no one will. They're the institutional version of the jealous sociopath.

Even worse, they think that if they do succeed at sinking the country, everyone will "blame it on the black guy" like they do.

Rats gnawing at the hull.

[flyboy56]

My understanding is the Senate wants to get rid of the Filibuster option. Republicans say the reason why the Filibuster was enacted in the first place is so even the minorities in either house would still have power.

[demopublican]

only a few short weeks since the election and the gopers are back at it again. its like theyre trying to purposely sink this country. why do the gopers hate america so much ?

Please be quiet when the adults are speaking

[ms maggie]

My understanding is the Senate wants to get rid of the Filibuster option. Republicans say the reason why the Filibuster was enacted in the first place is so even the minorities in either house would still have power.

They don't want to get rid of the filibuster option, they want to return to the past use of it, where if a Senator wanted to filibuster, he had to "hold the floor" by speaking. Now all you have to do is raise your hand. And they want to be able to bring things up for a vote with a simple majority, not a supra-majority.

There is no filibuster option in the House.

[banner1124]

My understanding is the Senate wants to get rid of the Filibuster option. Republicans say the reason why the Filibuster was enacted in the first place is so even the minorities in either house would still have power.

Your "understanding" is dead wrong.

[flyboy56]

They don't want to get rid of the filibuster option, they want to return to the past use of it, where if a Senator wanted to filibuster, he had to "hold the floor" by speaking. Now all you have to do is raise your hand. And they want to be able to bring things up for a vote with a simple majority, not a supra-majority.

There is no filibuster option in the House.

So what is the big deal? We got lot's of windbags in the Senate. Thanks for the heads up.

[RIKMAN]

I like the stand up and bloviate option. If they have to stand up for a day or two and speak about insignificant crap...well, at least we get a break from the rest of Congress screwing us over!

[flyboy56]

I like the stand up and bloviate option. If they have to stand up for a day or two and speak about insignificant crap...well, at least we get a break from the rest of Congress screwing us over!

But there should be a rule that they can't just read from a long book like Gone with the Wind. It must be of importance with factual information to support their argument. Otherwise it is just obstructionism.

[Jeebus]

They don't want to get rid of the filibuster option, they want to return to the past use of it, where if a Senator wanted to filibuster, he had to "hold the floor" by speaking.

Now all you have to do is raise your hand.

Like the way Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times during Bush.

Or the way Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

So what used to be a "hallowed process" when the Dems were the minority, is now simply inconvenient.

Hypocrites.

[Calamari]

Overuse is abuse.

You'd figure Jeebus would stop with the false equivalency stuff after maggie busted it above.

I guess it's all he has tho.

[demopublican]

They don't want to get rid of the filibuster option, they want to return to the past use of it, where if a Senator wanted to filibuster, he had to "hold the floor" by speaking. Now all you have to do is raise your hand. And they want to be able to bring things up for a vote with a simple majority, not a supra-majority.

There is no filibuster option in the House.

I could get behind that. If the Senator wants to filibuster let him speak for hours on end.

[ms maggie]

Like the way Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times during Bush.

Or the way Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

So what used to be a "hallowed process" when the Dems were the minority, is now simply inconvenient.

Hypocrites.

My God you are dense. This overuse started under Clinton, kept pace under Bush and has exploded under Obama. Read the damn link.

I am not responsible for what Schumer says. I am responsible for being more or less literate and able to read and comprehend.

[demopublican]

My God you are dense. This overuse started under Clinton, kept pace under Bush and has exploded under Obama. Read the damn link.

I am not responsible for what Schumer says. I am responsible for being more or less literate and able to read and comprehend.

The partisanship there almost reminds me of the idiots here on Nationals

[Phineas Finn]

Like the way Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times during Bush.

Or the way Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

So what used to be a "hallowed process" when the Dems were the minority, is now simply inconvenient.

Hypocrites.

Awh, isn't this cute. Jeebus is fixated on what the Democrats did in 2003. Sort of reminds me of when his ilk about the Democrats blaming Bush.