Republicans block full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq

[CurrentAffairs]

It appears, at least for the moment, that the hysterical left has not swayed enough Repbulicans to stop the surge.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed to find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid, D-Nev., spoke moments before a vote that sidetracked a nonbinding measure expressing disagreement with Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described the test vote as merely a "bump in the road" and added that GOP lawmakers "welcome the debate and are happy to have it."



My Way News - Republicans Block Senate Debate on Iraq

 

[CurrentAffairs]

It appears, at least for the moment, that the hysterical left has not swayed enough Repbulicans to stop the surge.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed to find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid, D-Nev., spoke moments before a vote that sidetracked a nonbinding measure expressing disagreement with Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described the test vote as merely a "bump in the road" and added that GOP lawmakers "welcome the debate and are happy to have it."



My Way News - Republicans Block Senate Debate on Iraq

and crickets from the left....

Here's more:

Senate votes not to debate Iraq proposal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan resolution repudiating President George W. Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq failed to advance in the U.S. Senate on Monday, dealing a serious setback to critics of the war.

Photo Slideshow | Reuters.com

 

[Iriemon]

A threatened filibuster in the Senate!

Let's hear all you conservatives out there! Just like you were saying during the judicial confirms. No to filibuster! Up or down vote!

 

[CurrentAffairs]

A threatened filibuster in the Senate!

Let's hear all you conservatives out there! Just like you were saying during the judicial confirms. No to filibuster! Up or down vote!

This WAS a vote. The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate. There was no filibuster.

 

[Navy Pride]

This is great news...So much for the Republicans all turning against the president.....

 

[danarhea]

This WAS a vote. The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate. There was no filibuster.

Actually, it was a cloture vote, to cut off debate, and end the filibuster.

Nothing wrong with filibustering. The Democrats were in the right then, and the GOP is in the right now. Filibustering is one of the reasons the majority does not run ramrod over the minority. The Republicans at least should acknowledge that fact, now that they are the minority.

 

[Navy Pride]

A threatened filibuster in the Senate!

Let's hear all you conservatives out there! Just like you were saying during the judicial confirms. No to filibuster! Up or down vote!

Judges are a whole different ball game when it comes to filibuster and you know it.......The Constitution states a judge deserves and up or down vote on the senate floor decided by a simple majority..........

 

[danarhea]

Judges are a whole different ball game when it comes to filibuster and you know it.......The Constitution states a judge deserves and up or down vote on the senate floor decided by a simple majority..........

Want to post the exact clause where the Constitution says that? I bet ya can't.

 

[Navy Pride]

Actually, it was a cloture vote, to cut off debate, and end the filibuster.

Nothing wrong with filibustering. The Democrats were in the right then, and the GOP is in the right now. Filibustering is one of the reasons the majority does not run ramrod over the minority. The Republicans at least should acknowledge that fact, now that they are the minority.

Not when it comes to judicial appointments...........

 

[danarhea]

Not when it comes to judicial appointments...........

Either you are lying or you just don't know better, but either way, looks like I have to do your homework for you. From the Constitution, in respect to presidential powers:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

I don't see up or down vote here, do you?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Either you are lying or you just don't know better, but either way, looks like I have to do your homework for you. From the Constitution, in respect to presidential powers:



I don't see up or down vote here, do you?

My hope is that we can keep this thread on the topic of today's senate vote regarding the Iraq debate. I'm sure another thread on judicial voting could be started elsewhere.

 

[Iriemon]

This WAS a vote. The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate. There was no filibuster.

60 is only need to go ahead with the debate because that is what is needed to override a filibuster. Otherwise it would be simple majority.

 

[Iriemon]

Judges are a whole different ball game when it comes to filibuster and you know it.......The Constitution states a judge deserves and up or down vote on the senate floor decided by a simple majority..........

Where does the constitution say that 60 is needed to continue a debate on anything?

 

[Navy Pride]

Either you are lying or you just don't know better, but either way, looks like I have to do your homework for you. From the Constitution, in respect to presidential powers:



I don't see up or down vote here, do you?

Why do you think that the Republicans threatened the Nuclear option on Judges? Do you even know what the nuclear option is?.........It was to be used strictly to prevent the blocking of giving judges and up or down vote......It had nothing to do with other bills where filibustering is allowed..........

 

[Navy Pride]

Filibusters are perpetually essential and perpetually hated by the majority of the people. The tyrany of the majority is what kills democracies, but the majority will never admit to it.

and filibusters were never intended to stop a judge from getting and up or down vote in the senate............

 

[Iriemon]

and filibusters were never intended to stop a judge from getting and up or down vote in the senate............

Where are you getting the concept that it only does or should or should not apply to judges versus other legislation?

 

[danarhea]

Why do you think that the Republicans threatened the Nuclear option on Judges? Do you even know what the nuclear option is?.........It was to be used strictly to prevent the blocking of giving judges and up or down vote......It had nothing to do with other bills where filibustering is allowed..........

That had to do with changing the rules of the Senate, and nothing to do with the Constitution. According to the Constitution, the House and Senate have a right to create their rules, and there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which states that judges are allowed an up or down vote, as you alleged. I even posted the relevant part of the Constitution, which shows there is nothing that says an up or down vote is required, whether it is a bill, judicial nominees, or anything else. If the Democrats wish, they could threaten a nuclear option on filibustering a resolution, just as Republicans threatened it for judicial confirmations. Both parties have the right to change the rules if they are in the majority. However, the filibuster has a tradition of more than 200 years, and I don't believe the Dems will think lightly where it comes to changing that rule, just as Republicans didn't think lightly about it either, despite their rhetoric.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A threatened filibuster in the Senate!

Let's hear all you conservatives out there! Just like you were saying during the judicial confirms. No to filibuster! Up or down vote!

Not even close to the same thing, judges are never fillibustered it is total contradiction to the long held traditions of the congress.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think its worth looking at who voted the way they did. Basically, a vote Yea was a vote to end the Republican filibuster, a vote Nay was a vote to continue it.

Dems who voted Nay, or against their party: Lieberman, Reid.
Reps who voted Yea, or against their party: Coleman, Collins.
Not voting: McCain, Martinez - R; Landrieu, Johnson

Very, very interesting to see the Senate Majority leader vote against the entirety of his party.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I think its worth looking at who voted the way they did. Basically, a vote Yea was a vote to end the Republican filibuster, a vote Nay was a vote to continue it.

Dems who voted Nay, or against their party: Lieberman, Reid.
Reps who voted Yea, or against their party: Coleman, Collins.
Not voting: McCain, Martinez - R; Landrieu, Johnson

Very, very interesting to see the Senate Majority leader vote against the entirety of his party.

I believe there's a reason why he voted against it I think it has something to do with being able to call a revote or something like that.

 

[danarhea]

I think its worth looking at who voted the way they did. Basically, a vote Yea was a vote to end the Republican filibuster, a vote Nay was a vote to continue it.

Dems who voted Nay, or against their party: Lieberman, Reid.
Reps who voted Yea, or against their party: Coleman, Collins.
Not voting: McCain, Martinez - R; Landrieu, Johnson

Very, very interesting to see the Senate Majority leader vote against the entirety of his party.

I found that interesting too. I also found it interesting that Warner voted against his own resolution. The real cowards are the ones on the fence, who did not vote.

 

[RightinNYC]

I believe there's a reason why he voted against it I think it has something to do with being able to call a revote or something like that.

Ah thats right TOT, I forgot about that. Good catch.

 

[disneydude]

The issue here isn't really whether the use of a filibuster is warranted or not. I think the Republicans can use the filibuster. Whether it is wise in a situation such as this....I think is the bigger issue. As a liberal democrat I am actually happy that the Republicans voted the way that they did here. I think the voters are unhappy and sent a message to Congress and the President in the last election. This has been getting a lot of press and I think its just further bad news for the Republican party. So I say....keep it up....block debate on Iraq....do whatever you have to do....because I think it will only help the Democrats in 2008.

 

[Navy Pride]

Where are you getting the concept that it only does or should or should not apply to judges versus other legislation?

Filibusters have always been allowed on bills but not on judges until dems started it recently and you know that.......

 

[Navy Pride]

I call bullshit. Tyrany of the majority still applies.

I wish it was............When the Republicaans were in the majority the Democrats used the filibuster to block legislation and judges all the time.........Did it bother you then?