Senate filibuster abuse=Gridlock

[James D Hill]

First you have the house GOP idiots with a 10% approval rating and the senate GOP which has 400 filibusters and counting. Their has been 16 Obama appointments filibustered while there has only been 20 in history before these nimrods took office. This is BS. The president has a right to fill his administration without GOP obstruction.

I can't believe Mitch O'Connell having the nerve to get mad when the senate GOP was called obstructionist. He acts like 400+ filibusters is normal business. How out of touch with reality can he be. The filibuster was designed so the minority party could be heard not a tool to gring government to a halt. Shame on you senate GOP. You are just as big of morons as the house GOP.

 

[fmw]

The filibuster was designed so the minority party could be heard not a tool to gring government to a halt. Shame on you senate GOP. You are just as big of morons as the house GOP.

I don't care if any party gets heard but I do like the concept of bringing government to a halt. Long live the filibuster.

 

[Fisher]

Is there ever a filibuster ever that someone on the other side does not consider abuse?

 

[James D Hill]

I don't care if any party gets heard but I do like the concept of bringing government to a halt. Long live the filibuster.

That is stupid my friend. We elect those clowns to do a job. That is why we pay them so much. How is it good they are not earning their keep. How does gridlock benifit us? Not everything is political. The NLRB protects workers rights and we all benifit so how does the moronic GOP blocking nominations to that post benifit us? It does not. Do you want some asshole boss to have all the power no matter what a jerk he/she is?

 

[James D Hill]

Is there ever a filibuster ever that someone on the other side does not consider abuse?

Fisher. Look at the numbers. Never before has there been so many filibusters and never before has cabinate nominations been blocked at this level. How can you say this is not abuse?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I don't care if any party gets heard but I do like the concept of bringing government to a halt. Long live the filibuster.

there is a point when a government that does not function becomes a liability. imagine if the same level of gridlock currently on display in senate was applied to every local and state government?

 

[James D Hill]

there is a point when a government that does not function becomes a liability. imagine if the same level of gridlock currently on display in senate was applied to every local and state government?

That is my point. The libertarians and conservatives seem to think government has no use. If that was true then why do we pay them so much to do nothing. Like you said if the states of business was ran like that they would go under. I think the conservatives know they are at a disavantage so they use every dirty trick in the book to push their agenda. Last time I checked they lost the last election and the American people rejected their redneck views and they can't stand it so they are acting like Eric Cartman and wanting to go home.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I wonder if there's some service or function of the Executive that the Senate requires or finds extremely convenient. If there is, withholding it would make a sweet counterpoint.

Perhaps the Treasury Department could refuse to send the Senate their paychecks while the Senate refuses to address the business before it.

 

[James D Hill]

I wonder if there's some service or function of the Executive that the Senate requires or finds extremely convenient. If there is, withholding it would make a sweet counterpoint.

Perhaps the Treasury Department could refuse to send the Senate their paychecks while the Senate refuses to address the business before it.

Or just the GOP members who have filibuster madness. The dem's have tried to do their job.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Or just the GOP members who have filibuster madness. The dem's have tried to do their job.

No, I don't think so. If you're going to deny paychecks you deny them all, this way it doesn't become a partisan tool.

 

[CanadaJohn]

First you have the house GOP idiots with a 10% approval rating and the senate GOP which has 400 filibusters and counting. Their has been 16 Obama appointments filibustered while there has only been 20 in history before these nimrods took office. This is BS. The president has a right to fill his administration without GOP obstruction.

I can't believe Mitch O'Connell having the nerve to get mad when the senate GOP was called obstructionist. He acts like 400+ filibusters is normal business. How out of touch with reality can he be. The filibuster was designed so the minority party could be heard not a tool to gring government to a halt. Shame on you senate GOP. You are just as big of morons as the house GOP.

I'd like to see the details of the Republican filibusters you speak about. It's my recollection, in the past, as when Trent Lott was Senate Majority Leader, he did not bring bills to the floor that he knew did not have the 60 votes necessary to override the filibuster. Seems to me Harry Reid does these filibuster test votes on a regular basis - he had several regarding the immigration bill this past month - if these votes are considered in the 400, it makes your claim far less compelling since if Lott had done the same when he was in charge, I'm pretty sure the Democrat minority at that time would have been just as obstructionist. Reid has just been better at putting it on the record.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I wonder if there's some service or function of the Executive that the Senate requires or finds extremely convenient. If there is, withholding it would make a sweet counterpoint.

Perhaps the Treasury Department could refuse to send the Senate their paychecks while the Senate refuses to address the business before it.

considering the fact that some of these senators are very wealthy people, i don't think that method would work 100%. but it is still a good idea.

 

[James D Hill]

No, I don't think so. If you're going to deny paychecks you deny them all, this way it doesn't become a partisan tool.

Dude. 400+ filibusters just because they hate Obama. Think about it. Did the lib's filibuster Bush that much? Hell no.

 

[James D Hill]

I'd like to see the details of the Republican filibusters you speak about. It's my recollection, in the past, as when Trent Lott was Senate Majority Leader, he did not bring bills to the floor that he knew did not have the 60 votes necessary to override the filibuster. Seems to me Harry Reid does these filibuster test votes on a regular basis - he had several regarding the immigration bill this past month - if these votes are considered in the 400, it makes your claim far less compelling since if Lott had done the same when he was in charge, I'm pretty sure the Democrat minority at that time would have been just as obstructionist. Reid has just been better at putting it on the record.

400+ filibusters just because they hate Obama. That is not right no matter your view is. The Dem's did not filibuster bush that much my friend.

 

[Fisher]

Fisher. Look at the numbers. Never before has there been so many filibusters and never before has cabinate nominations been blocked at this level. How can you say this is not abuse?

That a Senator has the right to do this and avails himself of that right, then I do not think it is abuse. Stupid and petty perhaps, but both sides do it when they are in the minority, record level or not.

 

[CanadaJohn]

400+ filibusters just because they hate Obama. That is not right no matter your view is. The Dem's did not filibuster bush that much my friend.

You didn't address my point, which probably means it's correct. The number of filibusters under Harry Reid's leadership simply means he's had more formal votes to test the filibuster than other more competent leaders who tried to seek compromise and common ground with the other side rather than grandstanding votes.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Dude. 400+ filibusters just because they hate Obama. Think about it. Did the lib's filibuster Bush that much? Hell no.

I don't care why they do it, the Senate is free to regulate itself. All I'm saying is that if it insists on sitting on Presidential appointments rather than discussing them for a reasonable period and then voting, the Executive should start refusing to do the jobs the Senate needs it to do.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

define what "reasonable period of time" is when it comes to cabinet positions and judicial nominees.

Give everybody who wants to speak a chance to speak twice, after that they should vote.

It really doesn't matter what the number is, so long as a filibuster on Presidential appointments isn't indefinite.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Give everybody who wants to speak a chance to speak twice, after that they should vote.

It really doesn't matter what the number is, so long as a filibuster on Presidential appointments isn't indefinite.

forgive me for being cynical but i think the republicans are filibustering everything that Obama wants policy wise.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

forgive me for being cynical but i think the republicans are filibustering everything that Obama wants policy wise.

I don't care who does it or who they do it to or why they do it.

 

[BMCM]

You didn't address my point, which probably means it's correct. The number of filibusters under Harry Reid's leadership simply means he's had more formal votes to test the filibuster than other more competent leaders who tried to seek compromise and common ground with the other side rather than grandstanding votes.

Show us the numbers. How many bills did Trent Lott put up for vote and how many has Reid put up. How many of each was filibustered?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Show us the numbers. How many bills did Trent Lott put up for vote and how many has Reid put up. How many of each was filibustered?

I'm not the one defending the claim that the Republicans are more obstructionist than the Democrats were - the author of the OP is - your question would be better directed toward him. I simply made the point that from my observations, admittedly not scientific or mathematically scrutinized, that there were far fewer cloture votes brought to the floor of the Senate under Lott than Reid and that may have to do with the unwillingness of Reid to compromise and the willingness of Lott to compromise.

The Senate used to be a body that worked towards consensus before bills were pushed to the floor - not so under Reid.

 

[Thrilla]

I'm not the one defending the claim that the Republicans are more obstructionist than the Democrats were - the author of the OP is - your question would be better directed toward him. I simply made the point that from my observations, admittedly not scientific or mathematically scrutinized, that there were far fewer cloture votes brought to the floor of the Senate under Lott than Reid and that may have to do with the unwillingness of Reid to compromise and the willingness of Lott to compromise.

The Senate used to be a body that worked towards consensus before bills were pushed to the floor - not so under Reid.

that a very astute observation.

I've had my eye on Reid ever since we sent him to the hill ( he's my Senator)...those whom follow politics in Nevada knew about Reid, we all knew he was corrupt and a very very good political operator.
calling for cloture is a Reid hallmark... he does it a lot.. sometimes without a filibuster present or even threatened.

i'm not sure it's true that the Senate has historically fought for a consensus before bills were sent to the floor though.. I think it's more accurate to say they sought far more deliberation than we see now.

in any event, the climate in the Senate is certainly not driven by the GOP alone, as the OP and other Democrats want us to believe... a large part of the climate is Harry Reid himself.
oddly enough, I figured, when he was sent to the hill, he would find ways to remain faithful his party while he remained faithful to his ideology ( which is nowhere near as liberal as one might believe.. he's more conservative than many Republicans).. his obstructionism serves that purpose, as I see it.

 

[fmw]

there is a point when a government that does not function becomes a liability. imagine if the same level of gridlock currently on display in senate was applied to every local and state government?

Local and state government aren't broken - at least they aren't around here. Our state, for instance has a balanced budget. Federal government is now so bloated that it can't manage itself, let alone govern. Hopefully we will get to a point where more people are disgusted with the whole thing and vote to reduce its size.

 

[fmw]

That is stupid my friend. We elect those clowns to do a job. That is why we pay them so much. How is it good they are not earning their keep. How does gridlock benifit us? Not everything is political. The NLRB protects workers rights and we all benifit so how does the moronic GOP blocking nominations to that post benifit us? It does not. Do you want some asshole boss to have all the power no matter what a jerk he/she is?

Sorry, I don't respond to insults. Calling me stupid is a non starter for me.