James D Hill
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,984
- Reaction score
- 1,034
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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.
Is there ever a filibuster ever that someone on the other side does not consider abuse?
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Dude. 400+ filibusters just because they hate Obama. Think about it. Did the lib's filibuster Bush that much? Hell no.
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.
forgive me for being cynical but i think the republicans are filibustering everything that Obama wants policy wise.
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?
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.
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 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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?