02-06-2010, 04:35 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
GOP filibustering everything
A while back Tex indicated the GOP only protested to the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees. I pointed out the total falsity of that statement, and Tex stopped responding. Now the GOP is literally blocking every single appointee (judicial or otherwise) to any office. Why? So Sen. Shelby can force the Democrats to give a military contract to a foreign manufacturer who has contributed a lot of money to Shelby in the past.
I assume that even if Tex and other GOPers don't believe the factual statement that the GOP protested to the use of the filibuster to pass bills in the past, they still believe the filibuster shouldn't be used on judicial nominees. If so, where's their outrage? |
02-06-2010, 11:11 AM | #2 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
I think what Shelby is doing, from what I have heard, is ridiculous.
|
02-06-2010, 01:36 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
I agree, and I've heard a few other conservatives say the same thing. If one accepts the premise, then of course one could say the hypocrisy cuts both ways. Dems were referring to the filibuster as a sacred and honored tactic back in the day. That fact doesn't seem to bother Cali much.
But it's worth noting I've not heard anyone besides him call it a filibuster. It doesn't much matter to me, but since Cali is Nit Picker in Chief, I thought the distinction worth noting if he was going to accuse the R's of hypocrisy. This is the definition of a hold in senate.gov: Quote:
If Dems are so confident in wanting to make Shelby's silly parliamentary move an issue, why not call for a cloture vote?
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young Last edited by Tex; 02-06-2010 at 01:40 PM. |
|
02-06-2010, 01:43 PM | #4 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
My understanding is that forcing votes on all these matters makes the senate extremely inefficient. If they have to hold 100 cloture votes, that's a lot of time and effort, and is not practical.
It's time to toss out all the bastards in Washington. They are entirely too comfortable. |
02-06-2010, 10:06 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Many Democrats, such as myself, don't have a problem with the concept of the filibuster. Conceptually, it is designed to ensure the majority doesn't steamroll the minority. When used appropriately, it has that effect. When used inappropriately (like now), it has the effect of the minority steamrolling the majority which, I would think, everyone can agree is foolish. Now you have a situation where Republicans are filibustering quite literally everything. It isn't as if they are doing it to advance debate or their "ideas" (if they ever offer one) either. They are doing it merely to be obstructionists. That's it. They have put political interests ahead of the nation's (by a long shot). How do we know they aren't actually opposed to the underlying bill or confirmation? Because even when they lose on the filibuster (i.e., the Dems get cloture and plod through to a final vote), Republicans often then vote to pass whatever it is they were filibustering. There were two confirmations last week that Republicans had been filibustering for almost a year. Cloture was finally obtained on the nomination itself (and all motions offered) and the Senate then unanimously confirmed the nominees. The filibuster can be used to advance debate. It can also be abused. When used to advance debate, I favor it. When used as a tool of pure obstruction, I oppose it. Republicans are quite clearly using it as a tool of pure obstruction (because they have no good ideas to advance). It isn't as if Shelby is on an island in being an obstructionist. That is the Republican agenda right now, pure and simple. Here's a chart of the use of the filibuster for each Congress since the 86th: Last edited by Cali Coug; 02-06-2010 at 10:10 PM. |
|
02-08-2010, 02:22 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Ironically, what we learn from that lengthy explanation is how you're willing to call just about anything a filibuster, whether it really is or not.
In any case, to the original topic: while I personally disagree with Shelby's tactic, it has been fun to see Democrat's showcasing their own hypocrisy. I've read a few liberal blogs squealing like stuck pigs about how abusive Senate Republicans are, and it's delightful ... the same blogs that only a few years ago were speaking of the filibuster in hushed tones of reverence. It certainly didn't seem to bother them to be the party of "no ideas" back in 2006. Have Cali step out of his glass house and start a brand new thread on it is icing on the cake.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
02-08-2010, 04:34 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
02-08-2010, 04:49 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
But to humor you ... You say a hold is "effectively" a filibuster. It may well have the same end-effect, but that doesn't mean a hold is a filibuster. You unwittingly underscored this point with that graph you posted. It was a graph of cloture motions, not holds, no? You say up until last week Republicans were filibustering two nominations for a year, and that they are "filibustering everything." That's a really odd claim, given that Republicans have only had a potential filibuster-sustaining vote for about 4 days. Unless of course, you're employing your elastic definition of the word again. And then you whine about all the work it takes to get a cloture vote ... all the hours of debate, blah blah. I knew all that already, and I say: big deal. The Republicans did it time and again for Owen, Rogers, Pryor, etc. Man up, Democrats. To compare Shelby's little tantrum to the Democrats' collective no-holds-barred obstructionism of '05-'06 is just silly. The two bear no resemblance. Moreover, whining about Republican obstructionism now has to be the most lilly-livered attack I've heard coming from the Left. You guys had 60 votes for a year, and would've had it longer if Kennedy had stayed alive. Your inability to complete major legislation has nothing to do with the Republicans.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
02-08-2010, 07:55 PM | #9 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for "inability to complete major legislation," I don't think you have been paying attention. The stimulus bill alone makes this Congress one of the most prolific in the history of the nation. Isn't that actually what you have complained about in the past? You really can't have it both ways, you know. At least, while still being honest. |
||||
02-08-2010, 09:31 PM | #10 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
!
For you Cali, the Dems are Saints who use filibuster for noble purposes of advancing debate, but the Reps are ruthless scum acting purely in terms of obstructionism. You also state the Reps vote for something once it's gone to vote as evidence that the Reps didn't oppose the underlying bill or person. Well, you ignore the possibility that the Reps might oppose it but need better cover or to allow a vote when nobody's watching.
Secondarily, as the work of the Senate often involves work that I mostly disapprove, I am not that unhappy its work is stalled. Here is an interesting dilemma for me. On one hand, I recognize the argument, as it is made in first year poli sci, that we elect representatives and try to trust their judgment. But that's not really true for me. I rarely trust any of them. I usually vote for somebody I detest less than his or her opponent. So I really want everybody back there to do nothing, if they can't do exactly what I wish. I do not approve of Obama's health care insurance reform, so I'd love for it to come to a screaming halt. I can't think of a project he's tackling that I like the result. So stop it please!
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
Bookmarks |
|
|