115
Democratic Solution To The Filibuster: Make Them Talk : Swingers Discussion 2120381011
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsDemocratic Solution To The Filibuster: Make Them Talk
TOPIC: Democratic Solution To The Filibuster: Make Them Talk
GoTo Page: 1 2 3
Start   11 to 20 of 21   End
User Details are only visible to members.
"I've always assumed that 99% of Azz's posts were lifted from her copy of Ann Coulter's Vacuous Invective of the Day desk calendar."

I've always assumed that azz rug was a guy, you know different? THAT would clear a few things up...

Vacuous Invective of the Day Calendar.... lol

East Fishkill NY
Username hidden
(3531 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I've always assumed that 99% of Azz's posts were lifted from her copy of Ann Coulter's Vacuous Invective of the Day desk calendar.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10769 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
And here I thought azt wrote that piece all by himself. lol

Amherst Canada
Username hidden
(2363 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
lmao

I'd love to know who wrote this bullshit. It's a really good 'hit' piece. Totally inaccurate but it almost looks real. I'll bet it was Beck or his his bullshit 'blaze' site....

East Fishkill NY
Username hidden
(3531 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Rather than retaliate by continuing with the obstructionist techniques Senate Democrats invented and implemented, Republicans have taken a more cooperative approach. We have confirmed more than 80 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees, approving a larger share by unanimous consent than under President Bush.

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. So, why have Senate Democrats resorted to such blatantly false accusations? The answer is simple. They would prefer to talk about imagined “obstruction” than rising gas prices and their own failed economic policies. They also seek to distract attention away from President Obama’s unconstitutional “recess” appointments. As a senator, President Obama explicitly rejected the view that “the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee.” Yet once he ascended to the White House, he did just that. On January 4, President Obama unilaterally made four appointments without the Senate’s advice and consent at a time when -- according to its own rules -- the Senate was not in recess. Such unconstitutional executive aggrandizement was a brazen and unprecedented attack on legislative branch authority. Baseless and hypocritical claims about the current confirmation process cannot obscure an undeniable reality. The president consciously chose to trample on the Constitution. Considering himself above the law, he took for himself a power that our founding document makes clear belongs to the Senate. The Framers explicitly designed our constitutional system such that each branch would, in the words of Federalist 51, have “the necessary constitutional means . . . to resist encroachments of the others.” When faced with far less problematic recess appointments during the Reagan years, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.),—a Democrat from a more responsible era—responded by holding up action on 70 executive and judicial nominees and more than 5,000 military promotions. Byrd recognized that such action was “the only leverage we have to make sure that the executive branch does not continue to use the recess appointment process as a means of circumventing the constitutional role of the Senate.” Senators of both parties understood then a truth that Democrats now seek to avoid and obscure: the Senate’s constitutional responsibilities matter and must be enforced by the Senate. It is now time for the Senate to stand up for its rightful authority—as well as for the people’s liberty that such checks and balances were designed to protect—and respond to President Obama’s unconstitutional actions.

Peoria AZ
Username hidden
(2341 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sen Lee - Utah shows the usual democratic hypocrisy/lies...

A palpable air of hypocrisy hangs over the Senate these days. Seeking to distract attention from President Obama’s unconstitutional “recess” appointments — not to mention the failure of his economic policies — Democrats disingenuously accuse Republicans of “obstructing” the president’s judicial nominees.

In an attempt to create the perception of Republican resistance, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev), has taken the extraordinary step of scheduling contentious cloture votes for 17 nominees who were otherwise on the normal path to routine confirmation, claiming “delay for delay’s sake.”

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.” Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who now claims to have been “respectful of President Bush’s appointments,” repeatedly joined with Democratic colleagues in attempting to filibuster judicial confirmations, including seven separate votes against cloture for the nomination of Miguel Estrada—one of the nation’s leading appellate lawyers—to the D.C. Circuit. Not to be outdone, Reid took virtually every opportunity to block Bush nominees, voting against cloture on 26 separate occasions. In his view there was no amount of time—“not a number in the universe”—that would be adequate for debate on the filibustered nominees. During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito.

Peoria AZ
Username hidden
(2341 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Republicans are a huge waste of resources, both human and financial. If they have to actually stand and talk, they'll get thirsty and drink water. Then they'll have to go to the bathroom, and lose their place on the floor. No peeing in a jug behind the podium.

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
IMHO this would go a long way to getting things moving again...

East Fishkill NY
Username hidden
(3531 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Whether the senators can maintain their filibuster, then, will come down to determination and public pressure. Merkley argued that Republicans would've been unable to block legislation related to jobs for veterans or campaign finance disclosure, for instance, if they'd had to do so in public.

"I think about the Veteran's Job Bill. If the Republicans had -- instead of killing it through the silent filibuster, they'd had to take the floor before we parted for elections and say we are blocking a vote and they'd had to go through a night blocking the vote -- I think enough Americans would have given feedback to their legislators on both sides of the aisle, and said, 'That's crazy. Stop that. Support ending that filibuster.' We would have gotten 60 votes," he said.

"I'm convinced that on the Disclose Act, [if] people had to take the floor and defend that, after they had argued for disclosure during McCain-Feingold, that now they were arguing that secrecy is okay and had to be on the floor for nights or weekends or a week, we would have gotten a 60th vote. And that's why it is so important to be able to have the public see what is happening. It's just hidden now," Merkley said, referring to a bill that would have required political donors to disclose their identity. The bill fell one short of the 60 needed to invoke cloture and move to a final debate.

Merkely said that the package he and his allies put together will also include more direct reforms. Reid has suggested simply eliminating the filibuster on the motion to proceed to debate, which would save the Senate many hundreds of hours of wasted time the course of a term. Merkley said such a provision was likely to make it into the final package, as well as restrictions on filibustering efforts to send a bill to conference. Under current rules, even after a bill has passed the Senate, the minority can still use the filibuster to attempt to block it from going to a conference committee with House legislation, chewing up days of the Senate calendar.

"It's not a silver bullet, but it represents a change of thinking in that there has been this perpetual hope that somehow we could just restore the social contract that existed in the 1970s," said Merkley. "And that social contract came from a group of folks who served in World War II together. Their families lived here and knew each other. Their children knew each other. We had three [television] networks bringing the national conversation together. That framework does not exist. … And so I come from the opinion that we have a responsibility to the nation to enable this body to have debates and make decisions. And there is no other course left but to modify some of the rules that are being abused to keep us from doing our job."

East Fishkill NY
Username hidden
(3531 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The critical component, though, is a mechanism that would force senators to physically take the floor and speak in order to maintain opposition to legislation. The effort to end a filibuster is called a cloture motion. Under the proposed rules, if a cloture vote failed to win a simple majority, the bill would be killed and the Senate would move to new business. But if it won a majority -- though less than a supermajority of 60 -- the bill would remain on the floor for any senator who wished to opine on it. If at some point no senator rose to speak, after given several chances to do so, a new vote would be called -- and only a simple majority would be needed to pass it.

"You have to present your case," said Merkley. "If you think there should be more debate, then you've got to debate. You've got to present your case before your colleagues, before the American public. If you haven't got the guts to do that, then you shouldn't stand in the way of the majority vote."

The thinking behind the proposed rule is that it will highlight opposition that is unpopular, but will still allow a determined minority to block legislation. Liberal supporters of the filibuster argue that eliminating it would lead to restrictions on reproductive rights, drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge or other rollbacks of major gains. But, as long as a handful of senators are willing to take turns holding the floor, then the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is safe, Merkley said.

East Fishkill NY
Username hidden
(3531 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3
Start   11 to 20 of 21   End
TOPIC: Democratic Solution To The Filibuster: Make Them Talk