PDA

View Full Version : Par for the course.



Qtec
05-20-2011, 03:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After Calling Judicial Filibusters Unconstitutional, Republican Senators Line Up Behind Judicial Filibuster

The Senate just voted by a 52-43 majority to end the GOP’s filibuster of Professor Goodwin Liu’s nomination to a federal appeal court — which, in the bizarro world that is the U.S. Senate, means that Liu’s nomination will not move forward. The vote was entirely along party lines, except that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted “yea” and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) voted “nay.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just six short years ago, Republicans sang a very different tune when it came to judicial filibusters.</span> Senate Republicans almost unanimously declared filibusters of judicial nominees to be a <span style='font-size: 17pt'>horrific betrayal of their constitutional role. Many Republicans outright declared judicial filibusters to be unconstitutional.</span> Here is a representative sample of how current GOP senators felt about such filibusters when a Republican was in the White House:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN): <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period.</span> I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.”</span>

Tom Coburn (R-OK): “If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. <u>That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years.”</u>

John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with <span style='font-size: 14pt'>this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.</span>

Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Until this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States <u>because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”</u>

Chuck Grassley (R-IA): <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60,</span> and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”

Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”</span>

<span style="color: #990000">Sadly, this willingness to declare something unconstitutional when it suits them and then pretend the Constitution says something else entirely when the political winds change is par for the GOP’s course. </span></div></div>

link (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/19/liu-filibuser/)

The GOP: say one thing, do another. To date, they have fillibusted EVERY piece of proposed legislation. Even HC for first responders.

Q

LWW
05-20-2011, 03:58 AM
You know what ... you almost exhibited independent thought on this one.

Here's the reality.

The democrooks used the exact same tactics to block judicial nominations when Bush was POTUS ... and, in fact, you defended them for doing it.

The republichickens cried foul.

Now, with a new POTUS, both sides have simply flipped tactics. The republichickens claim they are doing the right thing ... even when a couple years ago they swore it was wrong. The democrooks are swearing it's wrong now ... even though they swore it was the right thing then.

I see the hypocrisy in both sides.

You, OTOH, have flipped just as your party masters have ordered you to.

Qtec
05-20-2011, 05:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The filibuster will be met with disappointment from both progressives and Asian-American groups that advocated for Liu and hoped to see him seated on the Western court that covers a region of the country with a significant Asian-American population. Liu even received support from some prominent conservative legal figures, including Ken Starr and John Yoo.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The procedural manoeuvre also upsets a six-year détente on filibustering judicial nominations. During the George W. Bush administration, a bipartisan group called the Gang of 14 agreed to vote to open debate on every judicial nominee who came through the Senate except in “extraordinary circumstances.”</span>

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55320.html#ixzz1MtDg4jta
</div></div>


BTW, This isn't about what Dems have done or said. The above quotes are from Republicans.


Q

LWW
05-20-2011, 05:36 AM
I understand that ... and I have condemned them aslo.

My point was that you defended it when the democrooks did the exact same thing.

Evidence that you are a partisan toll and I am not.

Thanks for pointing that out.

pooltchr
05-20-2011, 06:03 AM
The difference is that while Q sees it as a question of right or left, rational people see it as a question of right or wrong.

Steve

Stretch
05-20-2011, 06:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that ... and I have condemned them aslo.

My point was that you defended it when the democrooks did the exact same thing.

Evidence that you are a partisan toll and I am not.

Thanks for pointing that out. </div></div>

Untill you show proof of your condemnation of the right we just have your say so on it. Till then, you and your 16,ooo attack posts stand as a beacon of hate and intolerance. St.

pooltchr
05-20-2011, 06:10 AM
Don't you just love how the worst attackers are always accusing others of their crime??

Steve

eg8r
05-20-2011, 08:37 AM
We get it...in your mind it is OK to do the things your enemy does back at them but when they do it back at you you don't like it.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-20-2011, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After Calling Judicial Filibusters Unconstitutional, Republican Senators Line Up Behind Judicial Filibuster

The Senate just voted by a 52-43 majority to end the GOP’s filibuster of Professor Goodwin Liu’s nomination to a federal appeal court — which, in the bizarro world that is the U.S. Senate, means that Liu’s nomination will not move forward. The vote was entirely along party lines, except that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted “yea” and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) voted “nay.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just six short years ago, Republicans sang a very different tune when it came to judicial filibusters.</span> Senate Republicans almost unanimously declared filibusters of judicial nominees to be a <span style='font-size: 17pt'>horrific betrayal of their constitutional role. Many Republicans outright declared judicial filibusters to be unconstitutional.</span> Here is a representative sample of how current GOP senators felt about such filibusters when a Republican was in the White House:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN): <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period.</span> I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.”</span>

Tom Coburn (R-OK): “If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. <u>That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years.”</u>

John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with <span style='font-size: 14pt'>this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.</span>

Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Until this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States <u>because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”</u>

Chuck Grassley (R-IA): <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60,</span> and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”

Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”</span>

<span style="color: #990000">Sadly, this willingness to declare something unconstitutional when it suits them and then pretend the Constitution says something else entirely when the political winds change is par for the GOP’s course. </span></div></div>

link (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/19/liu-filibuser/)

The GOP: say one thing, do another. To date, they have fillibusted EVERY piece of proposed legislation. Even HC for first responders.

Q


</div></div>

The general policy of Repiglicans whenever they are not in full power, W.H.Senate AND The House, is always to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, any progress, at all.

They don't stand there and say "NO COMPROMISES" for nothing.

Wonder how all those dummies that were holding up those signs, 'NO Obamacare, don't touch my Medicare!' feel now??? LOL ... Duped Again, Dummies!

The FASCIST, RW Activist Roberts Court, has destroyed Democracy, anyway. Our only hope now is for Scalia and Thomas to continue stuff their piggy faces, and eat and drink themselves into the grave.

I may just send both of them, along with the Rush and Christie hogs, several dozen boxes of my home made, irresistable, Christmas BonBons every week /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif to help the process along! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

When are all of the former Boehner Mistresses going to come forward???? That's what I am waiting for! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G.

LWW
05-20-2011, 03:36 PM
Check HERE (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=352588#Post352588)

LWW
05-20-2011, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't you just love how the worst attackers are always accusing others of their crime??

Steve </div></div>

Well, being a hyper partisan tool isn't actually a crime ... but if you meant projecting their own flaws upon others, yes it's amusing.

Qtec
05-21-2011, 03:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get it...in your mind it is OK to do the things your enemy does back at them but when they do it back at you you don't like it.

eg8r </div></div>


First of all,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Federal judicial vacancies reaching crisis point </div></div> link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020706034.html)

The system is breaking down because of GOP obstruction.

Secondly,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the same time, Democrats say the apparently unbridgeable health care divide has convinced them <u>that Republicans are dedicated solely to blocking legislative proposals for political purposes.</u> Several said they now realized that they would have to rely strictly on their own caucus to advance such defining issues as climate change in 2010.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“We have crossed the mark of over 100 filibusters and acts of procedural obstruction in less than one year,”</span> Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said on the floor Sunday. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“Never since the founding of the Republic, not even in the bitter sentiments preceding Civil War, was such a thing ever seen in this body.” </span></div></div> link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/health/policy/21senatecnd.html)

The fillibuster has been used for years, both parties have used it but its the GOP who are abusing it. It wasn't Democrats who made the quotes that I posted.


I can't see how you could say this,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitch McConnell (R-KY): <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“<u><span style="color: #3333FF">The Constitution of the United States is at stake.</span> Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.</u> But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. <u>They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.</u>”</span> </div></div>

...then do a 180 degree turnabout when it suits you, and still expect anyone to believe a single word you say.

How can a Rep use a procedure that he believes is unconstitutional?

Q

Gayle in MD
05-21-2011, 03:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get it...in your mind it is OK to do the things your enemy does back at them but when they do it back at you you don't like it.

eg8r </div></div>


First of all,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Federal judicial vacancies reaching crisis point </div></div> link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020706034.html)

The system is breaking down because of GOP obstruction.

Secondly,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the same time, Democrats say the apparently unbridgeable health care divide has convinced them <u>that Republicans are dedicated solely to blocking legislative proposals for political purposes.</u> Several said they now realized that they would have to rely strictly on their own caucus to advance such defining issues as climate change in 2010.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“We have crossed the mark of over 100 filibusters and acts of procedural obstruction in less than one year,”</span> Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said on the floor Sunday. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“Never since the founding of the Republic, not even in the bitter sentiments preceding Civil War, was such a thing ever seen in this body.” </span></div></div> link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/health/policy/21senatecnd.html)

The fillibuster has been used for years, both parties have used it but its the GOP who are abusing it. It wasn't Democrats who made the quotes that I posted.


I can't see how you could say this,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitch McConnell (R-KY): <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“<u><span style="color: #3333FF">The Constitution of the United States is at stake.</span> Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.</u> But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. <u>They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.</u>”</span> </div></div>

...then do a 180 degree turnabout when it suits you, and still expect anyone to believe a single word you say.

How can a Rep use a procedure that he believes is unconstitutional?

Q




</div></div>

Exactly...Republicans broke the record on filibustering, during the Democratic Majority. The Filibuster, was never meant to be used to cripple the country, by continuing to consistantly block legislation, IOW, obstruct all progress...

G.

eg8r
05-21-2011, 10:47 AM
Again, we get it. If the enemy does something to you, then you feel obligated to return the favor when it is your turn. However if the enemy does it again to get back at you then that is not right.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-22-2011, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, we get it. If the enemy does something to you, then you feel obligated to return the favor when it is your turn. However if the enemy does it again to get back at you then that is not right.

eg8r </div></div>


That doesn't fly, Ed, because the Dems, have never done with the filibuster, what Repiglicans have been doing.

One could point to Bush's abuse of Signing statements, as a good example of another Repiglican effort, to abstruct the traditional meaning of the Constitution.

Signing statements, were never used, before Bush, by any President, to state that the he will ignore Congressional laws, nor were they ever used one hundred and eighty seven times, previous to Bush.

Repiglicans are the Party of bribes and obstruction. THat's all they stand for, anymore.

Last week on "This Week" with Christianne Amanpour, the entire panel of expert economists, spoke to the devastating effect that Republicans are causing
economically, by threatening to refuse to raise the debt limit. They have consistantly blocked the recovery.

Most people can see that, unless they simply don't want to see it.

The bulk of our economic problems, and debts, are still residue from the Bushh Administration.

G.

eg8r
05-23-2011, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most people can see that, unless they simply don't want to see it.

</div></div>Your evidence points back to W which means, considering our last election, most people actually don't see your view OR they are "ok" with it.

Most people see that politicians as a collective are a party of bribes and obstruction unless they simply don't want to see it.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-23-2011, 10:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most people can see that, unless they simply don't want to see it.

</div></div>Your evidence points back to W which means, considering our last election, most people actually don't see your view OR they are "ok" with it.

Most people see that politicians as a collective are a party of bribes and obstruction unless they simply don't want to see it.

eg8r </div></div>

Not at all. The Repigs won seats, only because they were successful with their lies, and fear mongering about the Affordable Health Care Act, which looks like a pretty grand idea, to most Americans, according to the polls I'm seeing, showing seventy to eighty % against The Ryan Plan, and now that the Repigs, have shown us THEIR plan, to dump many seniors from provisions alaready in place to help with their costs, and dump all those under fifty-five, who have been paying into medicare, for decades, kick them off Medicare, as we know it, and dump them at the mercy of the corrupt, monopolies of the Health Insurance Industry, the words, Public Option, are sounding prretty damn good, to most folks, according to what I'm reading, and seeing in polls.

G.

pooltchr
05-23-2011, 11:34 AM
You just keep on believing in those partisan polls you consume daily. But the shock that will come to you in 18 months may be hazardous to your health.

Steve

eg8r
05-23-2011, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Repigs won seats, only because... </div></div> To finish your statement succintly, "only because they stood for the opposite of what the current Dems were doing."

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-23-2011, 12:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Repigs won seats, only because... </div></div> To finish your statement succintly, "only because they stood for the opposite of what the current Dems were doing."

eg8r </div></div>

It's a fact, Ed, they told loads of lies about the AHCA.

In fact, the "Death Panels" now belong to Paul Ryan, and the Republicans and the Repub Governors, who have already implemented them.

G.

pooltchr
05-23-2011, 01:08 PM
How could they implement them, if they weren't there to begin with. Did the Reps sneak through a new HC bill when we weren't looking?


The lunatic fringe strikes again!!

Steve

Qtec
05-24-2011, 02:15 AM
video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3lWwpHotwg)

Q

Gayle in MD
05-24-2011, 05:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3lWwpHotwg)

Q </div></div>

The Repiglicans are the Hypocrits extraordinaire!