PDA

View Full Version : A disturbing statistic



Qtec
08-12-2011, 02:54 AM
link (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ari-melber-call-senate-back-session-a)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Appearing yesterday on MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan Show, The Nation's Ari Melber reminded us how Republican obstructionism has crippled administration appointments -- and suggested what Obama and Harry Reid should do:

ARI MELBER: Most of you know Congress just left for vacation. Normally when Congress is on recess, the president can make recess appointments to advance nominees that have been obstructed, but it turns out Congress is not really on recess. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Republicans are holding symbolic sessions during their entire vacation in order to prevent recess appointments. This is just the latest ploy in a long obstruction campaign by the GOP.</span>

Since Obama came into office, Republicans have blocked an unprecedented number of nominees from ever getting a vote. Take judicial nominees. Republicans have blocked almost half of the nominees for judicial nominations, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the worst obstruction rate in U.S. history.</span> <u>And the targets aren't random, either. GOP obstruction has hindered female and minority nominees the most.</u>

Here's a disturbing statistic from the People for the American Way, and I'm quoting now: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"Every district court nominee with unanimous opposition from the Senate Judiciary committee Republicans has been a woman or a person of color."</span> </div></div>


The solution?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senator Reid and President Obama should call the Senate back in session now, in this hot August summer. They should refuse to adjourn until there are votes on all these nominees. They can use quorum calls, <u>break the silent filibuster that most Americans don't even know is happening,</u> and they can keep every member working seven days a week and refuse to adjourn unless it's for a real old-school recess - you know, when recess appointments are on the table.

Just imagine the president speaking to the nation about making government work again instead of just pleading for compromise with his tormentors. Imagine him seizing the initiative on a concrete action plan, and imagine him making a case for an American government based on the people who want to serve our government, to run our schools, protect our borders and put our people back to work. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It says a lot about this Congress that they found a way to hinder government and recovery even while they're on vacation. Well look, let's bring these guys back to Washington. </span></div></div>


Just another example of how the GOP are unfit to rule. They are trying to bring Govt to a halt and at the same time blaming Obama for a lack of action.


Q

LWW
08-12-2011, 04:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are trying to bring Govt to a halt and at the same time blaming Obama for a lack of action.


Q </div></div>

How are they doing this ... other than by following their elected duty?

Soflasnapper
08-12-2011, 01:26 PM
It's been a long held position of the GOP that THEIR presidents deserve their choice of appointees to staff up the executive branch. This is generally allowed to take place, with minor numbers of prominent nominees occasionally objected to and blocked, or attempted to be blocked, for specific reasons.

So, for example, a John Bolton couldn't win confirmation as UN ambassador (and got a recess appointment instead).

But now, we have a wholesale denial of confirmation, not for specific reasons, but as a general matter of denial and slow-walking the staffing up of the executive branch.

So we see one example in the Treasury Dept., where nearly all senior level positions below the Sec and maybe Asst Sec are vacant to this day. This is inexcusable, and basically a terrorist method of governing as the out party, simply denying the president because they can.

LWW
08-12-2011, 04:45 PM
So when did the government halt?

Soflasnapper
08-12-2011, 06:03 PM
1) To say they are trying to halt government isn't to say they've succeeded

2) Government did substantially halt as of approximately January 21, 2011, whenever it was the new controlling House majority took office. They've spent their time on quixotic bids to overturn the prior Congress' work product that was duly passed and signed into law, and on anti-abortion legislation. The rest of the federal government's work has been some ceremonial commemorative laws.

3) The executive branch has been forced to try to function using very junior staff in place of senior qualified executive staff, and even Chief Justice John Roberts has strenuously complained about the backlog jam in the courts because the Senate has been denying by slow-walking, filibustering, and simply refusing to take up the judicial nominees of this president.

eg8r
08-15-2011, 07:21 AM
You keep talking about obstruction but there hasn't been any. Dems got the HC bill, they got the debt ceiling raised, etc. Seems like normal you guys just want to whine.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-15-2011, 10:23 AM
About 85% of all major legislation was subjected to the filibuster demand that 60 votes were required to move the bill forward to a vote. This is put into still more clarity when noting that an all time new total filibuster record was set, blowing out even the intransigence shown during the Clinton years.

It is frankly amazing that anything ever passed the Senate under this kind of solid wall obstruction. But even when the cloture vote could be accomplished by getting 60 votes to 'call the question,' merely demanding the cloture vote be taken delays all proceedings on that bill for a 2-day 'ripening' period. If that cloture vote passes with 60 votes, ANOTHER 30-hour waiting period transpires before the final vote can take place. This was done literally hundreds of times.

Some 250 bills passed by the House never passed the Senate, often because they could never be brought forward to reach a vote, that the bill would have won passage in, had it occurred.

Often, bills or nominations or other matters brought before the Senate had 55, 57 or 58 votes FOR them, but a minority of 41 was able to prevent them from being brought forward for that majority to vote the bill into law.

We do not have a principle in our government that THE MINORITY decides things, and these obstructive tactics are not in the Constitution at all.

The usual trick alibi is that the Dems always had a supermajority, and only had to convince all of their own side of something, and they could move it. (Although as I say, still each time there would have been a 2-day ripening period and then another 30-hour delay for no apparent reason). But the trick alibi is a lie, as the Dems had a nominal 60 vote position for only a period of some weeks (not even months, as it wasn't for 2 months-- somewhere a little into July, and not even until the end of August).

eg8r
08-15-2011, 11:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">About 85% of all major legislation was subjected to the filibuster demand that 60 votes were required to move the bill forward to a vote.</div></div>In my two examples which are the biggies so far did the filibuster have to happen? Did the Dems need 60 votes? Like you said to lww, you are the dog chasing your tail.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is frankly amazing that anything ever passed the Senate under this kind of solid wall obstruction.</div></div>This is just your imagination. There isn't any solid wall. Basically all you are telling us is that when the bill means enough to the Dems they find a way to get it through (HC bill)filibuster-proof or not however if the bill really isn't that important then they let it die and blame the Reps for obstruction. As of right now you guys have no cards left to play. If that wall was a solid as you purport then the HC bill never would have happened.

eg8r

Qtec
08-15-2011, 06:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my two examples which are the biggies so far did the filibuster have to happen? Did the Dems need 60 votes? Like you said to lww, you are the dog chasing your tail.

</div></div>

It happened. link (http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/07/30/republicans-vow-filibuster-of-reid-debt-limit-plan/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Republicans Vow Filibuster of Reid Debt Limit Plan
</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is frankly amazing that anything ever passed the Senate under this kind of solid wall obstruction.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This is just your imagination. There isn't any solid wall. Basically all you are telling us is that when the bill means enough to the Dems they find a way to get it through (HC bill)filibuster-proof or not however if the bill really isn't that important then they let it die and blame the Reps for obstruction. As of right now you guys have no cards left to play. If that wall was a solid as you purport then the HC bill never would have happened.

eg8r </div></div>

What planet are you on?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The filibuster is the last resort when it comes to stopping legislation. Most Senators do not want to start a filibuster because it virtually stops all floor action on any legislation, tying the floor up on one bill. Although on the floor it is the last resort, sometimes threatening a filibuster can be a powerful bargaining chip. By threatening to filibuster, Senators are able to give their input on a bill, possibly changing it, or preventing it from even being scheduled. Senator Byrd once said, <u>In many instances, its the threat of the filibuster that keeps a bill from coming up. </u> </div></div>

50 the new 60 (http://www.slate.com/id/2233718/)

Q

LWW
08-16-2011, 02:17 AM
The only person to filibuster the Harry Reid bill was ... Harry Reid.

LWW
08-16-2011, 02:19 AM
Who wrote the 60 vote rule?

Qtec
08-16-2011, 03:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only person to filibuster the Harry Reid bill was ... Harry Reid. </div></div>

BS.

Why wasn't there a straight up or down vote on raising the debt ceiling?

Q

LWW
08-16-2011, 03:08 AM
Because Reid filibustered his own bill.

LWW
08-16-2011, 03:09 AM
Again:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who wrote the 60 vote rule? </div></div>

eg8r
08-16-2011, 07:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It happened</div></div>Yep and without a filibuster. It is a shame the HC bill was passed and now we have to waste so much taxpayer money to get it rescinded.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What planet are you on?
</div></div>I am on earth which one have you been on for the last decade?

eg8r

eg8r
08-16-2011, 07:27 AM
LOL, he thinks a "vow" to filibuster is the same thing. The only solid wall around here is the bricks for brains qtip.

eg8r

Qtec
08-16-2011, 08:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, he thinks a "vow" to filibuster is the same thing. </div></div>

It is the same.


It means, if you try to bring up this bill I WILL filibuster it.

Q

LWW
08-16-2011, 08:40 AM
So why did Reid filibuster his own bill?

LWW
08-16-2011, 08:40 AM
Par vous snoopy ...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who wrote the 60 vote rule? </div></div> </div></div>

Qtec
08-16-2011, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So why did Reid filibuster his own bill? </div></div>

He didn't. If you can show he did, then do so. Otherwise STFU about it. Stop being a baby.



Q

LWW
08-16-2011, 09:16 AM
<span style='font-size: 8pt'>OH ... (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/)

YES ... (http://www.breitbart.tv/democrat-farce-in-senate-reid-filibusters-own-bill/)</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>HE ... (http://signaleer.blogspot.com/2011/07/sen-reid-filibusters-his-own-bill.html) </span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>DID ... (http://nation.foxnews.com/harry-reid/2011/07/30/reid-filibusters-his-own-debt-bill)</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>YOU ... (http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/07/harry-reid-forces-filibuster-on-his-own-bill/)</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>HYPER ... (http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/07/harry-reid-forces-filibuster-on-his-own-bill/)</span>

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>PARTISAN ... (http://theothermccain.com/2011/07/30/video-harry-reid-exposed-democrats-filibuster-their-own-debt-ceiling-bill/)</span>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>NITBOY ... (http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2011/07/farce-harry-reid-filibusters-his-own.html)</span>

Next lie?

Qtec
08-16-2011, 09:47 AM
After panicking and wildly linking to articles without reading them, LWW has once again shown his blind partisanship.

From YOUR link.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber</span>

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/insi.../#ixzz1VCuqboOd (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/#ixzz1VCuqboOd)
</div></div>

Da Da............end of story.


Q

LWW
08-16-2011, 11:15 AM
Yes, you are an idiot as we discussed in the concurrent thread.

Why you didn't post, probably because reading it would cause you to gouge your own eyes out, was:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, <u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>but it's actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.</span></u>

Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats' bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"We would be happy to have that vote tonight,"</span> Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans' leader, offered. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.</span></div></div>

Next patently ridiculous bit of deceit?

eg8r
08-16-2011, 11:29 AM
They said it about HC bill but that never happened did it. They are not the same thing. It is like you saying you are not insane yet all your posts here prove the opposite is true.

eg8r

eg8r
08-16-2011, 11:30 AM
That isn't a filibuster.

eg8r

LWW
08-16-2011, 03:56 PM
He doesn't know a filibuster from a philatelist ... all he knows is what he's told his opinion is.