If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Senate filibuster deal said to be a humiliation for Mitch McConnell, with some sources suggesting he may simply withdraw into his shell out of shame   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 76
    More: Followup, Senate Filibuster, Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Bill Frist, humans, Chuck Schumer, embarrassments  
•       •       •

5819 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2013 at 1:33 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-17 03:20:45 PM
There is a turtle trifecta in play with this thread and the Kennedy thread before this.

/I like turtles
 
2013-07-17 03:21:49 PM

Dr Dreidel: DamnYankees: Constitutional? Not that I know. But just logically, there's a rather large difference between appointing (i) members of your own branch of government who's term expires when you leave office and (ii) members of a different branch of government who serve for life.

If the Constitution was about logic and not about law, we wouldn't have needed a Constitution. Legally, a nominee is a nominee is a nominee, yes?

That's my point. I certainly get your point as well, but legally, it don't mean a fart in a windstorm.


I just don't see what the constitution has to do with any of this. The filibuster isn't in the constitution, either.
 
2013-07-17 03:26:36 PM
The senate has sat around and done nothing even while the government and people suffer. Fark them.
 
2013-07-17 03:32:22 PM

DamnYankees: Dr Dreidel: DamnYankees: Constitutional? Not that I know. But just logically, there's a rather large difference between appointing (i) members of your own branch of government who's term expires when you leave office and (ii) members of a different branch of government who serve for life.

If the Constitution was about logic and not about law, we wouldn't have needed a Constitution. Legally, a nominee is a nominee is a nominee, yes?

That's my point. I certainly get your point as well, but legally, it don't mean a fart in a windstorm.

I just don't see what the constitution has to do with any of this. The filibuster isn't in the constitution, either.


And there is a strong case to be made that the only reason it is still used is that no one has quite solved how to get standing to challenge it in the SCOTUS. Because once it is before the justices, it is unlikely to survive as it essentially changes the rules for passage from simple majority to supermajority, and the Constitution only allows the latter is specific cases.
 
2013-07-17 03:32:23 PM

Rwa2play: JesseL: Pituophis: JesseL: And pretending that the Senate is no longer in session when they go home at night so you can do whatever you want is no better.

Certainly unprecedented, right?

Per Congressional Research Service:
Ronald Reagan: 240 recess appointments
George H. W. Bush: 77 recess appointments
Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments
George W. Bush: 171 recess appointments
Barack Obama: 32 recess appointments (first term only)

How many of those happened while the Senate was still legally in session?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

Thanks for playing!  Don Pardo will tell you what you're going away gifts are...Don?


And let me tell you what you didn't win: a twenty volume set of the Encyclopedia International, a case of Turtle Wax, and a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.

But that's not all!

You also made yourself look like a jerk in front of millions of people. You brought shame and disgrace to your family name for generations to come. You don't get to come back tomorrow. You don't even get a lousy copy of our home game. You're a complete loser!

/Would have really helped if I had the nick of Don Pardo.
 
2013-07-17 03:34:40 PM

DamnYankees: I just don't see what the constitution has to do with any of this. The filibuster isn't in the constitution, either.


The Senate's "advice and consent" are (which is, I believe, what spawned this side-topic), as are the bodies' rule-making procedures (meaning the filibuster itself isn't, but as part of the Senate's rules it is).

So long as the filibuster remains an adopted Senate rule and so long as nominations (to whatever branch) are agreed to be subject to the Senate's advice and consent, this is the regime. "Advice and consent" isn't limited by branch (as far as we know), and the Senate has not changed its rules.

I actually like the filibuster, but would prefer it if: 1) eventually, someone had to speak at length. Actually "bust the fil", so to speak, and 2) there were consequences for misuse. I have no idea what they might be, but for one party to invoke cloture more often than not is a clear misuse of the tool of last resort.

// and anonymous holds go the way of Rockefeller Republicanism
// I rather like the idea of cloture needing more and more votes to sustain (or is it fewer and fewer?)
 
2013-07-17 03:34:48 PM

CheatCommando: And there is a strong case to be made that the only reason it is still used is that no one has quite solved how to get standing to challenge it in the SCOTUS. Because once it is before the justices, it is unlikely to survive as it essentially changes the rules for passage from simple majority to supermajority, and the Constitution only allows the latter is specific cases.


The only person I can think would have standing to sue is the President himself, and the court would never take the issue up since its a political question.
 
2013-07-17 03:42:11 PM

DamnYankees: CheatCommando: And there is a strong case to be made that the only reason it is still used is that no one has quite solved how to get standing to challenge it in the SCOTUS. Because once it is before the justices, it is unlikely to survive as it essentially changes the rules for passage from simple majority to supermajority, and the Constitution only allows the latter is specific cases.

The only person I can think would have standing to sue is the President himself, and the court would never take the issue up since its a political question.


For nominees that might work, but I would bet the court would punt it as a political question as well. What would need to happen is for a filibuster of actual legislation to be challenged - the Constitution states a simple majority is the standard for passage of that, so requiring a supermajority is blatantly against its wording and intent. Since the President does not introduce legislation, he would not have standing on that. Perhaps the House could sue if the Senate were obstructing legislation it had passed via this route, but that's actually pretty rare and neither side really wants to give up the weapon for the inevitable time when they are in the minority.
 
2013-07-17 03:57:29 PM

JesseL: If the game isn't going your way you don't get to just ignore the rules.


You mean how Clinton played by the GOP's own rules and farked them over...twice?
 
2013-07-17 04:00:43 PM

CheatCommando: What would need to happen is for a filibuster of actual legislation to be challenged - the Constitution states a simple majority is the standard for passage of that, so requiring a supermajority is blatantly against its wording and intent.


I think this fails for two reasons:
1. The Senate is specifically empowered (as a body of Congress) to come up with their own rules.
2. These votes aren't for/against the bill being debated, they're motions to continue/stop debate on the bill.

I'd love to hear the Court accept the argument that the GOP has created a de facto 60-vote requirement by invoking cloture even on motions to suspend debate for 5min so McCain can take a leak, but I don't think that flies.
 
2013-07-17 04:04:31 PM

Rwa2play: JesseL: If the game isn't going your way you don't get to just ignore the rules.

You mean how Clinton played by the GOP's own rules and farked them over...twice?



Are you okay with it when it's your side but not the other guys?
 
2013-07-17 04:08:37 PM

JesseL: DamnYankees: JesseL: . There should be some consequences for that kind of unconstitutional BS, which is the reason for the recent fillibuster.


There should be consequences for the Congress to use the filibuster as a tool to impede on executive power in order force certain agencies to whither on the vine.

Oh wait, THERE ARE.
 
2013-07-17 04:17:26 PM

propasaurus: JesseL: I'm no GOP apologist

HAHAHAHAA!JesseL: If the game isn't going your way you don't get to just ignore the rules.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Damned good thing the republicans are playing Calvinball, then
 
2013-07-17 04:24:34 PM

JesseL: Rwa2play: JesseL: If the game isn't going your way you don't get to just ignore the rules.

You mean how Clinton played by the GOP's own rules and farked them over...twice?

Are you okay with it when it's your side but not the other guys?


Lemme coin a phrase from a certain RW poster on Fark: "It's politics and its failr".
 
2013-07-17 04:29:45 PM

JesseL: Rwa2play: JesseL: If the game isn't going your way you don't get to just ignore the rules.

You mean how Clinton played by the GOP's own rules and farked them over...twice?


Are you okay with it when it's your side but not the other guys?


Seems to me you're okay with the GOP pretending to be in session all the time to prevent Obama from nominating anyone. Can you show me where the Dems did this? I don't remember this happening under Bush, maybe you can.
 
2013-07-17 04:50:44 PM

Mugato: Filibustering in general should be cause for...I'm not advocating violence against an elected official but the whole process is farked up.


I think the filibuster has a legitimate place in the senate, but I believe it should be a talking filibuster - the individuals who so oppose a bill that they're willing to use the chamber's rules to stop it, should have to put something of their credibility on the line to do so. This filibuster-by-consent just makes it too easy to use the filibuster to require 60% for every bill to pass.
 
2013-07-17 04:52:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Seems to me you're okay with the GOP pretending to be in session all the time to prevent Obama from nominating anyone. Can you show me where the Dems did this? I don't remember this happening under Bush, maybe you can.


I don't remember Democrats making it difficult to make recess appointments, but I certainly remember the GOP claiming that recess appointments were perfectly legitimate during Bush's presidency, at least.
 
2013-07-17 05:03:05 PM

JesseL: DamnYankees: JesseL: It's amazing how people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

Does anyone think that's a precedent that should be allowed to stand? All the courts that have heard it so far haven't.

This whole thing came to a head because the POTUS and Senate majority leadership didn't want to stand for their inevitable and deserved biatchslap from the Supreme Court.

It's hilarious that you think the recess appointments are the cause of the obstruction. Causality - it only works one way, friend.

If the recess appointments get approved it makes the Supreme Court case moot. There should be some consequences for that kind of unconstitutional BS, which is the reason for the recent fillibuster.


Seriously?!?!
You need to rewind and check the timeline, the chain of events and how it wnet down as you seem very confused on that matter. Starting with "its my job to make sure the president fails" to now...     and you probably missed the whole economy crash was 2008, while the president took office in 2009. And a whole lot of other stuff like that...   (iraq war started before Obama in office too...)
 
2013-07-17 05:16:55 PM

Enigmamf: cameroncrazy1984: Seems to me you're okay with the GOP pretending to be in session all the time to prevent Obama from nominating anyone. Can you show me where the Dems did this? I don't remember this happening under Bush, maybe you can.

I don't remember Democrats making it difficult to make recess appointments, but I certainly remember the GOP claiming that recess appointments were perfectly legitimate during Bush's presidency, at least.


The Democrats have used pro forma sessions to block recess appointments.
 
2013-07-17 05:23:43 PM

Dr Dreidel: I'd love to hear the Court accept the argument that the GOP has created a de facto 60-vote requirement by invoking cloture even on motions to suspend debate for 5min so McCain can take a leak, but I don't think that flies.


Why not? They have done exactly that.
 
2013-07-17 07:49:46 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-17 08:02:52 PM

JesseL: It's amazing how people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

Does anyone think that's a precedent that should be allowed to stand? All the courts that have heard it so far haven't.

This whole thing came to a head because the POTUS and Senate majority leadership didn't want to stand for their inevitable and deserved biatchslap from the Supreme Court.


Stop watching Fox News and reading the Wall Street Journal.  It's affecting your brain.
 
2013-07-17 08:48:08 PM

JesseL: sabreWulf07: JesseL: It's amazing how people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

The President has already made his appointments.  The Senate has a constitutional duty to "advice and consent".  If the Senate wants to withhold their consent for a nominee then they need to do that.  Go ahead and hold a vote.  Failure to grant or deny the President consent for his nominees is an unconstitutional bypassing of the President's duty to make appointments.  The Senate has a constitutionally-mandated duty "advice and consent".

Note that "sit around with thumbs planted up asses" is not one of the options afforded the Senate by Article II, section 2, clause 2.

And pretending that the Senate is no longer in session when they go home at night so you can do whatever you want is no better.


Nor is pretending the Senate  is in session when it's one guy showing up to bang the gavel while everyone else is home on vacation visiting their constituents.
 
2013-07-17 09:28:16 PM

Pituophis: JesseL: And pretending that the Senate is no longer in session when they go home at night so you can do whatever you want is no better.

Certainly unprecedented, right?

Per Congressional Research Service:
Ronald Reagan: 240 recess appointments
George H. W. Bush: 77 recess appointments
Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments
George W. Bush: 171 recess appointments
Barack Obama: 32 recess appointments (first term only)


Obama has 1264 nominations on his plate including a few that were holdovers.

Only 84 are yet to be confirmed.  Somehow, I don't think there is a lot of "obstruction" going on.
 
2013-07-17 10:24:18 PM
Senate Filibuster Deal An Embarrassment For Mitch McConnellMitch McConnell an embarrassment for the US Senate
 
2013-07-18 04:02:57 AM

Mithiwithi: JesseL: sabreWulf07: JesseL: It's amazing how people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

The President has already made his appointments.  The Senate has a constitutional duty to "advice and consent".  If the Senate wants to withhold their consent for a nominee then they need to do that.  Go ahead and hold a vote.  Failure to grant or deny the President consent for his nominees is an unconstitutional bypassing of the President's duty to make appointments.  The Senate has a constitutionally-mandated duty "advice and consent".

Note that "sit around with thumbs planted up asses" is not one of the options afforded the Senate by Article II, section 2, clause 2.

And pretending that the Senate is no longer in session when they go home at night so you can do whatever you want is no better.

Nor is pretending the Senate  is in session when it's one guy showing up to bang the gavel while everyone else is home on vacation visiting their constituents lobbyists.


FTFY
 
Displayed 26 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report