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  
•       •       •

5827 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2013 at 1:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-17 11:48:44 AM  
Hmmmm, wondering if Senate GOPers have finally seen the writing on the wall with regards to their intransigence and, with the 2014 mid-terms looming, they really don't want to look like they're the problem in Washington.
 
2013-07-17 12:37:53 PM  
Ha, "shame." That's a good one.
 
2013-07-17 01:12:29 PM  

Rwa2play: Hmmmm, wondering if Senate GOPers have finally seen the writing on the wall with regards to their intransigence and, with the 2014 mid-terms looming, they really don't want to look like they're the problem in Washington.


Meanwhile, McConnell's selling himself (per TFA, there's a YouTube video of this) as a "Washington insider", so he'd necessarily be "the problem" (or part of it) in Washington.

// oh, wait
// he's a Republican
// that's like playing the game on easy in flyover country
 
2013-07-17 01:16:11 PM  
Is there any good reporting out there about the dynamics behind the Senate GOP leadership? We get tons of stories about Boehner and Cantor and the challenges there, but I don't recall seeing much of anything about McConnell. Why is he leader? Seems like he's been a massive failure, not only failing to prevent important legislation from happening, but also his strategy has not led to the GOP getting a majority in the Senate. Why is there nothing about a rebellion among the Senate GOPers?
 
2013-07-17 01:16:53 PM  

Rwa2play: Hmmmm, wondering if Senate GOPers have finally seen the writing on the wall with regards to their intransigence and, with the 2014 mid-terms looming, they really don't want to look like they're the problem in Washington.


They are going to do fine in 2014. Remember, 2008 was a great year for Democrats, so 2014 means Dems have more to defend. The GOP is going to do fine in the midterms.
 
2013-07-17 01:21:26 PM  
Jokes on you! McConnell is not capable of feeling humiliation.
 
2013-07-17 01:32:38 PM  
What I'd like to think the conversation between Reid and McConnell looked like:
mshades.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-17 01:33:32 PM  

DamnYankees: Rwa2play: Hmmmm, wondering if Senate GOPers have finally seen the writing on the wall with regards to their intransigence and, with the 2014 mid-terms looming, they really don't want to look like they're the problem in Washington.

They are going to do fine in 2014. Remember, 2008 was a great year for Democrats, so 2014 means Dems have more to defend. The GOP is going to do fine in the midterms.


At the current rate of "derp" that's being spewed by Republicans, it'll be more of an instance of Democrats "taking" rather Republicans "defending" next year.
 
2013-07-17 01:37:32 PM  
Mitch McConnell should feel humiliated just for being a farking idiot.

But he's probably not.

Idiots never are.
 
2013-07-17 01:42:11 PM  

Rwa2play: DamnYankees: Rwa2play: Hmmmm, wondering if Senate GOPers have finally seen the writing on the wall with regards to their intransigence and, with the 2014 mid-terms looming, they really don't want to look like they're the problem in Washington.

They are going to do fine in 2014. Remember, 2008 was a great year for Democrats, so 2014 means Dems have more to defend. The GOP is going to do fine in the midterms.

At the current rate of "derp" that's being spewed by Republicans, it'll be more of an instance of Democrats "taking" rather Republicans "defending" next year.


Are you sure you read that right?
 
2013-07-17 01:43:58 PM  
Hide in your shell cos the world is out to bleed you for a ride
What will you gain, making your life a little longer?
 
2013-07-17 01:45:11 PM  
Now, Democrats should make a deal with House GOP moderates to oust Boehner and install a moderate Republican as speaker.  Gridlock would be over--the only reason why the Tea party wing has any power at all in the House is because Boehner is too scared to bring up bills that would pass on a bipartisan basis if the Tea Party tells him not to.
 
2013-07-17 01:46:48 PM  

Hollie Maea: Now, Democrats should make a deal with House GOP moderates to oust Boehner and install a moderate Republican as speaker.  Gridlock would be over--the only reason why the Tea party wing has any power at all in the House is because Boehner is too scared to bring up bills that would pass on a bipartisan basis if the Tea Party tells him not to.


Boehner IS a GOP House Moderate, relatively speaking. I'd say that Boehner is easily in the quarter of the most moderate GOP House members.
 
2013-07-17 01:52:12 PM  
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.
 
2013-07-17 01:52:48 PM  

JesseL: It's amazing how few 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.


FTFM
 
2013-07-17 01:52:56 PM  

DamnYankees: Boehner IS a GOP House Moderate, relatively speaking. I'd say that Boehner is easily in the quarter of the most moderate GOP House members.


He cares too much about his job, so the fringe right has him by the nuts.  If Democrats agreed to cooperate on a coup, they would only need I think 18 Republicans to revolt.  It would still be a Republican speaker, but not one who was willing to do bullshiat like the "Hastert Rule".
 
2013-07-17 01:53:34 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.


It's hilarious that you think the recess appointments are the cause of the obstruction. Causality - it only works one way, friend.
 
2013-07-17 01:54:40 PM  

Hollie Maea: DamnYankees: Boehner IS a GOP House Moderate, relatively speaking. I'd say that Boehner is easily in the quarter of the most moderate GOP House members.

He cares too much about his job, so the fringe right has him by the nuts.  If Democrats agreed to cooperate on a coup, they would only need I think 18 Republicans to revolt.  It would still be a Republican speaker, but not one who was willing to do bullshiat like the "Hastert Rule".


That would never, ever, ever happen. Like, ever.
 
2013-07-17 02:02:06 PM  

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.
 
2013-07-17 02:06:39 PM  
You know the GOP is screwed when DOING THEIR DAMN JOBS makes national news.

On track to be an even bigger do nothing Congress than last session...
 
2013-07-17 02:14:07 PM  

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


Then how to explain that those two nominees were filibustereded BEFORE the recess appointments even happened? That the only reason they were appointed "in recess" in the first place was because they couldn't get an up-or-down vote prior?

Also, for the Cordray nomination, the GOP was apparently against it (because he's the libbiest lib in the world) from December 2011 when cloture missed by 7 votes (and the GOP voted 45-2 to continue debate) until yesterday when 66 Senators supported it. With fewer Democrats in the chamber this time around.
 
2013-07-17 02:18:18 PM  
Filibustering in general should be cause for...I'm not advocating violence against an elected official but the whole process is farked up.
 
2013-07-17 02:18:22 PM  
Yes - but - it's not humiliating enough.
 
2013-07-17 02:22:45 PM  

DamnYankees: That would never, ever, ever happen. Like, ever.


I'm sure you are right, but it could.  I'm thinking about those legendary house members that everyone assures us would vote for the Senate immigration bill if it were brought up for a vote.  They like to piss and moan anonymously about how the fringe is ruining their parties chances, but they do have the power to do something about it if they were brave enough to give Boehner the finger and throw his ass out of the Big Chair.  The big lesson I learned from this filibuster fight is that there is a small number of Republicans that are freaked out about their toilet bowl approval numbers and are willing to give things up to the Democrats with nothing in return.  At least there is in the Senate.  I don't see why the house would be different--just because the crazies have Boehner by the nuts doesn't mean that there are not John McCain types in somewhere within their 234 member caucus.  But yeah, you are right...not going to happen.
 
2013-07-17 02:25:08 PM  

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

Then how to explain that those two nominees were filibustereded BEFORE the recess appointments even happened? That the only reason they were appointed "in recess" in the first place was because they couldn't get an up-or-down vote prior?

Also, for the Cordray nomination, the GOP was apparently against it (because he's the libbiest lib in the world) from December 2011 when cloture missed by 7 votes (and the GOP voted 45-2 to continue debate) until yesterday when 66 Senators supported it. With fewer Democrats in the chamber this time around.


I'm no GOP apologist and I don't explain or excuse that.

What the president and the senate majority have done and threatened to do is a far bigger issue though.

If the game isn't going your way you don't get to just ignore the rules.
 
2013-07-17 02:26:38 PM  

JesseL: What the president and the senate majority have done and threatened to do is a far bigger issue though.


HAHA. Love it.
 
2013-07-17 02:27:37 PM  

DamnYankees: JesseL: What the president and the senate majority have done and threatened to do is a far bigger issue though.

HAHA. Love it.


Right. Fark the constitution.
 
2013-07-17 02:27:48 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.


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.
 
2013-07-17 02:28:51 PM  
About farking time. If the republicans want to be relevant in the next election, they're going to have to start now. Inaction hasn't stopped Obama from following Nixon, Regan, et. al. into a de-regulated surveillance state.

The turtle, able to shut out the rest of the world and survive the attempted penetration of logic, is a fine symbol for the new Republican party, just as the new Democratic symbol ought to be a flatworm. Spineless and easy to run over.

/Still voting next election.
//Things don't get better if you do nothing.
 
2013-07-17 02:29:11 PM  

JesseL: Right. Fark the constitution.


1) In some circumstances, yes.
2) That being said, that's not what happened here, and you either know that and are arguing in bad faith, or you only barely understand the issue.
 
2013-07-17 02:30:06 PM  

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.
 
2013-07-17 02:30:21 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.


Would you like me to post why you're trolling or do you already have an idea?
 
2013-07-17 02:31:27 PM  

JesseL: Right. Fark the constitution.


You had no problem when Bush was doing it right?
 
2013-07-17 02:34:56 PM  

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)
 
2013-07-17 02:35:53 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)


For those who don't know, the recess why this is is that once Obama took office, the Senate GOP invented a basically new tactic of never going into recess. Even though no one is there, they just don't declare a recess.
 
2013-07-17 02:36:51 PM  
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."

No better than... pretending that the Senate *is* in session, even though they refuse to vote on appointments or legislation, simply because they're in the building?
 
2013-07-17 02:37:21 PM  

DamnYankees: For those who don't know, the recess why this is is that once Obama took office, the Senate GOP invented a basically new tactic of never going into recess. Even though no one is there, they just don't declare a recess.


Yes, and the notion that this procedural chicanery is on the up and up is simply ludicrous.
 
2013-07-17 02:40:06 PM  

Rwa2play: JesseL: Right. Fark the constitution.

You had no problem when Bush was doing it right?


Wrong.

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?
 
2013-07-17 02:40:52 PM  

ringersol: 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."

No better than... pretending that the Senate *is* in session, even though they refuse to vote on appointments or legislation, simply because they're in the building?


They AREN'T in the building, actually. That's the novel tactic here.
 
2013-07-17 02:42:02 PM  

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?
 
2013-07-17 02:44:53 PM  

DamnYankees: For those who don't know, the recess why this is is that once Obama took office, the Senate GOP invented a basically new tactic of never going into recess. Even though no one is there, they just don't declare a recess.


That's...incorrect.

As I recall, Bush recess-appointed a host of people, so during the next scheduled recess, the Senate, so as to not enter an official recess, gaveled pro-forma sessions of ~5mins every day to prevent more appointments. Do you remember the talk of the nuclear option in 2005? That was the GOP ready to kill the filibuster - pretty much this exact scenario, only the parties were reversed.

// this time, Obama tried to argue that the pro-forma sessions weren't "Senate business", as nothing got done
// the Court figures that the Senate does so little even when they ARE in session, the only way to tell is to figure whether someone banged a page gavel to open the proceedings
 
2013-07-17 02:46:38 PM  

Dr Dreidel: As I recall, Bush recess-appointed a host of people, so during the next scheduled recess, the Senate, so as to not enter an official recess, gaveled pro-forma sessions of ~5mins every day to prevent more appointments. Do you remember the talk of the nuclear option in 2005? That was the GOP ready to kill the filibuster - pretty much this exact scenario, only the parties were reversed.


Unless I'm mistaken, that was about judicial appointments, not executive appointments, no?
 
2013-07-17 02:47:43 PM  
agallantidea.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-17 02:49:56 PM  
DamnYankees: "They AREN'T in the building, actually."

The joke was that they ought not be considered *in* session, even when they *are* there. Because they, quite intentionally, haven't done shiat in years.
I'm just here for the pot-shots.

The actual dick-waving back and forth about whether lawyer trick A (refusing to declare recess, even when they go home) is better/worse than lawyer trick B (re-defining 'recess' to mean 'everyone gone home' instead of 'declared recess') is generally disinteresting.
 
2013-07-17 02:55:54 PM  

DamnYankees: Unless I'm mistaken, that was about judicial appointments, not executive appointments, no?


Is there a Constitutional difference (in the "advice and consent" part)?

Anyway, this fight is the next round of that one. I thought it was an oversight to not include that piece.
 
2013-07-17 02:57:41 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Is there a Constitutional difference (in the "advice and consent" part)?


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 it was up to me, I'd abolish the filibuster for all of it. But i'm just saying it's not the same thing.
 
2013-07-17 03:12:17 PM  
Ahhh ... the Hunchback of Arizona fu**ed America again. Seems to be a Special Hobby with McCain, as if he had a chip put in his brian while at the Hanoi Hilton or something ...
 
2013-07-17 03:15:45 PM  

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!
 
2013-07-17 03:19:54 PM  

DamnYankees: Boehner IS a GOP House Moderate, relatively speaking. I'd say that Boehner is easily in the quarter of the most moderate GOP House members.


He is also so spineless he makes Reid look like Teddy Roosevelt. The man is constitutionally incapable of leading.
 
2013-07-17 03:20:14 PM  

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.
 
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 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report