Leaving aside that the *proper *thing to do is to introduce the appropriate repeal legislation, instead of this passive-aggressive acting-out, just what sort of “steamrolling” do you think the consumer protection agency would/will do? Are you referring to it perhaps interfering with the short-term financial interests of the Republicans’ patrons and sponsors, or do you mean something else?
I forgot one word. This clearly makes my statement invalid. :rolleyes: Let’s try this again…
“The idea that both sides of the issue are equivalent is quite often entirely a farce. And you know what? This is a case where we have documented evidence of obstructionism. Not preventing steamrolling, obstructionism. You know how I know this? From the article on the OP!”
Yeah, I’m mad. Stupidity pisses me off.
As does willful ignorance and a commitment to twisting factual information to fit a parochial world view. They KNOW that the Republicans are abusing the filibuster. They don’t care.
Yes. Democrats “abused” it. Now Republicans are “abusing” it. As soon as Democrats lose their majority in the Senate, they will be “abusing” it again.
In what way did the Democrats “abuse” it?
With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.
And that compares *unfavorably *with the Republicans’ practice of not even letting Clinton’s judicial nominees even come up for a vote? :dubious: Try a little harder. And you do need some lessons in drawing false equivalences more credibly.
Will you reply to the question about what sort of “steamrolling” you expect the consumer protection agency to do, or won’t you?
I never looked at it. That’s not the point. Some Republicans think that they were being steamrolled by the creation of the agency (just like some Democrats thought they were being steamrolled by appointing all those judges during Bush era). So they used (or “abused” if you prefer) the filibuster the prevent being steamrolled.
You asked for an example of Democrats using (or “abusing” if you prefer) the filibuster. You got it. Don’t complain.
I dunno about him, but I would love to see an example in the last 40 years when a Democrat abuse of the system wasn’t a roughly equivalent tit-for-tat retaliation for something the Republicans did last time they had the majority.
I have much less sympathy for the party who STARTS playing rough.
what is this, a kindergarten playground?
And you have no idea why they would do that? You’re supporting the childish methods your party is using to stop it, but you don’t know why? 
Of course you do; you just can’t admit it, perhaps not even to yourself. Now try a little responsibility here, and recognize if you can’t honestly answer a question honestly and respectably then the problem is entirely yours. This indeed is not kindergarten.
The “why” is not relevant to the subject matter. I also had no idea “why” Democrats objected to all those Bush federal judiciary appointments. Do you? Without googling?
Why? Because they wanted to, so they did.
And do you know what Senate Republicans had to say about it at the time? Let’s see, shall we?
[ul] [li]Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”[/li][li] Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “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.”[/li][li] 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. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years.”[/li][li] John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.[/li][li] 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 because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”[/li][li] Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional”[/li][li] Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”[/li][li] Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): “[T]he Constitution envisions a 51-vote majority for judgeships…. [Filibustering judges] amend[s] the Constitution without going through the proper processes…. We have a majority rule that is the tradition of the Senate with judges. It is the constitutional requirement.”[/li][li] Jon Kyl (R-AZ): “The President was elected fair and square. He has the right to submit judicial nominees and it is the Senate’s obligation under the Constitution to act on those nominees.”[/li][li] 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. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”[/li][li] Jeff Sessions (R- AL): “[The Constitution] says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply ‘shall advise and consent’ on nominations…. I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean … confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote.”[/li][li] Richard Shelby (R-AL): “Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it.”[/li][li] John Thune (SD): Filibustering judicial nominees “is contrary to our Constitution …. It was the Founders’ intention that the Senate dispose of them with a simple majority vote.” [/ul] Do you know what happened next? I bet you don’t. Let me enlighten you. [/li]
Republican leader Bill Frist threatened to change the Senate rules to ban judicial filibusters outright. So 14 senators got together; 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans, and hammered out an agreement. Democrats would no longer block judicial nominees from an up or down vote except in “extraordinary circumstances,” and in exchange Republicans promised not to change the Senate rules.
Democrats were good to their word from 2005 throughout the remainder of Bush’s term. Now that Obama is president, can Republicans be equally counted on to be good to their word? Are they a principled group who maintain their position regardless of the party in the White House? Is there a “real Constitutional crisis” if a democratic president’s judicial nominee is filibustered? Is the Constitution still “at stake”?
Apparently not.
On Tuesday, Senate Republicans voted nearly unanimously to block Caitlan Halligan’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
There was only one principled Senator among them: Lisa Murkowski.
By the way, of the seven Republican senators who worked to come to the original agreement with the democrats to stop filibustering judicial nominees, four are still serving; John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Olympia J. Snowe, and Susan Collins.
I have my opinion as to who the bigger pieces of scum are. The ones who clearly either have no principles or who aren’t the least bit concerned with tossing them out with the Constitution whenever they feel the need.
Great. And now Republicans want to, so they do.
In opposition to their previously-held position that doing so creates a Constitutional crisis and in spite of an agreement not to, that Democrats held to for the final 4 years of Bush’s term.
But you just skipped right on over that part. Gee, I wonder why. Probably have no principles yourself.
All that matters is winning.
Of course. In politics, it’s only a “Constitutional crisis” if you’re not getting your way.
See, Democrats “wanted to, so they did”. And now Republicans “want to, so they do”. Except back then Democrats tried to bluff, then folded like little girls. And Republicans are not folding now.
ROTFLMAO. Principles. In politics. You’re funny.
I can see that by their idiotic follow ups that think expecting our elected representatives to have some goddam principles is a fucking joke. Thank G-d Occupy is leading the charge to start holding these shitstains to the fire, regardless of party.
Republicans, in general, don’t care how Democracy works.
The most important thing for Republican politics is to keep social superiority where they think it belongs… to white male Christians.
That reason explains everything.