Im still saying youre wrong. Both sides do it. Dems are not bitching cause they cant stop it. Reps tried to stop it earlier.
Barry Bonds and Mario Mendoza were both baseball players with alliterative names. I guess they are really just the same.
Don’t think it ever came to vote.
On edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/us/politics/27cong.html
The whole concept of new rules being adopted on the first day of a new session of the Senate is flawed. Employing the nuclear option on day one of a new session of the Senate is exactly the same as employing the nuclear option on any other day of session. My guess is that senators came to this conclusion and found no reason that they had to act on his proposal at all.
Note: by nuclear option, I mean employing the general rules of the Senate to allow 51 members to vote for a precedent that would overrule a specific rule of the Senate that would require 67 votes to actually rewrite. In other words, the use of some general rules in order to violate other more specific rules.
… when thwarted on the removal of filibuster vote, the Udall faction introduced a couple of other bills with changes to procedures:
Update: The Udall/Merkley/Harkin filibuster reform package failed with 44 votes in favor, 51 against. The stand-alone Merkley “talking filibuster” proposal failed with 46 votes in favor, 49 against.
As for the OP, I agree with those suggesting that the Court should stay out of Congress’s business. And I’m against the “gentleman’s filibuster” (i.e., the procedural filibuster), although I don’t think it’s unconstitutional.
But the charts being cited don’t necessarily support the proposition they’re being cited for.
First, the charts show cloture votes, not filibusters. Not every filibuster gets a cloture vote. And not every cloture vote is used to stop a filibuster. So it may be true that filibusters have become increasingly common. But these charts don’t show that; they show that cloture votes have become increasingly more common. Instead of showing that each successive minority party uses the filibuster more often, the charts actually show that each successive majority party tries to restrict debate more often.
Second, I’m a little baffled by Whack-a-Mole’s assertion that the charts show that Republicans increase the number of filibusters, and then Democrats maintain that number, and then Republicans increase it again. That’s simply not consistent with the numbers presented in the charts.
Third, I think the charts unfairly compare pre-1975 cloture votes with post-1975 cloture votes. As far as I can tell, the procedural filibuster was instituted in 1975. So it’s unfair to compare the number of filibusters prior to 1975, with the number of filibusters after 1975, when filibusters became much, much easier.
That also means that before 1975, cloture typically would not have been used to end a filibuster. The whole point of a filibuster was that one person starts talking and refuses to allow anyone else to bring up any official business, including cloture votes. So cloture could only be invoked before a filibuster started. It could not be used to end a filibuster in progress. (That obviously changed in 1975.)
It’s also unfair to compare pre- and post-1975 because the number of votes necessary to invoke cloture changed from 2/3rds to 3/5ths. You normally wouldn’t expect cloture to be invoked unless a) the majority leader thought he/she had sufficient votes to win; or b) they were doing it for some political reason. So there probably wouldn’t be as many votes to invoke cloture before the required number of votes was dropped to 3/5ths.
Strawmen burn hot and fast.
Failed to pass.
It was Senate Resolution 8.
It failed 84-12, with four senators not voting.
It’s easier to list those who did vote it: the sponsor, Tom Harkin (D-NM); co-sponsors, Barbara Michulski (D-MD), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH); and the following:
Begich (D-AK)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI),
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Only eleven Democrats and one Independent (a former Democrat who caucuses with the Dems) voted YEA. Feinstein, Hutchinson, Inouye, and McCain did not vote.
The filibuster itself, used sparingly, is a useful check on a majority.
Escalating the use of the filibuster (by double, in many cases) as an obstructionist tactic is the actual wrong.
Jesus. What a pack of wussies the Senate is.
Worst arguments have few words.
It should have been filibustered.
Apparently, you are the expert on this topic.
If Reps take the White House, guess what they have to look forward too…
The same argument is being said differently over and over. Doesnt matter how many different ways you say it.
All I hear so far is Kool Aid rebuttals.
If you check out my link from earlier, it talks about Senators who won concessions on revisions to the filibuster rules by … uhhh, … filibustering the changes.
Delicious.
Where is it wrong?
I am not saying it is an exact thing but you can see the trend pretty clearly (especially in the latest switch to a republican minority).
If you have not noticed the incredible amount of obstructionism being done by the republicans in the senate since they lost it in 2008 you have not been paying attention.
They have nearly doubled the number of filibusters.
They are so intent on blocking anything from getting done they are blocking stuff they used to support.
In your world this is all equivalent to what dems have done. One has to wonder who is the one drinking the Kool Aid (hint, go look in a mirror).
This is a legitimate point, but since the vast majority of filibusters are procedural only, how can one count the number of dogs that literally are not barking?
No u r
Ironic, isnt it.
Which of the three bars on that chart are you referring to in your original analysis?