Nuclear Option Conservatives Embrace Permanent Filibuster For A Permanent Occupation
Nuclear Option Conservatives Embrace Permanent Filibuster For A Permanent Occupation
Tonight, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) will keep the Senate “working through the night” in an effort to force conservatives to stand and filibuster the Levin/Reed plan for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
The same conservatives filibustering tonight were singing a different tune two years ago. When Democrats held up the confirmation of a few of President Bush’s right-wing judicial nominees, conservatives repeatedly complained of “obstructionism.”
Senate conservatives had threatened to deploy the “nuclear option,” which would have eliminated the traditional Senate practice of filibustering.
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): “[Filibustering] is wrong. It’s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I’m perfectly prepared to blow the place up.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spokesman: “Senator McConnell always has and continues to fully support the use of what has become known as the ‘[nuclear]’ option in order to restore the norms and traditions of the Senate.”
Today, however, these conservatives are proposing the exact opposite of the nuclear option — a permanent filibuster. The Washington Post reports today that McConnell has requested that all Iraq amendments meet a 60 vote threshold, an effort designed to quietly block withdrawal legislation from ever passing the Senate:
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell responded to Reid with a counteroffer: an automatic 60-vote threshold for all key Iraq amendments, eliminating the time-consuming process of clearing procedural hurdles. … [A]ll the controversial war-related votes held since Democrats took control of the Senate in January have required 60 “yeas” to pass.
“It’s a shame that we find ourselves in the position that we’re in,” McConnell said. “It produces a level of animosity and unity on the minority side that makes it more difficult for the majority to pass important legislation.”
Conservatives who decried obstructionism when advocating for an up-or-down vote on Bush’s right-wing judicial nominees today stand in the way of an up-or-down vote on withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Bill Scher has more.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Permanent filibuster for a permanent occupation, that is….
But, the war has been immoral and illegal from the very start. There is no constitutional authority for the war to continue because it was unconstitutional from the beginning.
All the billions and billions of dollars spent, the nearly 2 million dead since 1991, and is Iraq better off? I’d say no.
Some reading:
“Is the World a Better Place with Saddam Gone?”
July 17th, 2007 at 1:09 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/ is_the_world_a_better_place_with_saddam_gone
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
hy·poc·ri·sy (hÄ-pÅk’rÄ-sÄ“) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.
It’s about the hypocrisy, people.
Maybe it’s a GOP strategery to innoculate the voting populace against their characteristic hypocrisy by injecting a massive dose of it into the public newsstream in a single two-week period?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:10 pmYeah but they wanted to blow it up over a scotus nominee, right?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:10 pmThis is about national security. They see Demcorats hurting national security.
I think you TPer’s are confused. You somehow think that our party has integrity, and that we can somehow be embarrassed by inconsistences in our political logic. Stupid, stupid libs.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:10 pmIt’s no different than the Democrats not releasing the Duke Cunningham investigation report.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:11 pmCorrected:
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): “[Filibustering] is wrong. It’s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I’m perfectly prepared to blow Mitch McConnell.â€
July 17th, 2007 at 1:12 pmBald faced hyprocrites. Who would have known?
-GSD
July 17th, 2007 at 1:12 pm#1, thanks for the suggestion! we used it in our title
July 17th, 2007 at 1:12 pmI hope they do the Dodd plan again…let them filibuster on that and get it on record how little support the GOP actually gives the troops - other than lip service.
Way to support ‘em!
I am in DC on biz right now and would pay money to see this!!
July 17th, 2007 at 1:13 pmHaw Haw!
July 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pmNo. 3,
The threat of the nuclear option was over a handful of appeals court nominations that Bush and his loyalists tried to cram down the throat of then-minority party over and over and over.
There was not much conflict over the SCOTUS nominees as there probably should have been.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pmCorrected:
“It’s a shame that we find ourselves in the position that we’re in.†(buck-naked, oiled-up, and with your ass in the air)
July 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pmYou are the Borg.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:15 pmThe Republicans are a runaway train heading straight for ruin. The sad part is that we are all being dragged there with them.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pmkelso-
July 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pmYeah, and?
To quote the Jackass in Chief: Bring it on!
If the Republicans really want to stand up and show their asses by obstructing legislation that the population needs and supports, maybe the media will finally notice.
Every Republican position is indefensible. The louder and longer they talk, the more clear it will be that they are selfish, desperate, and incoherent–a threat to the nation, to the world, and to one another.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pmThere the “Do as I say, not as I do” Republicans. And you see it again and again. Self-righteous declarations followed by flip-flops when the tables are turned.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:17 pmThe scary thing is if the Republicans filibustered by reading transcripts of all their hypocritical comments, ethics violation reports, and court transcripts of their corruption evidence they might be able to pull off a permanent filibuster.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:20 pmGot it, it’s okay for dems to do it, but not republicans.
Comment by yep — July 17, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Jesus Christ, these trolls are dense.
I’ll type slowly so you can understand:
McConnell and Lott (among others) both condemned the filibuster as “obstructionist” when they had a six-seat majority. Presumably, when one makes a statement like that, it is not contingent on the momentary political circumstances, or else he should qualify it as such.
Now, suddenly, one disastrous election cycle later, they have embraced the once-”obstructionist” filibuster as no other minority ever has.
Personally, I think the filibuster has its place in the Senate and Republicans have every bit as much right to use it as did the Democrats.
The thing is, the Republicans said one thing a year ago, and say the complete opposite today. What do you folks call that? Flip-flopping? Well, we just call it “HYPOCRISY”.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pmI don’t doubt for a minute the Republicans would have gone nuclear to stop the Dem filibuster, then reinstate the filibuster later, for just such occasion. Nothing wrong with that since the majority writes the rules.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pmThe answer is simple: table the defense spending bill until the Republicans agree to returning our troops home in a separate bill. With no defense allocations for next fiscal year our troops will be home in a month or two.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pmWas watching CNN Headline Noise while exercising. They reported this story in such a confusing, twisted convoluted way I’m not sure “Joe Sixpack” would understand it. Also, it was the 3rd or 4th story (the steroidal dead wrestler folllowed it). CNN essentially “watered” the story down to make it seem meaningless.
The Democrats cannot win, even when they attempt something original, when the corporate media runs interference for the administration. Its like running uphill into a 45 mph wind.
Also, not one minute from CNN about Habeas Corpus Restoration (S-185) which comes up for vote this week. Nor a minute about Harriet Miers still being in contempt of court.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:23 pmWhy is that Republicans are ALWAYS producing the most aggressive tactics whether they are in the majority or minority? It’s time for Dems to fight back with more than blanks.
Reid should be pushing his own “Nuclear Option” right down the Repubs throats and see how they like it.
I am just so damn tired of Repubs outmaneuvering Dems in Congress.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:23 pm22. Agreed. I think the rules should be re-written daily so that the majority party can do whatever they want….but only when Republicans are in the majority. It shouldn’t be allowed for those Dems though.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:25 pmWould not an an automatic 60-vote threshold for all key Iraq amendments possibly be unconstitutional?
Isn’t it making a new class of Bill?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI don’t think one night will not be enough to break the Republican ranks. It’s going to take longer than that. Two or three weeks? Now we’re talking.
The Dems could actually come off weaker in the end if they give in after only a one or two long nights. The Dems need to keep the Senate in session day in and day out until we get a good Iraq bill passed. Our country and our troops deserve it. And, a little side benefit, the GOP will be exposed for the hypocrites, chickenhawks, and Bush buddies they are.
Make the GOP read telephone books! Make them defend the President! Just don’t make this easy on them. Tonight will be a first step. I hope the Senate leadership is willing to go all the way.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:25 pmMcConnell has requested that all Iraq amendments meet a 60 vote threshold
oy… i am confused… and a little ignorant of the process, evidently…
how can this happen, if he is minority?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:25 pmwhat is this all about? … simply, please…
…
*
July 17th, 2007 at 1:27 pmTP - when was that picture above taken?
?
Do whatever you need to do, boys! Make me proud.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:27 pmLet them do it! Remember how Newtie shut down the government? It didn’t work and the Rs looked bad. Same thing here - Dems trying to move legislation, Rs blocking at every turn. Keep their feet to the fire - make them explain why it’s going to take 60 votes to pass anything - let the country see what nasty bullies and sore losers they are.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:28 pmFake Jake it’s not like anyone would notice.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:29 pmRasmussen Reports 51% Say Wait Till September for Iraq Policy Change.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ public_content/ politics/ 51_say_wait_till_september_for_iraq_policy_change
Gee why hasn’t TP reported this? Answer, toady control.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:31 pmOkay, they refuse to appear when subpoenaed, they basically ignore law and there are no repercussions. Not to mention lying to gain support for an invasion that should never have happened. Let’s not forget that they very likely supported the horrible attack on 911 for various reasons . . . the list of crimes is endless and with no accountability in sight. Now, they plan to destroy our form of government all-together.
It is really getting out of control now.
I’m a little concerned about what else will be happening over the next year or so. I’d guess since they’re pimping the fear AQ idea again we’ll see another attack that they use their media to blame on whoever they choose at the time. Iran sounds like a good candidate since it is plain to see that they want endless war for their corporate butt buddies.
We had better band together while we can still get within 50 miles of them and drag their asses out of Washington by hand.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:31 pmYou are probably right Fake LandSurveyor.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:32 pmAnd that photo! Whenever there is a photo of Republican ‘leaders’ it’s always supremely ugly old white men. Ugh - some one needs to tell them that they are NOT a credit to their race. Okay, I’ll volunteer.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pmAnd the rethugs went nucular
July 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pmITMFA!
July 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm“You are probably right Fake LandSurveyor.”
Comment by Jake
Fake Land Surveyor
def.
George W. Bush’s personal MRI technician.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:35 pmI’d call out McConnell as a Queen on the floor and present him with a pink dress.
“I’m perfectly prepared to blow” Trent Lott ,…I bet
Gloves off with these Fascist HomoRepubloFuc* tards.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:36 pmIn accordance with the original script, all members of the one party system have colluded to bring the US Congress to a grinding halt, while the shadow government launches its next (nuclear) offensive against the US homeland in order to serve was the pretext for taking over all of the oil fields in the middle east and killing the people who live there - with nukes.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThe thing is, the dems have used filibusters before and now that the republicans are doing they are now saying it is obstructionist. That is the hypocrisy. Did Reid say that dems were being obstructionists in 2003?
Comment by yep — July 17, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
So you admit that the Republican leadership is hypocritical.
Reid is not threatening to do away with the filibuster. He is manuvering within the rules. Republicans wanted to change the rules when they had a safe majority in order to preserve their power. Big difference.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:37 pm“Would not an an automatic 60-vote threshold for all key Iraq amendments possibly be unconstitutional?”
Almost certainly not. This would be a “gentleman’s agreement,” rather than a formal rules change. Moreover, the Senate sets its own rules and the Constitution gives them great latitude in so doing.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pmThe thing is, the dems have used filibusters before and now that the republicans are doing they are now saying it is obstructionist. That is the hypocrisy. Did Reid say that dems were being obstructionists in 2003?
Comment by yep
_______________________________
The thing is, the repubs have previously denounced the filibuster and obstructionist tactics and now that the democrats are trying to get out of an ill-advised and operated attack and occupation of another country they are now calling the filibuster and the obstructionist tactics laudable. That is the hypocrisy. Is Lott calling the repubs’ filibustering threat unConstitutional and threatening to “blow the place up”?
comment by nope
July 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pmReid should be pushing his own “Nuclear Option†right down the Repubs throats and see how they like it.
I am just so damn tired of Repubs outmaneuvering Dems in Congress.
Comment by Mark @ News Corpse — July 17, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
The “nuclear option” they are all enabling is the option to nuke the middle east…they are fiddling while Rome burns…on purpose.
Pelosi is doing EXACTLY what AIPAC demands of her - as are all of the rest of them.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pmWasn’t the nuclear option before going to only apply to Judicial nominees?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm“The thing is, the dems have used filibusters before and now that the republicans are doing they are now saying it is obstructionist.”
Yup. Nor are they hypocritical in so doing, since they never denied they were being obstructionist at that time.
The Senate Democrats are not saying that the Republicans cannot filibuster; they are saying that if they want to filibuster, let’s make them actually do it, and be quite clear about what they are doing. There is not one shred of hypocrisy in this stance.
What would potentially be hypocritical would be for the Democrats to propose a “nuclear option” rule change that would prohibit such filibusters, a tactic that, as far as I know, is not currently on the table.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:40 pm#37 Keith H.
Your plan to overthrow the Government by force or violence is unconstitutional and treasonous. I would suggest an alternative: When we get within fifty miles of them we hold out one hand holding a can of oil and a listing of the legal brothels in Nevada, the other hand we offer them to hold while we lead them to the wonderland in Kansas (Leavenworth for you uneducated trolls).
July 17th, 2007 at 1:42 pm“Today, however, these conservatives are proposing the exact opposite of the nuclear option — a permanent filibuster.”
by TP
Does TP not see the hypocrisy of the Democrats? Republicans have taken the stand that the Democrats took back when Democrats wanted to filibuster and Democrats have taken the position that Republicans had taken back when the Democrats wouldn’t confirm Bush’s judges.
Seems to me that the hypocrisy is from side. Of course Liberals aren’t honest enough to report hypocrisy from the Democrats.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:42 pmHe is calling the republicans obstructionists now, but did not say the dems were when they were doing ths same thing. There is no difference here.
Comment by yep
Quote please. Where do you find Reid calling Republics “obstructionists”?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:42 pmControlled choice and other forms of desegregation benefit minority students………..
What’s this about controlled choice!?…Thats’ not choice..not to mention that ” I HAVE NO CHOICE”..That’s not equal rights or even equal protection. I understand that that quote from a editor some where in here is about race and schools…but controlling choice is considered on both Controversial issues.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pmRasmussen Reports 51% Say Wait Till September for Iraq Policy Change.
“Gee why hasn’t TP reported this? Answer, toady control.”
Comment by Troll — July 17, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
And, out of the 51%, approximately 31%,
are just wanting to get back to school,
or past the Labor Day last beer blast of summer
before they have to worry about anything like accountability for allowing the fiasco to continue.
And another 18% are already thinking ahead to Christmas.
That leaves you with that same old 2% who have the money, and depend upon the corporate military juggernaut to keep grinding on.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pm“He is calling the republicans obstructionists now, but did not say the dems were when they were doing ths same thing. There is no difference here.”
Bullshit.
1. The Democrats at that time knew precisely what they were doing and did not deny it, so far as I know. Of course they were obstructing; they were quite open about doing so and about why they were doing it.
2. The Republicans at that time were angry at the Democratic tactics, arguing vociferously for a “nuclear option,” arguing that what the Democrats were doing was “unconstitutional,” and so on.
3. The Republicans now are engaging in precisely the same tactics that they decried in that earlier time. In fact, they’re engaging it far more often and over far more popular bills. They are quite happy to do so and are openly acknowledging that they are doing what they themselves decried not too long ago (Trent Lott being the most notable hypocrite in the bunch).
4. The Democrats now are not claiming that what the Republicans are doing is unconstitutional, nor are they proposing a “nuclear option.”
In short, the hypocrisy, so far, is all on one side.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pmHere is the thing, if withdrawl of Iraq is so popular, Reid should easily get the 60 votes he would need, right? why worry about the filibuster, right?
hmmmmmmm……..Maybe the left in America has been lying all along about Americans wanting the troops to withdraw….hmmmmmmm……..
July 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pmI have to agree with spit take. There is a difference. Mitchell was going to stop the use of fillibusters with the Nuclear option. Reid is calling the republicans bluff and calling on them to use the fillibuster.
Both sides have been obstructionists from time to time. Name any member who would call his own party obstructionist and I’ll show you a former congressman.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pmNothing angers a troll more than displaying for them and others in very simple words the worst behavior of those they advocate.
The angrier and more disruptive they get, the surer the aim.
Back to the subject, summary: Democrats want Republicans to actually show up and filibuster if the Republicans threaten to filibuster to stop a law that would halt a war that a) was started on lies b) we can’t afford c) has not accomplished a single objective, and d) has no end in sight.
There are only two groups of people that have prospered from the Iraq war: Oil investors and Al Queda. I suspect the two are linked, and their most common connection is the Bush Administration.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pm“Where do you find Reid calling Republics ‘obstructionists’”
I rather suspect he did, or words to that effect. The real effort will be to find a quote from Reid that pretended that the Democrats at that earlier time weren’t seeking to block legislation and nominations, since of course they were.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:45 pmComment by yep — July 17, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
This one is dumber than a bug.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pmStand and fillibuster, Itchy Mitchy, until your skunk breath runs out.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pmKeep a bottle of ol’ Remedy nearby, cause you won’t be getting your usual nip after dinner. Oh, the take out’s real good in D.C., you’ll be getting your dinner in a sack for a month or two.
“It’s a shame that we find ourselves in the position that we’re in,†McConnell said. “It produces a level of animosity and unity on the minority side that makes it more difficult for the majority to pass important legislation.â€
Yes. What a shame. Having to play obstructionist instead of being able to advance legislation.
But keep it up. Filibustering with a position most Americans are against, obstructing legislation most Americans want, and your blatant hypocrisy will only serve to bury you all.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pm“but so is Reid for having no problem with the Dems doing it but now has a problem with the republicans doing the same thing.”
Really? So he’s told them that what they are doing is against the rules? Is unconstitutional? That he’s going to propose a “nuclear option” to prevent them from doing it? All that? Where can I find these quotes, please?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:48 pmhow can this happen, if he is minority?
what is this all about? … simply, please…
…
Comment by katy — July 17, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
* crickets *
ok, then… and i even said “please”…
gotta go now… was supposed to be on the road hours ago…
July 17th, 2007 at 1:48 pmwaiting for a thunderstorm to pass… time to go now…
thanks anyway…
…
I have to agree with spit take. There is a difference. Mitchell was going to stop the use of fillibusters with the Nuclear option. Reid is calling the republicans bluff and calling on them to use the fillibuster.
Both sides have been obstructionists from time to time. Name any member who would call his own party obstructionist and I’ll show you a former congressman.
Comment by hellinabucket — July 17, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Well, I don’t think there is a difference, but you are very right that both parties have called each other obstructionist party when being in the majority.
this is politics in America which has been going on for over 200 years.
PaulB and others need to go back to the 40+ years that the Congress was controlled by Democrats and they will be shocked to find that in the past Democrats have also threatened with the nuclear obtion and I believe actually used the nuclear option.
Once again, we see the hypocrisy of the Democrats.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:49 pm“This one is dumber than a bug.”
Nah, just a classic troll.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:49 pm#4 ~ My tax dollars shouldn’t be subsidizing [veterans’] healthcare. They should use Humana and Blue Cross like everybody else. Can’t afford insurance? Cry me a river.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:51 pm~Comment by Patrick1
Nah, just a classic troll.
Comment by PaulB — July 17, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Well, I say he is a troll AND dumber than a bug.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pm“Hypocrisy” implies sentience, but I don’t think Republicans are really sentient.
Whether they’re stealing elections, sending people to be tortured, or buggering underage girls, Republicans apply no ethical considerations to their behavior.
Wingers are not really human beings. They are stimulus-response mechanisms scrabbling to survive by any means possible–like tapeworms.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pmI’m all for requiring them to do the old-fashioned all-nighters…and not just for one night. Let them filibuster one bill, tying up Congress and not passing any legislation whatsoever until January 2009.
Let the Republican Senators + Joe Lieberman work 24/7 until the troops come home!
July 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#25 Reid should be pushing his own “Nuclear Option†right down the Repubs throats and see how they like it.
Sadly, that would require a new organizing resolution, which needs 51 votes. Which we don’t have, since Lieberman would never go along, and might even use that occasion to switch parties.
Until we have a solid majority in the senate, we are stuck with this organizing resolution, which means 60 votes to invoke cloture, and Lieberman’s committee chair.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pmHey troll:
got any other poll results you want to send up for consideration?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pmWell, I say he is a troll AND dumber than a bug.
Comment by VerbalKint
It’s part of the definition. Probably has to type by bouncing on the keys with his head.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pm“I don’t doubt for a minute the Republicans would have gone nuclear to stop the Dem filibuster, then reinstate the filibuster later, for just such occasion. Nothing wrong with that since the majority writes the rules.”
You are correct that there may have been nothing wrong with that in a strictly legal sense.
In an ethical sense, though, there is a great deal wrong with it.
In any case, there were quite a few liberal bloggers at the time who were pointing out that this would almost certainly come back to bite the Republicans in the ass had they made this rule change and were practically begging the Democrats to call their bluff. In hindsight, that may well have been the right thing to do, politically speaking, since it wouldn’t have affected too many outcomes in the past Congressional term, and it would have have been hilarious watching Senate Republicans, and their panderers, get apoplectic in their inability to block legislation in this term.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pm“Well, I say he is a troll AND dumber than a bug.”
It’s definitely true that the two are not mutually exclusive. It’s usually nearly impossible to tell, though, since one of the hallmarks of one class of troll is to simply repeat stupid things over and over again, ad nauseam, knowing that the people you’re trolling will (over)react, giving you precisely the attention you’re looking for.
It doesn’t really matter, since either way, the most effective tactic is to simply ignore them. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to do, given human nature. And as you can see here, I’m just as guilty as anyone else.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:02 pm#55, Clyde the Ripper:
Okay, I admit I was going a little overboard and I like your approach far better . . thanks . . cooling the jets now.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:03 pm“I don’t doubt for a minute the Republicans would have gone nuclear to stop the Dem filibuster, then reinstate the filibuster later, for just such occasion. Nothing wrong with that since the majority writes the rules.â€
Once again, wasn’t the nuclear option the R’s discussed only for use in Judicial Nominations?
July 17th, 2007 at 2:03 pm“Gee why hasn’t TP reported this? Answer, toady control.”
Probably because that very same poll shows that “53% would like the Senate to join the House of Representatives and pass legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin in 120 days.”
Next?
July 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pmOnce again, wasn’t the nuclear option the R’s discussed only for use in Judicial Nominations?
Comment by squegeeboo — July 17, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Rather than hint around about it, why don’t you post a link to the evidence to either prove or disprove your own rhetorical question?
July 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pm“Once again, wasn’t the nuclear option the R’s discussed only for use in Judicial Nominations?”
It was brought up in that context, I believe, but does it really matter? They were prepared to unilaterally alter the rules of debate solely to prevent the Democrats from doing what they themselves are doing today. The hypocrisy still stands.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:07 pmIt’s worth pointing out that when the Republicans proposed the “nuclear option,” they were explicitly announcing that they were going to violate the standing rules in so doing.
Quoting from cfif.org (a pro-nuclear option site):
The basic problem is as follows. Standing Rule XXII provides for unlimited debate in the Senate until a cloture motion for ending debate is filed and the question is “decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.” Thus, proceeding to a final yea-or-nay floor vote on a piece of legislation, a nomination, or virtually any other question can be prevented whenever there are at least 41 Senators unwilling or unavailable to vote in favor of ending debate.
The hurdles for the majority don’t end there. Rule XXII also states that if the “measure or motion” being debated is “to amend the Senate rules,” including the cloture rule, then “the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.” In other words, a bare majority wishing to end debate and proceed to a final up-or-down vote faces a Catch-22 under Rule XXII because, so long as a 41-member minority wishes to prevent such a final resolution, the majority can neither end debate and force a floor vote nor can the majority change the Rule to reduce the supermajority requirement.
This difficulty is only exacerbated by the fact that, under Rule V, the Senate deigns itself a continuing body and, as a result, does not offer an opportunity for the majority of each newly composed Senate to ratify, amend, or repeal the Standing Rules carried over from previous Congresses. Thus, Rule XXII presents a majoritarian conundrum: Not only do the anti-majoritarian rules enacted by a simple majority of a previous Senate bind the current Senate, but a current majority cannot even change those previously adopted rules without the consent of a supermajority.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pmace
Rather than hint around about it, why don’t you post a link to the evidence to either prove or disprove your own rhetorical question?
Fair enough
July 17th, 2007 at 2:12 pmFrom the wiki entry, it appears it was just for Judicial appointments, so any talk of hypocrisy using the Nuclear Option, in it’s current usage, would be wrong, because the current issue is based on Iraq resolutions not judicial appointments.
I believe the Repugs are wrong here. Filibustering is always wrong.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pmKindly take more quotes out of context, please! Lott was referring to filibusters of judicial nominations…ie, people, not bills!
July 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pm“so any talk of hypocrisy using the Nuclear Option, in it’s current usage, would be wrong, because the current issue is based on Iraq resolutions not judicial appointments.”
In what way are these substantively different? In each case, a minority of the Senate is blocking the will of the majority.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pmI blame the republicans for not having the guts to admit when they are CLEARLY wrong… and the democrats for not having the guts to call them on it in a very public way… maybe the senate should ask Ron Paul to come over and show them how to do it…
July 17th, 2007 at 2:18 pmEvil, Republicans are evil, and must be dealt with as such.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pmWell, now we know what the talking points are…
July 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pmAnd we have our next stage of Wingnut Talking points, people!
Apparently, they’re going with the meme that “it appears it was just for Judicial appointments, so any talk of hypocrisy using the Nuclear Option, in it’s current usage, would be wrong”. It looks like they’ve decided to rest their argument on a fairly arcane technical distinction and expand from there.
(No offense, squegeeboo — we appreciate the effort you went to dredge up this distinction, but your position is not really aided by its immediate adoption by one of the most notorious of the schoolyard trolls.)
July 17th, 2007 at 2:23 pmCan squegeeboo or any of the apologists explain what exactly the substantive difference is in the position of the Republicans then vs. now?
Yes, we get that then they were talking about judicial nominations, and now they’re talking about Iraq poolicy, but how are the two examples of filibuster different enough to say that the filibuster is justified in one instance but not in the other?
July 17th, 2007 at 2:26 pmPaulB
In what way are these substantively different? In each case, a minority of the Senate is blocking the will of the majority.
Kindly refer to m12’s post.
Or, more specifically,
July 17th, 2007 at 2:27 pm“The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly require either a two-thirds or three-fifths or majority vote for confirmation of nominees. Supporters of this standard believe it implies that a simple majority is sufficient; they contrast this against the Constitution’s language for Senate confirmation of treaties, which appears within the same clause, explicitly requiring a two-thirds majority.”
#80 - “Once again, wasn’t the nuclear option the R’s discussed only for use in Judicial Nominations?” Comment by squegeeboo — July 17, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
I believe it was, but the way the Repub’s were going about it, it would have removed the option to fillibuster any legislation.
It’s just sad that the “give us an up or down vote” Repub’s cannot bring themsleves to allow an “up or down vote” now. Hypocrisy, your party is Republican!
July 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pmspit take
It looks like they’ve decided to rest their argument on a fairly arcane technical distinction and expand from there.
Well, I don’t know about arcane…but my position is based on semantics, and that in one case it is the senate advising the president on his nominations of people, and in the other case it is the senate dealing with bills/resolutions that started with in one of the houses of the legislature.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pmOr, more specifically,
“The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly require either a two-thirds or three-fifths or majority vote for confirmation of nominees. Supporters of this standard believe it implies that a simple majority is sufficient; they contrast this against the Constitution’s language for Senate confirmation of treaties, which appears within the same clause, explicitly requiring a two-thirds majority.â€
Comment by squegeeboo
How about ALL aspects of the Constitution be followed? Not just pick and choose when it is convenient… When was the last time Congress declared war? Where does the Constitution say that the Federal government can doing anything like the IRS? Where does the Constitution say that the Feds can run a War on Drugs? All this TALK about the Constitution yet it is only being abused not followed…
July 17th, 2007 at 2:33 pm“or, more specifically,
‘The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly require either a two-thirds or three-fifths or majority vote for confirmation of nominees. Supporters of this standard believe it implies that a simple majority is sufficient;”
The Senate is free to make its own rules. That was settled a long time ago.
“they contrast this against the Constitution’s language for Senate confirmation of treaties, which appears within the same clause, explicitly requiring a two-thirds majority.’”
That still doesn’t answer the question about a substantive difference between a filibuster to block legislation and a filibuster to block a judicial nominee. Your argument above is actually an argument that could be used by the Democrats today, were they inclined to favor the nuclear option!
July 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm“Well, I don’t know about arcane…but my position is based on semantics, and that in one case it is the senate advising the president on his nominations of people, and in the other case it is the senate dealing with bills/resolutions that started with in one of the houses of the legislature.”
Again, how are these substantive different? In each case, these are routine Senate business; in each case, a minority is blocking the will of the majority; in each case, such tactics have been employed fairly routinely in the past. Wherein lies the difference that renders Senator Lott non-hypocritical?
July 17th, 2007 at 2:37 pm“I believe it was, but the way the Repub’s were going about it, it would have removed the option to fillibuster any legislation.”
Not necessarily. It would have depended on the wording they chose. If they added language to the effect of, “except in the case of judicial nominations, where no filibuster will be permitted,” or something like that, they would have kept intact the ability to filibuster legislation. Since they never actually did it, we really don’t know just what they would have done. It’s not clear that Frist even had the votes to do this, since a few Republican Senators were honest enough to oppose against it as the fraud that it was.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm#36
Nice spin troll!
By a 73% to 21% margin, Republicans say that the U.S. should wait for the September progress report before making major policy changes in Iraq. Democrats, by a 50% to 36% margin, disagree. Those not affiliated with either major party are more evenly divided—49% want to wait and 42% don’t. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of men want to wait along with 47% of women.
At the same time, however, just 32% of voters believe that it is possible for the United States to win the war in Iraq. Fifty-four percent (54%) say it is not possible while 13% are not sure.
Also, 53% would like the Senate to join the House of Representatives and pass legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin in 120 days. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ public_content/ politics/ 51_say_wait_till_september_for_iraq_policy_change
July 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pm#36 Ouch again Troll!
The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,200 adults was conducted on July 13-15, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ public_content/ politics/ 51_say_wait_till_september_for_iraq_policy_change
So this means that 51% could be 54% or 48%…of 1,200 voters!??! WHOA!!! A MANDATE!
SPIN SPIN SPIN!!!
July 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pmApparently, they’re going with the meme that “it appears it was just for Judicial appointments, so any talk of hypocrisy using the Nuclear Option, in it’s current usage, would be wrongâ€. It looks like they’ve decided to rest their argument on a fairly arcane technical distinction and expand from there.
If by ‘arcale technical distinction’ you mean ‘completely opposite’, yeah.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pmIn a Democracy, majority rules.
What form of government do we have (now)?
July 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pm“If by ‘arcale technical distinction’ you mean ‘completely opposite’, yeah.”
Hmm… let’s look at this “complete opposite,” shall we?
1. In both cases, this is Constitutionally-mandated Senate activity.
2. In both cases, the Constitution does not explicitly state the number of votes required for passage.
3. In both cases, the rules for debate and passage are left to the Senate.
4. In both cases, the minority is blocking the will of the majority.
5. In both cases, the minority is preventing an “up or down” vote.
6. In both cases, such tactics have been employed several times in the past.
Yup, that’s the “complete opposite,” all right. How could I have possibly thought otherwise?
July 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pmGreat post! Thanks!
Let the NY Times know that a fillibuster is a fillibuster also! They seem to be totally unaware!
For example, note this article which writes as fact(!)
Last I checked, 60 votes is the threshold needed to overcome a fillibuster! It is not the threshold needed to pass legislation in ordinary times.
While you are at it, suggest to the NYT public editor that
* If the Repubs deserve front page coverage for the (toothless) Lugar-Warner proposal, then the dems deserve front page coverage for the Reid call for an all nighter (rather than burying the well written piece in the middle of section A).
* An article comparing the permanent fillibuster proposed by McConnell with the threat of the nuclear option fromn just two years ago would be very appropriate.
Kudos to Josh Marshall, ThinkProgress for catching stuff like this over the last several weeks. It has been DRIVING ME UP A WALL!!!
July 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pm6. In both cases, such tactics have been employed several times in the past.
Actually, a circuit court nominee had never been filibusted before this President.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pmre Post 106 above:
The email address for the NYT public editor is
public@nytimes.com
July 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pmInteresting… our troll friends have now been put in the position of having to say: “These are different situations because … well, just because, okay? No, really, they are, dammit!”
Poor chaps; it must be hard to have to keep defending the indefensible.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:53 pm“Actually, a circuit court nominee had never been filibusted before this President.”
ROFL… And how is this materially different than a Supreme Court nominee? Or any other judicial nominee, for that matter? Or, say, a Cabinet Secretary? The filibuster has been used quite often to block a president’s appointments, including half a dozen times in Clinton’s term alone (including one filibuster joined by Frist himself). Funny how those suddenly don’t matter, isn’t it?
July 17th, 2007 at 2:56 pmm12
a circuit court nominee does not equal a tactic.
filibustering is the tactic.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:56 pmAnd of course the primary reason that the Democrats were filibustering Bush’s nominees is that Hatch had deliberately and unilaterally changed the Senate Judiciary Committee rules to prevent members from issuing blocks that had been routine in prior Congresses, including dozens of such usages to block Clinton nominees. Funny how that doesn’t seem to come up, isn’t it?
Sorry, guys, but the Republican hypocrisy still stands, no matter how much you twist and turn.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:57 pmROFL… And how is this materially different than a Supreme Court nominee?
Uh, because it is a lower court, one where seats are mostly assigned to states rather than the entire nation?
The filibuster has been used quite often to block a president’s appointments, including half a dozen times in Clinton’s term alone (including one filibuster joined by Frist himself)
True, but none of those filibusters were for judges.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:57 pm“True, but none of those filibusters were for judges.”
Actually, they were. You really should keep up.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:58 pmAnd of course the primary reason that the Democrats were filibustering Bush’s nominees is that Hatch had deliberately and unilaterally changed the Senate Judiciary Committee rules to prevent members from issuing blocks that had been routine in prior Congresses, including dozens of such usages to block Clinton nominees. Funny how that doesn’t seem to come up, isn’t it?
Yeah, so? He was the chairman!
July 17th, 2007 at 2:58 pmTrue, but none of those filibusters were for judges.
Comment by m12
Desperation stinks.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:59 pmActually, they were. You really should keep up.
Please name a successfully filibustered judge nominated by Clinton.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:59 pmYeah, so? I am grasping at straws here!
Comment by m12
July 17th, 2007 at 3:00 pmThe GOP hypocrisy and arrogance is stunning, simply breathtaking.
For all info on Ditch “Filibuster” McConnell, see:
July 17th, 2007 at 3:00 pmhttp://www.ditchmitchky.com
LOL… Moving the goalposts again, m12? Who said that the filibuster had to be successful? An unsuccessful filibuster is still a filibuster, dear.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:00 pm“Yeah, so? He was the chairman!”
Which just means that he has a greater obligation to act ethically, not a lesser obligation. That does nothing to excuse his behavior.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pmSorry, m12, despite your vain twisting and spinning, the fact remains that all too many of the Senate Republicans are indeed hypocritical, employing tactics today that they asserted were unconstitional when employed by the Democratic Senators.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pmPaul, I have to think that we’ve heard the last of m12 on this thread…seeing as all his “arguments” failed horribly at proving anything other than his blind GOP devotion.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:03 pmLOL… Moving the goalposts again, m12? Who said that the filibuster had to be successful? An unsuccessful filibuster is still a filibuster, dear.
Hardly. Your statement was that:
The filibuster has been used quite often to block a president’s appointments
The filibusters that Frist (not the whole GOP senate, which was in the majority anyway) voted for did not block any appointment.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:03 pmWhich just means that he has a greater obligation to act ethically, not a lesser obligation. That does nothing to excuse his behavior.
He did act ethically. The Congress of 93-00 confirmed more judicial nominees than the Congress of 01-08 is on pace to confirm, since the 110th Congress has engaged in unethical stonewalling!
July 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pmFor those debating the filibustering of Justice nominees, here’s a little perspective.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:06 pmSorry, m12, despite your vain twisting and spinning, the fact remains that all too many of the Senate Republicans are indeed hypocritical, employing tactics today that they asserted were unconstitional when employed by the Democratic Senators.
What goes around comes around. Tell that to Daschle and company in 03-04!
July 17th, 2007 at 3:07 pmConservative politicians are hypocrites, TRAITORS and mindless spineless bigots and racists…
…and their constituents are WORSE…
July 17th, 2007 at 3:09 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — July 17, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Tell me something, Mr. Monkey…if the GOP senate was so mean, why did the confirm more nominees in Clinton’s 5th and 6th years than Bush’s 5th and 6th years?
July 17th, 2007 at 3:09 pmDon’t you just love m12?
1. Actually, a circuit court nominee had never been filibusted [sic] before this President.
Quite possibly true, but entirely irrelevant, since a Supreme Court justice has, other judicial nominees have, and Cabinet nominees have. Moreover, if the tactic is inappropriate against a Circuit Court nominee, it’s inappropriate against any of these other nominees, since the Constitution makes no distinction between them, with regard to Senate confirmation, at any rate.
2. But none of those [Clinton-era] filibusters were for judges
Actually, the six I was referring to were judges.
3. But none of those Clinton-era filibusters were successful.”
So? A failed filibuster is still a filibuster; still requiring 60 votes to get to that fabled “up-or-down” vote. That Republican Senators couldn’t muster the 41 votes necessary to block those six judges just means that Clinton did a better job of nominating judges than did Bush.
Poor m12. None of his talking points make a lick of sense.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pm“The filibusters that Frist (not the whole GOP senate, which was in the majority anyway) voted for did not block any appointment.”
It still doesn’t matter, dear. A failed filibuster is still a filibuster; still requiring 60 votes to get to that fabled “up-or-down” vote. In short, and as usual, you got nothing.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:13 pm#
ace
Rather than hint around about it, why don’t you post a link to the evidence to either prove or disprove your own rhetorical question?
Fair enough
From the wiki entry, it appears it was just for Judicial appointments, so any talk of hypocrisy using the Nuclear Option, in it’s current usage, would be wrong, because the current issue is based on Iraq resolutions not judicial appointments.
Comment by squegeeboo — July 17, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
In the future, rather than repeatedly dropping hints that you’d like someone else to do your dirty work on your behalf, please take responsibility for your own contentions in an affirmative way, with links and facts to support your contentions. Otherwise people might just assume you’re a troll and not take you seriously.
That said, it’s false to claim that ANY talk of hypocrisy is off base with respect to the nuclear option. It’s all just a matter of the degree of hypocrisy. It is most certainly hypocrisy.
You’re simply overstating your case.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:14 pm“What goes around comes around. Tell that to Daschle and company in 03-04!”
ROFL… I’ll be happy to do so, dear, just as soon as you can point me to where “Daschle and company” ever said that what the Republicans were doing was unconstitutional and where they proposed the “nuclear option” to block it.
Sorry, dear, but you’re still striking out and Lott and Co. are still hypocrites.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pm“He did act ethically.”
Nope. Sorry, dear, but unilaterally changing longstanding rules to your own advantage is hardly ethical.
“The Congress of 93-00 confirmed more judicial nominees than the Congress of 01-08 is on pace to confirm, since the 110th Congress has engaged in unethical stonewalling!”
Dear heart, filibustering is not unethical. Only Republicans seem to think that way, which is why the hypocrisy is all on their side. Thanks ever so for confirming my point.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:16 pmI’d like to note that PaulB’s efforts on this thread have been, as usual, elegant, graceful and damn thorough.
You make it look easy, my friend.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pmAt the time that the “nuclear option” was being proposed, according to Salon.com, these were the numbers:
George W. Bush — 215 nominated, 205 confirmed
Clinton — 443 nominated, 372 confirmed
George H. W. Bush — 242 nominated, 192 confirmed
Ronald Reagan — 403 nominated, 375 confirmed
Damn those evil Democrats! How dare they block less than 5% of Bush’s judicial nominees!
July 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pmBy the way, that low percentage and low actual number of nominees blocked was what made the talk of the “nuclear option” all the more startling. Bush got a lower percentage of nominees blocked in his first term than any president in modern history, I believe. And this is what Republicans wanted to go nuclear over?! The mind boggles.
I’m still trying to track down the numbers for Clinton vs. Bush in their respective second terms, but haven’t succeede yet. I rather suspect that m12 is using actual numbers rather than percentages because the percentages paint a different story. Since he hasn’t bothered to support his numbers, it’s difficult to be sure.
In any case, it doesn’t really matter, since the “nuclear option” was a product of Bush’s first term, not his second, so the second-term numbers are irrelevant. I’m just looking for my own edification.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:30 pmStill trying to track down the numbers of judicial nominees accepted/rejected in the second terms. The Carpetbagger Report has this to say:
Indeed, the Senate Judiciary Committee, under Leahy’s leadership, has moved more of Bush’s would-be judges to the floor than a comparable period under Arlen Specter’s (R) leadership.
And then there’s the second point. When Orrin Hatch ran the Judiciary Committee during Clinton’s presidency, 60 Clinton nominees never even got the courtesy of a hearing. Hatch didn’t filibuster the nominees — a filibuster is only needed if the would-be judge has a chance of being confirmed on the Senate floor — he refused to even consider the merit of the nomination.
Indeed, let’s compare apples to apples. 2007 is the seventh year of Bush’s presidency, 1999 was the seventh year of Clinton’s presidency. Both saw Senate Judiciary Committees led by a member of the opposing party. In the first five months of 2007, a Democratic Judiciary Committee has approved 18 judicial nominees. In 1999, a Republican Judiciary Committee only held seven hearings on nominees over the course of the entire year.
And while we’re at it, let’s also remember that Hatch abandoned every rule on the nominating process that Dems had always followed. What’s more, as Kevin Drum explained a while back, Hatch also created new rules as he went along.
* In 1998, for no special reason, Orrin Hatch decided that only one senator needed to object to a nomination. This made it easier for Republicans to obstruct Bill Clinton’s nominees.
* In 2001, when one of their own became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take two objections after all. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George Bush’s nominees.
* In early 2003, Hatch went even further: senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it would still go to the floor for a vote.
* A few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with a longtime rule that said at least one member of the minority had to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:50 pmFor the fourth time, since TP keeps eating these posts:
I had written, “since the ‘nuclear option’ was a product of Bush’s first term, not his second”
This is not entirely correct. The complaining began in the first term and mostly concerned the numbers from the first term, but it continued into the first half year of Bush’s second term, at which point “the Gang of 14″ rendered the subject moot.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:53 pmI *HEART* PaulB.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:54 pmBy the way, one reason that Bush might indeed have a lower percentage of acceptances in his second term is that he keeps resubmitting the same names, including names that were decisively rejected in his first term!
July 17th, 2007 at 3:55 pmBush got a lower percentage of nominees blocked in his first term than any president in modern history, I believe. And this is what Republicans wanted to go nuclear over?! The mind boggles.
When charged with crimes, they wanted to be sure to appear before judges who were friendly to them.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:56 pmIn short, what I wrote above, about there being no substantive difference between a filibuster to block a nominee and a filibuster to block legislation, still stands unchallenged, which means that Senate Republicans are still hypocrites. Is anyone surprised?
To reiterate:
1. In both cases, this is Constitutionally-mandated Senate activity.
2. In both cases, the Constitution does not explicitly state the number of votes required for passage.
3. In both cases, the rules for debate and passage are left to the Senate.
4. In both cases, the minority is blocking the will of the majority.
5. In both cases, the minority is preventing an “up or down†vote.
6. In both cases, such tactics have been employed several times in the past.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:58 pmPaulB, everybody! Give it up!
(clap! clap! clap!)
July 17th, 2007 at 3:58 pmLOL… You’re going to love this one. This is from the Chattanooga Times Free Press:
So, contrary to m12’s assertions above, Senate Republicans themselves were actually boasting of their prowess in getting nominations confirmed during the same time period that m12 insisted that Democrats were successfully blocking them! I think we’ve laid dear little m12’s arguments to rest, once and for all, don’t you?
July 17th, 2007 at 4:04 pmYou gotta love that remark by Frist above, don’t you? They “broke the back of the filibuster,” a tactic that Republicans deplored when Democrats used it and a tactic that they themselves are using today. And it’s even worse, since the Democratic filibusters blocked so few judicial nominees that it really made no practical difference, while the Republicans today are using the filibuster an unprecedented number of times, very nearly bringing the business of the Senate to a complete standstill. My god, the hypocrisy abounds.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:09 pmThanks for the vote of confidence, guys, but don’t give me too much credit. This one was easy, since m12 is an idiot and since this was discussed in great detail in 2004 and 2005 and I still remember much of that discussion.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:11 pmThe Republicans in Congress are just like a typical bully. They love to dish out punishment, but when it’s turned on them they squeal like babies!
July 17th, 2007 at 4:16 pmThanks for the vote of confidence, guys, but don’t give me too much credit. This one was easy, since m12 is an idiot and since this was discussed in great detail in 2004 and 2005 and I still remember much of that discussion.
Comment by PaulB — July 17, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Don’t be so modest. Sure. He’s12 was waaaaay outclassed (whether he’s aware of it or not, who knows) but you brought your A game anyway. Always a pleasure to be a part of or just witness your civilized, reasoned arguments.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pmAh, as I thought, m12 was playing games with the numbers. From a Washington Post column:
So yes, Bush had had fewer nominees accepted than did Clinton, but that’s because he has had fewer openings to fill. And note that last paragraph about Republican obstructionism during the final months of Clinton’s term. Think m12 will remember that the next time he posts on this subject?
Senator Patrick Leahy has a bit to say on this, as well, in several posts at the link. Among other things, he states that there are currently 47 judicial vacancies and Bush has sent only 22 nominations for those vacancies.
Suffice to say that m12 was, as usual, full of crap.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pmRepublican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday in response to the Democrat-sponsored talk-a-thon, which will delay consideration of further amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill:
“While Republicans are focused on the dangers posed by al Qaeda in Iraq, and the warnings that the United Nations and Baker-Hamilton Commission have given in recent days about the consequences of withdrawal, Democrats plan to spend the next 24 hours in what they have described as a ‘publicity stunt.’ This issue is far too serious to waste the next day on ‘publicity stunts.’ This is a serious issue, and deserves serious consideration.
“Our enemies aren’t threatened by talk-a-thons, and our troops deserve better than publicity stunts.â€
July 17th, 2007 at 4:30 pm“This is a serious issue, and deserves serious consideration.”
Then isn’t it strange that he’d rather filibuster it than give it the “serious consideration” he insists it “deserves.”
July 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pmOkay, now that we’ve dealt with m12’s silliness, let’s go back and look at the actual numbers:
93-94: 80 cloture motions filed
95-96: 82
97-98: 69
99-00: 71
01-02: 72
03-04: 62
05-06: 68
So far, everything seems fairly reasonable, although if you look back a bit further, you’ll find that 93-94 marked a fairly significant increase from preceding years. That’s not really all that germane to the discussion, though; click the link if you’re curious.
So how many motions have been filed in 2007? 49. That doesn’t sound too bad until you realize that we’re just halfway through the first year of the current two-year Congressional term. We’re on track to nearly triple the number of cloture motions filed by Democrats in the preceding terms. Hmm… sounds like Republicans don’t really have a problem with filibusters after all, do they?
July 17th, 2007 at 4:56 pmSo, naturally, Republican Senators must really hate themselves for using these tactics, right?