To Anyone in MassachusettsFollow

Somebody's going to be a lucky boy today!

Someone's mixing up his slurs.

Sneak one? Last time I checked, the democratic party is one senator away from a supermajority in the Senate. As we all know, the pendulum shifts back and forth but if you think this victory is an overwhelming endorsement from the people about a conservative agenda, your party must not be doing very well.

Yup. And you'll note that my comments which you quoted were specific to the purpose of the filibuster as it pertains to appointment approval, not the passage of new legislation. I'll admit to not making this clear in my earlier statement, but I think the post you quoted does make it clear that to me there is a distinction.

So no hypocrisy. I just didn't clarify that I was speaking about the use of filibuster to block legislation. I think it's clearly important in that case. Most legislation should not be allowed to pass on a handwave. There should be debate and both sides should have an opportunity to view and discuss the legislation at hand. This is especially important in the case of the ridiculously large and last-minute bills that the Dems have been tossing around this last year.



AFAIK, those are overwhelmingly being stopped by "holds", not actual filibusters. All a hold does is require that an "official" vote occur instead of a simple call for unanimous consent. While they tend to come with an assumed threat that a filibuster could be employed, if the Dems really wanted to push this, they could call for the votes and make the GOP actually filibuster rather than just sit around and whine that a GOP member put a hold on an appointment.


While I'm sure there are exceptions in both directions, the key difference here is that when the Dems were doing this, the GOP was calling for a straight up or down vote. They *wanted* the issue brought to the floor for a vote and the Dems were using procedural tricks and filibuster to prevent that. Today, the Dems don't still want a floor vote. They want to just handwave the nominations through without debate or a real vote. The fact that most of the holds have not been worked through is presumably because they realize that most of those nominees wont stand up to public debate and a floor vote. Again. They don't want debate and a floor vote. They just want what they want to happen without the process being used.


Are some of the holds being done for obstructionist reasons? I'm sure they are. But we can't eliminate a process just because it can be used obstructively. For the record though, I do happen to think that filibuster should not be used for appointments. I think that if there are no "nays" in the handwave, the appointment goes through. If someone puts a hold on it, you go to a vote. Only actual legislative changes should be subject to cloture votes IMO.


And that's what I was saying the last time this issue came up.

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 4:36pm by gbaji

[The filibuster] was not and was never intended to be a defacto method of requiring a higher approval ratio for everything in order to break the filibuster.
The assumption is that if the vote requires 2/3rds of the senate, then if 2/3rds agree, it should pass. Same with majority votes, 3/4th votes, and so on.

That's my polite way of saying "bullshit". Nice backpedaling though. I bet you fooled a lot of people. Funny how, back in 2005, you explicitly stated that the purpose of the filibuster was to "continue debate" and it was never intended to require a higher approval ratio. Including matter of majority votes. And then in 2010, you suddenly wave your hands and say "No, no... I never meant THAT..."

But, hey, if you can rationalize away your partisan hypocrisy, I suppose that makes you feel better and that's what matters.

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 6:48pm by Jophiel

I did. I even quoted them originally! Golly!

Of course they dont actually change the key points of what you wrote -- that filibustering was never intended to be an obstructionist manuver and that this applies to all items the Senate votes on (including simple majority votes), not just apointees. But thanks for quoting it again for me! The more times people can read your blind partisan hypocrisy, the easier my exposure of it becomes!


Except you've already said the GOP was cool using the filibuster, not to "debate", but to obstruct because they really (absolutely!) didn't like the legislation. Not to have words before having their straight up-and-down vote but purely to block it from ever getting a simple vote and thus requiring a 3:5 ratio. Just like you said was wrong, back in 2005

There's no "satisfaction" there except "We're going to obstruct until you stop doing anything we don't like!" But you're cool with that. You weren't cool with it in 2005 although now you're frantically trying to say you were.

Ok, look... go ahead and have the last word on this. Your own words are out there for everyone to see and laugh at so if it makes you feel better to insist you didn't really mean that, far be it from me to take that away from you. But do me a favor and stop responding to my posts or something because you really are a pure partisan joke. I can't even be bothered to argue it with you after something like this.

No. Idiot! I was opposed to it being used to block executive nominations and purely procedural issues.


It is wholly appropriate for a piece of major legislation to have to get past a filibuster level vote. Presumably, there are so many components to such legislation that many senators may have wish to debate the specifics. That's why the filibuster exists.

It's not appropriate to use a filibuster to block appointments. It's not appropriate to use it to block simple motions like "We'll send this to committee". Technically, it can be used for every single action the senate takes, no matter how minor (like breaking for freaking lunch). But to do so would truly be obstructionist.

Right. Hence you explictly saying that all Senate issues, be they ones requiring a 2/3rds vote for a 1/2 vote or whatever should only require that vote and not an articially imposed higher ratio via filibuster.

Anyway, that's it for now. You're not only an obvious liar (and, seriously, pick something to lie about that doesn't require you to insist that a quoted passage from you is wrong) but you apparently think we're all retarded enough to believe you when you say "No! That's not REALLY what I meant! When I said a simple majority vote should only require a simple majority, I was REALLY only talking about other things!"

I know I said last time I was letting you have the last word but this is sincerely it. People who not only lie but who think everyone else is stupid enough to believe their obvious lies aren't really anyone worth wasting time on. Have fun doing whatever.

Mission Accomplished

If you truly loved them, you'd make the trip to try a donair, as I've yet to hear anyone who's tried one choose the gyro over them. It'sd like taking awesome and making it evne more awesome.

Filibusters aren't mentioned in the Constitution. The filibuster wasn't written into the Senate rules until the early 1800s and wasn't used until 1837.

But I suppose it's ignorant dipshits like you who help keep these things going by thinking you'd need to "completely rewrite the Constitution" to change a Senate procedural rule.

I think he admitted that he never liked the rules, and this latest example is just one more reason of showing why.