StrangeSox Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Remember that time Democrats blocked one particular judge using a dumb procedural gimmick? That's totally just like Republicans blocking a vote on every nominee to the NLRB and the CPFB in an effort to nullify the existence of those bodies and the refusal to allow a vote on a former Republican Senator for Secretary of Defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 It's irritating when every time the majority party wants to propose a change, it is unable to get voted on or even deliberated. Our president has to hoot and holler to get Americans to demand a vote from their Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 the majority party could have actually reformed the filibuster if not outright eliminated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 09:41 AM) Remember that time Democrats blocked one particular judge using a dumb procedural gimmick? That's totally just like Republicans blocking a vote on every nominee to the NLRB and the CPFB in an effort to nullify the existence of those bodies and the refusal to allow a vote on a former Republican Senator for Secretary of Defense. Except Sen turban said we can't allow "him" to be the first Hispanic to sit on the S.C. That is only allowed for the sympathetic, feel your pain liberals. The end justifed the means even though your stated means were not the true means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 I don't have a violin big enough to play for you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) Except Sen turban said we can't allow "him" to be the first Hispanic to sit on the S.C. That is only allowed for the sympathetic, feel your pain liberals. The end justifed the means even though your stated means were not the true means. I'm trying to figure out where I supported the use of the filibuster over Estrada there? I said that it doesn't really compare to how it's being used by Republicans right now to nullify two executive bodies by refusing to let any nominees come to a vote. Not voting down the nominees, but refusing to allow a vote to take place. The only thing I can legitimately support is if the threat of a filibuster caused the Meirs nomination to be pulled back. That was such a terrible nominee. Otherwise, I'm 100% behind complete removal of this extra-constitutional parliamentary gimmick. edit: this seems appropriate: QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 28, 2013 -> 06:17 AM) Your only analytic mode seems to be "tu quoque" Edited February 14, 2013 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 A secretary of defense has been filibustered for the first time in U.S. history. The vote was 58 in favor of moving forwards, 41 against (with one senator voting present and Reid switching votes so that he could bring the nomination up for cloture vote again). 59 Senators were willing to vote in favor of confirmation of former Senator Hagel, but that was insufficient, per Senate Rules, to move his nomination forward to the point where it receives a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 f*** Reid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts