|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 13:10:04 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 13, 2010 13:10:04 GMT -5
Technically, I don't think it was ever filibustered. Harry Reid: No b****, whatsoever. Nancy should lend him one, cause she's got extra. www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00238There was a vote on cloture with 56 members supporting an up or down vote. Were there cots in the basement, etc.? No, but this is the modern equivalent. They just proceeded to the next thing and added to the tally of most obstructionist minority in the history of this country.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
Member is Online
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 13:33:31 GMT -5
Post by TC on Oct 13, 2010 13:33:31 GMT -5
Technically, I don't think it was ever filibustered. Are we saying that Jimmy Stewart-at-his-desk-with-his-apple is the only real filibuster? The modern filibuster is nothing like that.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 13:39:40 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Oct 13, 2010 13:39:40 GMT -5
Technically, I don't think it was ever filibustered. Harry Reid: No b****, whatsoever. Nancy should lend him one, cause she's got extra. www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00238There was a vote on cloture with 56 members supporting an up or down vote. Were there cots in the basement, etc.? No, but this is the modern equivalent. They just proceeded to the next thing and added to the tally of most obstructionist minority in the history of this country. Wait....the most obstructionist minority? Really? More so than the Southern Democrats that kept slavery and then Jim Crow going?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 14:15:33 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Oct 13, 2010 14:15:33 GMT -5
Technically, I don't think it was ever filibustered. Are we saying that Jimmy Stewart-at-his-desk-with-his-apple is the only real filibuster? The modern filibuster is nothing like that. No, you misunderstood. Primarily because I was wrong. I didn't think the actual cloture vote was held because the votes weren't there for it. That's why I said it technically wasn't a filibuster. But, as Ambassador pointed out, that vote was held. So yes, that counts, even without reading David Copperfield. Irregardless, I stand by my original point. Harry Reid does not possess male gonads. (and Nancy Pelosi does).
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
Member is Online
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 14:17:31 GMT -5
Post by TC on Oct 13, 2010 14:17:31 GMT -5
Wait....the most obstructionist minority? Really? More so than the Southern Democrats that kept slavery and then Jim Crow going? Isn't this kind of like the US version the Godwin's Law invocation?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
Member is Online
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 14:20:54 GMT -5
Post by TC on Oct 13, 2010 14:20:54 GMT -5
I didn't think the actual cloture vote was held because the votes weren't there for it. You gotta follow @ladygaga on Twitter to keep up with this stuff.
|
|
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 15:06:23 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 13, 2010 15:06:23 GMT -5
In empirical terms, there have been more filibusters/cloture votes in this Congress than in any other Congress. They span across all issues right now, including judicial nominations. I am not sure there is much to be said for not being as bad as Southern conservative Democrats during the Jim Crow era. One prominent figure in that group (and leader of civil rights filibusters) changed his party, apparently to the delight of Trent Lott.
I am generally not a fan of southern conservative Democrats in modern politics either. Guys like Zell Miller come to mind.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 16:03:13 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Oct 13, 2010 16:03:13 GMT -5
In empirical terms, there have been more filibusters/cloture votes in this Congress than in any other Congress. They span across all issues right now, including judicial nominations. I am not sure there is much to be said for not being as bad as Southern conservative Democrats during the Jim Crow era. One prominent figure in that group (and leader of civil rights filibusters) changed his party, apparently to the delight of Trent Lott. I am generally not a fan of southern conservative Democrats in modern politics either. Guys like Zell Miller come to mind. Your statistics say how many cloture votes the majority has lost? Filibusters aren't very effective if they can't be sustained. Wait....the most obstructionist minority? Really? More so than the Southern Democrats that kept slavery and then Jim Crow going? Isn't this kind of like the US version the Godwin's Law invocation? Jersey said "EVER", so one would have to assume he was including the entire history of the Senate.
|
|
|
DADT
Oct 13, 2010 18:28:25 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 13, 2010 18:28:25 GMT -5
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.phpHere is an analysis that does not quite give you a clear differential on success rate, but an eyeball suggests an unprecedented number of votes on cloture. Many times there is no such vote despite political opposition so things can be expedited. Now, Dems have been forced to debate and vote on cloture for things like judicial nominations, which all takes time (intentionally) and is obstructionist to the core. Some of these cloture votes have been split, then all Republicans shift over on the merits. That is just an effort to eat up the calendar that is unprecedented. A quick eyeball also suggests that, despite unprecedented cloture votes, the success/failure rate is somewhere just north of 50%, but in numerical terms, this 50% far outstrips in number what you see in any of the periods in the graph (i.e. somewhere around 60 filibusters sustained), recognizing that the filibuster is a fairly recent thing. Certainly the LBJ presidency is nowhere close. I have no reason to believe that it was high at any point in the 19th century. Others can agree/disagree on whether a filibuster is only obstructionist if it works. Note that this is for the 2007-2008 period following change in control. I don't see a sample for more recent times, but a report earlier this year indicated that the minority was on pace and had already broken the Dems' record of 58 filibusters.
|
|
|
DADT
Oct 14, 2010 1:39:38 GMT -5
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 14, 2010 1:39:38 GMT -5
Shouldn't we all be a bit frightened of the rate at which controversial (and non-controversial) statutes are deemed to be unconstitutional in the present day USA?
Campaign finance reform: unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act: unconstitutional Don't Ask Don't Tell: unconstitutional "Obamacare:" alleged to be unconstitutional SB 1070: unconstitutional Assisted suicide laws: unconstitutional Criminalization of homosexual acts: unconstitutional Prohibition of crush videos: unconstitutional
That's just off the top of my head. Lawyers rarely even wait until an issue is ripe these days (see SB 1070). Is this pattern good for democracy?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
DADT
Oct 14, 2010 7:57:11 GMT -5
Post by theexorcist on Oct 14, 2010 7:57:11 GMT -5
Shouldn't we all be a bit frightened of the rate at which controversial (and non-controversial) statutes are deemed to be unconstitutional in the present day USA? Campaign finance reform: unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act: unconstitutional Don't Ask Don't Tell: unconstitutional "Obamacare:" alleged to be unconstitutional SB 1070: unconstitutional Assisted suicide laws: unconstitutional Criminalization of homosexual acts: unconstitutional Prohibition of crush videos: unconstitutional That's just off the top of my head. Lawyers rarely even wait until an issue is ripe these days (see SB 1070). Is this pattern good for democracy? There are lots of laws passed every year. Most of them are constitutional. Some aren't. The judiciary is a check on the legislative branch. So, yes, this pattern is great for democracy, because it shows that the system works. Every single law that you mentioned had massive concerns about its constitutionality during debate, so these aren't surprising. EDIT - Please note that an injunction was filed against parts of SB 1070 and it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, so I'd switch it to "alleged".
|
|
|
DADT
Oct 14, 2010 10:06:36 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 14, 2010 10:06:36 GMT -5
I'd be interested to see a data set for the Rehnquist/Roberts courts in terms of repeal rates of Congress and individual states (some states are repeat players). I wonder if recent repeals are all that much different from the past.
|
|
|
DADT
Oct 14, 2010 13:18:44 GMT -5
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 14, 2010 13:18:44 GMT -5
So, yes, this pattern is great for democracy, because it shows that the system works. By "democracy," I'm not necessarily referring to the "system" that is the American Constitutional Republic. The last time a controversial statute was (controversially) not declared unconstitutional (Kelo), legislatures reacted by limiting the use of eminent domain in their respective jurisdictions. The "check," in many cases, does not have to come from the judicial branch. And claims of unconstitutionality go far beyond a judicial branch check on the legislative branch these days. Unconstitutionality is now also a political tool used by one political group to declare that the views of another political group are un-American (or socialist). See the health care, SB 1070, and DC gun control threads on this board. Often, these claims aren't even valid: the Tea Partiers believe virtually every act of the federal government violates the (virtually meaningless) Tenth Amendment. I don't disagree that legislatures pass unconstitutional laws (including some of the laws I referred to above), or that judicial review is highly important to our system of government. It is interesting, however, that as politicians have begun to loudly declare laws to be unconstitutional before they are reviewed by the judicial branch that there has been an increase, statistically speaking, in invalidation.
|
|
|
DADT
Dec 8, 2010 17:20:53 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 8, 2010 17:20:53 GMT -5
Some momentum building today in the Senate to debate defense approps and DADT. Some Republics, including Lisa Murkowski, have announced support. Whether that also includes support for debating the bill is unknown - unknown if some of these folks are playing for both teams.
Joe Lieberman has taken the lead on some of these negotiations, so take the current contours of any compromise with a grain of salt.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
DADT
Dec 8, 2010 19:57:29 GMT -5
Post by kchoya on Dec 8, 2010 19:57:29 GMT -5
Some momentum building today in the Senate to debate defense approps and DADT. Some Republics, including Lisa Murkowski, have announced support. Whether that also includes support for debating the bill is unknown - unknown if some of these folks are playing for both teams. Joe Lieberman has taken the lead on some of these negotiations, so take the current contours of any compromise with a grain of salt. Why are you so interested in this specific issue?
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
DADT
Dec 8, 2010 20:38:43 GMT -5
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Dec 8, 2010 20:38:43 GMT -5
Some momentum building today in the Senate to debate defense approps and DADT. Some Republics, including Lisa Murkowski, have announced support. Whether that also includes support for debating the bill is unknown - unknown if some of these folks are playing for both teams. Joe Lieberman has taken the lead on some of these negotiations, so take the current contours of any compromise with a grain of salt. Why are you so interested in this specific issue? What kind of a question is that? Why do you care about "why" he's interested? Why are you interested in gun rights and tax cuts for the wealthy? This is a message board for political issues and this is a relevant issue, as we are one of the few modern Western militeries that denies people from serving their country simply because of their sexual orientation. If you aren't interested in this issue, then don't post.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
DADT
Dec 9, 2010 11:18:44 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Dec 9, 2010 11:18:44 GMT -5
Why do you ask the question "Why do you care about 'why' he's interested?"?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
DADT
Dec 9, 2010 11:46:01 GMT -5
Post by kchoya on Dec 9, 2010 11:46:01 GMT -5
Why are you so interested in this specific issue? What kind of a question is that? Why do you care about "why" he's interested? Why are you interested in gun rights and tax cuts for the wealthy? This is a message board for political issues and this is a relevant issue, as we are one of the few modern Western militeries that denies people from serving their country simply because of their sexual orientation. If you aren't interested in this issue, then don't post. First off, how do you know whether I am interested in "gun rights and tax cuts for the wealthy?" Or are you just making huge assumptions. Second, even if I were interested in those issues, you don't see me keeping alive a thread on a single issue all by myself. Just curious why he seems to be the only person really prolonging this thread. BTW, what are militeries?
|
|
|
DADT
Dec 9, 2010 11:46:11 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Dec 9, 2010 11:46:11 GMT -5
Why do you ask the question "Why do you care about 'why' he's interested?"? Because kc's insinuation (intentional or not) is that anyone interested in gay rights must be, let's say, "an outlier" in some way.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
DADT
Dec 9, 2010 12:29:14 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Dec 9, 2010 12:29:14 GMT -5
"This thread is gay."
- Willow Palin
;D
|
|