Comments about ‘Democrats seek to curb filibusters on appointees’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 21 2013 10:40 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mark B
Eureka, CA

I believe that Reid finally concluded that since GOP cooperation on things like judicial appointments was so close to zero that there was almost no downside in changing the rule. The filibuster totals absolutely back that view. By contrast, Badger's attempted to tie this to "1930's Germany" is just an attempted revision of BOTH the past and present.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

Jamesmeyer,

President Bush worked across the table because the people across the table were willing to work with him. Tell me which republican leader will work with President Obama? John Boenher did in 2011 and had a deal on the debt until the tea party members of the house put an end to that and they have done nothing but obstruct since then.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Democrats were sure in favor of filibustering when THEY were the minority!'

Let's actually look at this claim, shall we?

‘When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 (From Dems) to a record 139 in 2007-2008.' (From Republicans)

**'The Rise Of Cloture: How GOP Filibuster Threats Have Changed The Senate' - Ben Frumin and Jason Reif - Talking Points Memo – 01/27/10

So 68 under Dems.

139 under Republicans. Almost double.

As of 2012, almost 400 Republican filibusters in Senate.

82 filibusters under Obama.

86 filibusters under every other President in American history.

Claims are great.

But when they are proven wrong, some are simply lying, to try and gain support.

Who said something about bearing false witness...?

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

The Constitution allows the Senate and House to make their own in-house rules.

The Senate changed the rule from 2/3 to 60 in 1975.

Articulate well thought out comparisons to Hitler were rampant at that point.

Right?

LOL

The House rule is based upon a simple majority.

The Senate rule should be based upon the same premise.

"...The maneuvering occurred after a decade in which first one party, then the other, nursed a lengthening list of grievances...".

Maneuvering...nursing grievances...

Surefire skills for success in any enterprise.

worf
Mcallen, TX

@Pagan--why do you keep claiming the two wars cost four trillion dollars? It's not even close.

And yes! We've been in Afghanistan all of the passed five years.

More than three quarters of the worlds military weapons have come from our country. Much of it in the passed five years. Mexican Cartels, South Korea Egypt, Pakistan, Syrian Rebels, Indonesia, etc, do not make their own weapons. Comes from our nation. The country who wants to disarm their citizens.

China, and Russia equals a combined fifteen percent

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Semi-strong
"The political pendulum will swing and they will find themselves on the other side of this rule."

Actually, I really don't mind if Republicans only need 50 + 1 to get their appointees through in such a time. Democrats rarely ever filibustered their nominations anyway and frankly an administration should have leeway to get their own people appointed since that's what the voters voted for. I think keeping the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations and for regular legislation is a good thing.

@Mountanman
"Can you hypocritical Demos name one Obama nominee that did not get approved? "

Every proposed ATF head during Obama's first term, every CFPB head based on their hatred of Warren and the entire idea of the CFPB (until Obama got Cordrey through via recess appointment), almost every person Obama has nominated to the DC Court of Appeals (this year that includes rejections of Robert Wilkins just this past week, Cornelia Pillard, Caitlin Halligan, and Patricia Millett).

"you guys in 2005 defending filibustering "

There have been around 170 judicial nomination filibusters in US history, over 80 of them are during Obama's Presidency. The nuclear option wouldn't happen if Republicans weren't blocking everyone.

Semi-Strong
Louisville, KY

Lost in DC,

No. It only adds to the partisan dysfunction that will haunt the next several presidencies.

atl134,

Maybe the rule change will be okay. But the political sting will remain and there will be the penchant for payback when the opportunity presents itself - then we all lose.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Pagan said correctly: 82 filibusters under Obama.
86 filibusters under every other President in American history.

Yep, it's Obama's fault?

Of course facts matter not to the adherents of the conservative religion.

Bob K
porland, OR

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT
Wow, so much can be said about the immature, childish, Reid and his take the ball home and not play by the rules anymore

....SERIOUSLY? When 3/4 or more of all the filibusters concerning judicial nominees have taken place trying to block President Obama?

It is the republicans who polluted the sand in the box, and their foolish, blinded supporters who allowed it.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments