Filibuster Showdown Ends in Huge Victory
Posted by Michelle Moquin on November 25th, 2013
Good morning!
Good news From Think Progress
Nuked
BY CAP ACTION WAR ROOM ON NOVEMBER 21, 2013 AT 5:19 PM
Filibuster Showdown Ends in Huge Victory
Great news! There will never be another filibuster of an executive branch or non-Supreme Court judicial nominee ever again.
In a huge victory for progress over senseless partisan obstructionism, Democrats, under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), voted this afternoon to eliminate the filibuster on nominations. This will bring an end to the GOP’s unprecedented blockade of highly-qualified nominees.
Here’s three charts that neatly sum up why Democrats had to take this step.
First, President Obama’s judicial nominees have been forced to wait months, if not years, just to get a vote — if they ever get an up-or-down vote at all. This is significantly longer than either President Bush or President Clinton’s nominees had to wait.
These extended delays are of course due in no small measure to the GOP’s decision to force Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) to file cloture motions on everything from routine Senate business and even district court judges, which previously drew little opposition.
You can see here that nominees who literally nobody opposes have been forced to wait and wait and wait just to get a vote. This gums up the Senate and forces Democrats to waste valuable floor time on nominees instead of important legislative business.
But all of that is over now. President Obama — and all future presidents — will be able to put together their administration and fulfill their constitutional duty to fill judicial vacancies under fair rules that prevent a minority in Congress from trying to retroactively veto laws and the results of elections.
The results of today’s huge victory are already apparent. Patricia Millett, one of the president’s previously-blocked nominees for the D.C. Circuit, cleared a GOP filibuster on simple majority vote (55-43). She and other nominees Republicans have been using the now-defunct filibuster to block will now be approved after the Senate’s Thanksgiving recess.
BOTTOM LINE: The American public is tired of partisan obstruction and wants Congress to do its job. In the Senate that means allowing simple up-or-down votes on nominations. By reforming its rules, the Senate will finally return to its proper role as spelled out in the Constitution: advise and consent, not obstruct and delay.
*****
Well…wha’at’s up? Blog me?
Peace out.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
November 25th, 2013 at 10:47 am
Majority Of Americans Think Obama Is Not Honest Or Trustworthy: Poll
I don’t think Obama is too worried about that statistic. He is not running again so he doesn’t feel that he has to kowtow to the white vote. Most white americans have a thing trust being more a color thing than having anything to do with actual facts. And how they hate to hear there s**t stinks.
It is easy for a party bent on delegitimizing the terms of the black POTUS, to appeal to that doubt in the white race. Hence the 53% figure is more reflective of white predisposition to color reflex on the issue of trust than on how the rest of us feel about this man.
Some how I feel that he is smiling and saying “only 53%, I guess the republicans didn’t get all the whites to distrust me. Thanks mom.”
November 25th, 2013 at 10:48 am
It’s about time.
November 25th, 2013 at 3:24 pm
I find the timing of the archives going down to be suspicious. Mayhaps there is much in there that one might become red-faced having to defend. This way, you don’t have to remember the lies, nor be called out on how you skewed the truth.
November 25th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
M I trust you realized that was not directed at you
November 26th, 2013 at 9:34 am
The way I look at it Anonymous#3 why would it matter? Things that happen are interdependent on so many other things happening or not that who’s to say what is effecting what?
Oh, it would be more convenient if you just picked a name rather than just using Anonymous. That is inconvenient for those who want to reply to your comment and it sort of shows a lack of imagination. NO insult intended, just saying.
November 26th, 2013 at 9:41 am
Sarah, you lied to me. Took my money, self esteem, and reputation and gave it to that narcissist who got you pregnant, stole the child and sold it to me.
Before I soaked it in gasoline and threw it off our favorite spot, I wrote this poem.
LOVE
started as a seed
slowly, carefully grew
to hot, burning passion
as evening grows to dawn
HATE
began as a weed
choked my love for you
became a cold, hard stanchion
to build all my loathing on.
Hope you like it.
November 26th, 2013 at 9:51 am
“Filibuster abuse”? So have we changed the definition of “abuse” now to “engaging in legal, acceptable, and traditional uses of the rules and laws of society”? I guess this is the kind of change that we all voted for in 2008, eh?
Seriously, how do people not laugh when they speak liberalism. Oh, I hereby proclaim that any unfriendly replying to my comments is “comment abuse” and shall not be tolerated!
November 26th, 2013 at 9:58 am
Howie, where are you? We need some Alien comments from you. What’s up in the extraterrestrial environment?
November 26th, 2013 at 9:59 am
Allen, Blocking any president’s constitutional duties and right to fill vacant positions by filibustering all otherwise acceptable nominees is an abuse of the advise and consent role of the Senate.
November 26th, 2013 at 10:13 am
Smith, so now, the libs look to the constitution? When it suits them. But discard it at every other turn. From beginning to end of this issue, the hypocrasy is vulgar.
November 26th, 2013 at 10:20 am
David;
Isn’t hypocrisy something that conservatives love? Exactly how many ‘family values’ conservatives actually practice what they preach?
November 26th, 2013 at 10:22 am
Jennifer, yes the repubs are not free of hypocrisy… I agree. But can you admit that the libs repeated trashing of the constitution, especially in this filibuster case is a prime example of hypocrisy?
November 26th, 2013 at 10:24 am
Hey, guys aren’t we supposed to be having this discussion on today’s blog? “Money Matters” http://blog.michellemoquin.com/
November 26th, 2013 at 10:25 am
David#12, If you had your way the constitution would be on a cardboard roll in the bathroom faster than anyone could say craptastic.
November 26th, 2013 at 10:30 am
CJ, have I told you how awesome you are at the putdown? You do it SO well and you don’t have to use terms that are considered pejorative to do it!
November 26th, 2013 at 10:35 am
Akemi, thanks, but those repuglickers sure make it easy to do. As much as I disliked star trek tng they sure do remind me of those “packlid” people.
November 26th, 2013 at 10:36 am
Lewis, you are one sick puppy.
November 26th, 2013 at 10:49 am
CJ, not sure why you can make that inference from anything I’ve written. I believe entirely in the brilliance of the constitution.
I believe its very clear lines between the three branches of government and the barriers between state and federal government are the safeguards from ultimate corruption and near dictatorship.
Because of my belief in and respect for the US Constitution, I fear that this administartions total disregard for the constitution is setting precendent for absolute lawlessness and tyrannical rule.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:03 am
Sorry David#18 that sophomoric declaration of your definition of the clear lines between the branches won’t do because the Founders designed our Constitution to be, by and large, a majority-rule document.
All the dems did was limit the filibuster, an extra-constitutional tool, which allowed the minority to obstruct the democratic process.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:05 am
David#18:
So now, the cons look to the constitution? When it suits them. But discard it at every other turn.
Like denying a woman the right to medical privacy that makes every other medical decision the purview of the patient or the right to self-determination that makes rape illegal.
Hmm…. from beginning to end of this issue, the hypocrasy (sic) is vulgar.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:09 am
Republicans’ abuse of Senate rules during Obama’s term has been disgusting. While President Obama has made an effort to work with Republican senators to nominate fair, accomplished judges, Republicans have blocked his nominees at every turn.
They add insult to injury by telling anyone who will listen that they are doing it for no reason other than the fact that it was President Obama who nominated them.
You know this yet you bring your lying ass on Michelle’s blog with more republican LSOS excuses.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:15 am
Akemi, if we are discussing constitutional rights… you are misinformed. The US Constitution makes no provision for medical privacy for woman or man. If im wrong, please site the text in the Constitution.
Funny though that you seem to value that right to medical privacy… which is quite ironic (as I assume youre a liberal)… since the administrative decisions of the liberals over past 5 years especially have done everything to violate the citizens’ (both male and female) right to privacy on all levels.
From NSA spying, to IRS tageting of conserervatives, to the IRS enforcing ACA, and to the complete release of medical records to the government as a pre-requisite to take part in the health-care program that most americans are being forced to partake against their will… each of these acts of the liberal government violate privacy every day… Specifically to the issue at hand and which i originally commented, the fillibuster…
The blatant hypocrasy on this issue in firmly demonstrated in recent history when the dems, including then Senator Obama, fought against the possibility of the Repubs invoking the nuclear option.
So the Dems recent decision to invoke the same nuclear option that they fought so vehemently against is the prime example of hypocrasy.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:29 am
David#22, let me put to rest your going to the Constitution and attempting to interpret it literally.
Unless you can show me where in the Constitution that it is explained that “We, the people” refers only to white males, then how in the fuck do you explain that the document only gave rights to white males for 200 gottdamn years?
If we are going to just make shit up as we go according to how it suits us then, the document doesn’t really mean shit.
Where do you see it mentioned that you creeps can own automatic weapons or magazines that hold hundred rounds? You can’t because those things didn’t exist back then.
Where does it say you have to have a driver’s license to operate a vehicle or run a business or practice law or medicine?
It doesn’t you idiot. So don’t come on this blog picking and choosing what you say those founding racist fucks didn’t put in the Constitution.
And you can’t spell or punctuate because you are an idiot as your analysis of the Constitution clearly shows.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:31 am
David, the irresponsible obstruction tactics by the House is part of a larger effort by Republicans in Congress to nullify laws they don’t like and overturn the results of elections that they lost.
The Founding Fathers never intended government to work that way.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:33 am
David#22:
Hypocrisy is the correct spelling. Not hypocrasy. I won’t go into the other misspellings at this point, but you should know that it makes it hard to understand what you’re saying. And what in God’s name have apostrophes ever done to you?
November 26th, 2013 at 11:35 am
David, You didn’t read what I said very well, did you? Here, let me quote, with emphasis added, to clarify what you missed: like denying a woman the right to medical privacy that makes EVERY OTHER MEDICAL ISSUE THE PURVIEW OF THE PATIENT;
Hmm, doesn’t that mean that if that right isn’t in the constitution then every other medical issue should be forced on patients?
Yet, somehow, not even Rethuglicans can agree on that. THERE’S the fucking hypocrisy for you.
Also, ACA operates on the SAME principle that every PRIVATE health care insurance program operates. Do you complain about PRIVATE insurers being granted complete release of all medical records?
Again, THERE’S your hypocrisy. I trust PRIVATE insurers with my medical information FAR less than I do the government, btw.
Besides, do you have a source for the link that shows that the government will force most *USians* to take part in the ACA?
Yeah, I’ve heard about how Obama fought against invoking the nuclear option. And I also know the reasons WHY.
THEIR reasoning was based on opposition to the SAME Republican attitude that they are NOW displaying to filibuster the Obama nominations.
And that’s a fucking CANADIAN telling you that. How sad.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:36 am
Jennifer… im not sure my spellchecking is the point. but ill assume that commenting on the typos is a good way for you to avoid the facts within my post. which, let’s (apostrophe for you so u understand what i mean) be honest… isnt hard to interpret despite my massive inability to spellcheck.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:37 am
David, Medical privacy would be included in the concept of liberty, sir. How “free” will you be when the state makes all your medical decisions? Wouldn’t that make you sort of ‘property’?
November 26th, 2013 at 11:50 am
Lewis, I am sorry. I was foolish to allow wanting a younger and more handsome man make me believe he wanted me for anything more than my money.
But, I have never had unprotected sex with anyone but you. At least that advice from you I heeded. Our child is alive and well because I know you do not have that kind of hate in your heart.
I suspect you have discovered the child is yours from a DNA test and you have decided to keep it from me because I hurt you.
Do so for as long as you feel you need to punish me.
But know that when he grows up and asks why you deprived both of us, no all three of us, the joy of family, he may take the vindictiveness you will have taught him to heart and disown you.
My Love
Come, my love, come away with me
To our secluded place beside the sea
Or to the hills along a mountain stream,
Far from the crowd where we will rest and dream.
We’ll laze about and we’ll pretend that we
Are once again young loves – just you and me and baby.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:51 am
Lilly, while i entirely agree that medical privacy is something that should not be compromised, I cant see that there is an explicit notation of medical privacy in the constitution.
but if you can make that case, im all for it. my goal in referencing that concept really was to point out that a person who advocates for the ACA, cant also claim medical privacy rights as a valued principle… as the ACA violates medical privacy rights from step 1.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:53 am
David, yes we are discussing rights. you however are promoting constitutional wrongs. In fact it wasn’t the liberals you see hiding under your bed who promoted the surveillance happy spy culture we now live in. That stuff started under Bush.
Here’s another clue for you the IRS is not a health care agency, its a revenue agency. You sure do blather on about hypocrisy a lot considering you are doing it without any knowledge of how to spell it.
November 26th, 2013 at 12:17 pm
CJ, i love how smart and informed you pretend to be. trying to write like some shakepearian policy genius. check your facts. the IRS is the chief enforcement agency for the ACA.