Filibuster: I just don't get it.

[IndyDave1776]

A filibuster only does two things. It irritates the other side and shows that you really give a sh** even thought the rest of the world my not.

It can also be enough of an obstacle to getting other things done that the other side will give up one thing in order to move on. This was more the case in times past when a filibuster shut down all Senate business until it was resolved (whcih strikes me as a good thing--the less the Senate does, the better).

 

[1943Izzy]

Pretty much it was just grandstanding .

 

[mbills2223]

Pretty much it was just grandstanding .

I'm not sure that's the best way to describe it...

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not sure that's the best way to describe it...

Agreed. It wasn't mere theatrics, but forced people who are otherwise willfully blind to see the threat that faces us, and also forced the Kenyan to address the issue directly, which he had steadfastly refused to do previously.

 

[Classic]

Agreed. It wasn't mere theatrics, but forced people who are otherwise willfully blind to see the threat that faces us, and also forced the Kenyan to address the issue directly, which he had steadfastly refused to do previously.

Exactly right. This was a serious issue regarding Due Process and the mission WAS accomplished when and only when Obama and Holder were forced to make a public statement. Appaling how complacent and constitutionally ignorant most Americans are really.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Worked...

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=735

response from Attorney General Eric Holder: "'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."

Well I guess this is a pretty iron-clad statement.

 

[LPMan59]

Worked...

Sen. Paul Reaches Victory Through Filibuster Rand Paul | United States Senator

just means he'll do it real quiet like

 

[88GT]

That is by inference. The Constitution gives the responsibility of making such appointments to the president, therefore it is the president's prerogative. The Senate's job is to, as part of the system of checks and balances, make sure that such a choice is acceptable, not impose itself as the de facto agency of choosing the nominee, much in the same way as when a congregationally governed church elects a new pastor, there is only one candidate who has theoretically been vetted by this point and the vote is dependent on whether or not that person is suitable, not a popularity contest or a vehicle to reopen the selection process for insubstantial reasons. Again, the problem I see is that Senate confirmation fails with the Ds refusing to confirm anyone who has shown any indication of being conservative and the Rs refuse to vote against people who are clearly dangerous to the republic--out of balance in both cases.

Advise and CONSENT. Plain language. No inferences allowed.

It doesn't really matter why the Senate would withhold consent in the scheme of things. It has the, what was the word you used, the prerogative to do it.

In a perfect world, as I happened to state in my earlier post, nominees would be judged on their merits and their merits alone. And I am sure that is what the authors intended. I don't believe in Borking nominees simply because of their party affiliation. But I do have a problem with the rubber stamping of nominees because one side is too spineless to oppose ANY but the most despicable characters. Rand's doing just that.

Here's the way I see it. Your position is that they are acceptable until they are proven otherwise. My position is that they are neither acceptable nor unacceptable when they are nominated, but that the Senate is tasked with the responsibility, nay duty, to determine the nominee's fitness for the job.

It's a nuanced difference, but practically it is world's apart when people like Rand are trying to say in not so many words that "elections have consequences." It is particularly nauseating that his reason for doing so is an effort to make others like us and not be so mean when the tables are turned.

 

[hornadylnl]

95 house republicans voted to punt advise and consent. 38 of those were tea party members. Color me surprised.

S 679 | U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington PostThe Washington Post

 

[corronade]

we need more senators like Rand Paul
people who will make a difference
for the people
who actually believes that they are still public servants
who works for us not the otherway around like nancy palosi

 

[Roadie]

If I am not mistaken, both the longest single person Filibuster, and the longest general Filibuster, were both conducted by Democrats protesting the Civil Rights Acts back in the '60s

 

[IndyDave1776]

If I am not mistaken, both the longest single person Filibuster, and the longest general Filibuster, were both conducted by Democrats protesting the Civil Rights Acts back in the '60s

Strom Thurmond holds the record, just shy of 24 hours if I remember correctly, in which he famously read names and numbers out of the Washington DC phone book after the obligatory time on topic followed by reading his mother's recipe book.

It is worth noting that Paul stayed on topic, supporting the obvious fact that he was as much motivated to force people to think about what is going on as to force Obama to respond to his concerns regarding drones.