[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Filibusters are measured by cloture and cloture can be filed without a filibuster to end the prospect of a debate, let alone debate. It's a way to ensure the public does not hear how contentious and slimy an appointment is for example. Harry Reid has abused cloture to the point where the entire process is meaningless and I for one, cannot wait until he and his ilk are no longer in office and capable of hastening the demise of the US legislative process. Is there no rule they're not willing to break? No limitation they're willing to acknowledge?

Your characterization of this is a tad bit uhhh ... "overstated" my friend. Invoking cloture does not end or preclude all debate on a measure as you have indicated. What it does is put a LIMIT on the amount of debate for a given measure and guarantees an actual up or down VOTE. You know ... that little thing that's a fundamental part of a senator's job description and what we actually PAY them to do.

The filibuster is widely viewed as one of the Senate’s most characteristic procedural features. Filibustering includes any use of dilatory or obstructive tactics to block a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote. The possibility of filibusters exists because Senate rules place few limits on Senators’ rights and opportunities in the legislative process.

In particular, a Senator who seeks recognition usually has a right to the floor if no other Senator is speaking, and then may speak for as long as he or she wishes. Also, there is no motion by which a simple majority of the Senate can stop a debate and allow itself to vote in favor of an amendment, a bill or resolution, or any other debatable question. Most bills, indeed, are potentially subject to at least two filibusters before the Senate votes on final passage of the bill: first, a filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration; and second, after the Senate agrees to this motion, a filibuster on the bill itself.

Senate Rule XXII, however, known as the “cloture rule,” enables Senators to end a filibuster on any debatable matter the Senate is considering. Sixteen Senators initiate this process by presenting a motion to end the debate. In most circumstances, the Senate does not vote on this cloture motion until the second day of session after the motion is made. Then, it requires the votes of at least three-fifths of all Senators (normally 60 votes) to invoke cloture. (Invoking cloture on a proposal to amend the Senate’s standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.)

The primary effect of invoking cloture on most questions is to impose a maximum of 30 additional hours for considering that question. This 30-hour period for consideration encompasses all time consumed by roll call votes, quorum calls, and other actions, as well as the time used for debate. During this 30-hour period, in general, no Senator may speak for more than one hour (although several Senators can have additional time yielded to them). Under cloture, as well, the only amendments that Senators can offer are ones that are germane and that were submitted in writing before the cloture vote took place. Finally, the presiding officer also enjoys certain additional powers under cloture: for example, to count to determine whether a quorum is present, and to rule amendments, motions, and other actions out of order on the grounds that they are dilatory.

.
.
.

Invoking cloture on a bill does not produce an immediate vote on it. The effect of invoking cloture on a bill is only to guarantee that a vote will take place eventually.

Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate | Congressional Research Service

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Your characterization of this is a tad bit uhhh ... "overstated" my friend. Invoking cloture does not end or preclude all debate on a measure as you have indicated. What it does is put a LIMIT on the amount of debate for a given measure and guarantees an actual up or down VOTE. You know ... that little thing that's a fundamental part of a senator's job description and what we actually PAY them to do.

OAW

Invoking cloture against a move to proceed the bill is most certainly a means of ending even the prospect of debate just as I have said. You're neglecting the fact that you not only have the cloture option once a bill is in session, but to even move the bill to session for debate. This is a way to end the prospect of debate. Otherwise, I think the "obstructionist" angle is being a little overstated and your notion of Dems only attempting to do what they're paid to do is laughable. Here, the "delay" is overstated -- 112th Congress per the CRS; On average, the Senate spent four days per cloture motion on bills between the time the motion was filed and the time dispositive action was taken. If filing cloture is merely a way to end obstruction so a measure can be given an up or down vote in keeping with their sole purpose as a body, why are clotures being filed when no obstruction or filibuster is present? Answer: to avoid putting Democrats on the record for tough votes. An abuse of the cloture motion and a means of ensuring no debate is heard.

Exhibit A: Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) introduced legislation (S. 2204) to promote renewable energy with the cost offset by a tax hike on large oil producers. The normal process would have been for this legislation to be referred to committee for action. Majority Leader Harry Reid bypassed the committee process, however, and using something called Rule 14 had the bill placed directly on the Senate calendar. Two days later, he started the process to call up the bill by moving to "proceed to it" and immediately filed a cloture petition to end debate on that motion. The following Monday, the Senate then voted 92-4 to curtail debate on the motion to proceed to the bill. The next day, as soon as the bill was before the Senate, Mr. Reid offered five consecutive amendments and one motion in order to effectively block the consideration of any competing amendments or motions.
He then filed a cloture motion to close out debate on the bill. Two days later, the Senate rejected cloture on a party-line vote and moved on to other business, leaving the Menendez bill adrift.

No Republican filibuster, no threat of filibuster, and no obstructionism. This is very simply Harry Reid using parliamentary maneuvers such as Rule 14 in combination with cloture to avoid putting Democrats on record for a difficult up or down vote. You know, that little thing that's a fundamental part of a senator's job description and what we actually PAY them to do?

Another example in March of 2012; Reid filed cloture on 17 Judicial nominees, yet there had been no single word of debate. In fact, Republicans voted for the majority of these nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee and as it turns out, they were all sworn in. Senator Mike Lee from UT protested Obama's "recess" appointments of Richard Cordray as head of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Richard Griffin, Sharon Block, and Terence Flynn to be on the National Labor Relations Board, but those were not related to the 17 nominees and no formal filibuster had been submitted to the Senate chair. I have "recess" in quotes because... Congress wasn't in recess at the time and Reid didn't want Lee making hay of this. Reid made the move in an attempt to silence and shame Mike Lee, that's it -- not in the interest of doing that little thing that's a fundamental part of a senator's job description and what we actually PAY them to do.

[climber]

Didn't you get the memo.....It's is supposed to be just the Republicans fault. They are the evil and against true progressivisim. The ends after all do justify the means. /s

The truth is this stuff is very complicated for even the well read individual. It's currently nearly impossible to read the news and truly understand what exactly is going on in Washington today. We have lots of media, but they seem content in disregarding any of the ethics they learned college journalism classes, if they even took any. Instead we get a partial view from both sides, always obscuring the parts that do not reflect their own agenda.

I truly have no idea if the current congressional stalemate is the Republicans fault or the Democrats. I suspect it's both. But to truly and fairly understand, I guess I would have to know the complete history of how appointments and bills proceed and how conflict has been resolved.

The other truth. We the people do not pay the president or the congress. Sure they get a salary and other benefits from us but that is a fraction of the big picture. How much does the President make? He raised 100 times that amount running for election last year. The "people" did not give him that money, large corporate interests did. They eventually expect to get paid back, and usually do.

As such, our elected officials actually represent the money they need to stay elected and keep the power.

We need significant limits on campaign contributions. To do this right we need a constitutional amendment. Only individuals can donate money and with significant annual limits.

[BadKosh]

The percentage of OUR TAX DOLLARS going to pay elected officials does not negate the fact we DO pay their salaries.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by climber 

The other truth. We the people do not pay the president or the congress. Sure they get a salary and other benefits from us but that is a fraction of the big picture. How much does the President make? He raised 100 times that amount running for election last year. The "people" did not give him that money, large corporate interests did. They eventually expect to get paid back, and usually do.

As such, our elected officials actually represent the money they need to stay elected and keep the power.

We need significant limits on campaign contributions. To do this right we need a constitutional amendment. Only individuals can donate money and with significant annual limits.

Its illegal to use campaign funds for personal use. The AG is supposed to enforce those laws, but we haven't had an honest AG in a while now.

Who do YOU think should enforce these laws? Constitutional laws and amendments are under attack right now, especially the 2nd.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by climber 

Didn't you get the memo.....It's is supposed to be just the Republicans fault. They are the evil and against true progressivisim. The ends after all do justify the means. /s

The truth is this stuff is very complicated for even the well read individual. It's currently nearly impossible to read the news and truly understand what exactly is going on in Washington today. We have lots of media, but they seem content in disregarding any of the ethics they learned college journalism classes, if they even took any. Instead we get a partial view from both sides, always obscuring the parts that do not reflect their own agenda.

I truly have no idea if the current congressional stalemate is the Republicans fault or the Democrats. I suspect it's both. But to truly and fairly understand, I guess I would have to know the complete history of how appointments and bills proceed and how conflict has been resolved.

The other truth. We the people do not pay the president or the congress. Sure they get a salary and other benefits from us but that is a fraction of the big picture. How much does the President make? He raised 100 times that amount running for election last year. The "people" did not give him that money, large corporate interests did. They eventually expect to get paid back, and usually do.

As such, our elected officials actually represent the money they need to stay elected and keep the power.

We need significant limits on campaign contributions. To do this right we need a constitutional amendment. Only individuals can donate money and with significant annual limits.

Excellent points, climber. Government has gotten far too expansive and complicated and unfortunately, it is not just we lay-people who struggle with understanding the process, but the very people behind it struggle to understand it. You've got the President legislating by Executive fiat and we've got Constitutional challenges going on right now we can't even keep up with in oversight. For example, under the precedent set by this Administration; can the next Republican President simply decide unilaterally that the Capital Gains tax is not going to be enforced for a year or two depending on how things are looking in the upcoming election? Can he unilaterally modify enforcement policy on immigration after taking an oath to uphold law for example? Things that make you go hmmm...

Where I'm inclined to disagree with you is in the notion that we should end and/or severely limit what can be donated in contributions to campaigns. The problem is not that Big Corp is interested in encouraging this piece of legislation or that, it is Big Government's interest and need for their Big Money and wares.

The analogy I like to use is the giraffe. Giraffes do not swim because they can't swim. You can try to bribe the giraffe, offer it back-room deals or special favors -- it wouldn't matter. Giraffe's can't swim. There's no use in your money because it wouldn't matter. The Big money and lobbyists of monolithic Insurance companies, Pharmaceutical giants, and Big Energy wouldn't matter if Big Govt wasn't interested in their wares for (enter buy-off constituency here). These Big Corporations have a say in legislation because Big Govt needs them to administer Government growth in those sectors. You want to manipulate the pharmaceutical industry to provide cheaper drugs for (enter buy-off constituency here)? Cozy up to Big Pharma. You want to overhaul the health insurance industry under the guise of helping (enter buy-off constituency here)? Cozy up to Big Insurance. The NRA and their contributions and big money wouldn't matter because the government wouldn't be actively trying to infringe on Second Amendment rights, etc... the problem is an ever-increasingly intrusive government, exploiting one "crisis" after another to reach another tentacle of their folly into our livelihoods. If Big Government wasn't actively interested in reaching out through those sectors, they wouldn't have their ears massaged by the Big Corporations as purveyors of those sectors. Not less money, less government.

You can't bribe a giraffe to swim.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Invoking cloture against a move to proceed the bill is most certainly a means of ending even the prospect of debate just as I have said. You're neglecting the fact that you not only have the cloture option once a bill is in session, but to even move the bill to session for debate. This is a way to end the prospect of debate.

Huh? How am I "neglecting the fact" when I just provided a citation and put it in bold for emphasis? Again ....

Most bills, indeed, are potentially subject to at least two filibusters before the Senate votes on final passage of the bill: first, a filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration; and second, after the Senate agrees to this motion, a filibuster on the bill itself.

Senate rules allow there to be "debate" about whether or not to even bring a bill up for consideration AND once past that hurdle, more "debate" about the merits of the bill itself. So how does invoking cloture against a "motion to proceed" to consider a bill or nomination end the prospect of "debate" about the merits of that bill or nomination? Answer? It doesn't! It simply expedites the process. Example ...

President Obama appoints Judge Eni Bodi to the federal judiciary. Majority Leader Reid files a "motion to proceed" to consider the nomination. As is the Senate's constitutional duty. And given how the 112th and 113th Congresses are the least productive in history, it's not like this should be an issue since they clearly aren't attending to much other Senate business. So Majority Leader Reid invokes "cloture" on the "motion to proceed" ... which allots 30 hours for this stage of the process ... so that the debate on the merits of the nomination itself can actually begin. But therein lies the rub. Once "cloture" is invoked, the actual debate on the merits of the nomination itself can only begin IF AND ONLY IF 60 votes are secured to end the debate on the "motion to proceed". If those votes are NOT there to even bring a nomination up for "consideration" ... then clearly the nomination is being filibustered!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Otherwise, I think the "obstructionist" angle is being a little overstated and your notion of Dems only attempting to do what they're paid to do is laughable. Here, the "delay" is overstated -- 112th Congress per the CRS; On average, the Senate spent four days per cloture motion on bills between the time the motion was filed and the time dispositive action was taken. If filing cloture is merely a way to end obstruction so a measure can be given an up or down vote in keeping with their sole purpose as a body, why are clotures being filed when no obstruction or filibuster is present? Answer: to avoid putting Democrats on the record for tough votes. An abuse of the cloture motion and a means of ensuring no debate is heard.

Where do you get this notion that invoking "cloture" prevents Dems from being put on record for tough votes? The outcome of such a motion is still a VOTE! If the GOP filibusters and defeats the "cloture" motion then they are the ones preventing the vote of the bill or nomination itself. That's what filibuster is If the GOP agrees to invoke "cloture" then the bill or nomination itself gets a VOTE by the entire Senate ... Dems included.

Moreover, you are citing that Washington Post article and claiming that the "delay is overstated" because on average the Senate spent four days per cloture motion. The problem is that the only way you can imply that such a time frame isn't inordinate is to "cherry pick" that bit of data from its larger context.

A larger question is what this graphic is supposed to document. According to the CRS data, only 29 nominees (12 during the Obama presidency) did not receive a final vote or had their nomination withdrawn. In other words, eventually most of the nominees were approved, either by voice vote or with overwhelming support. Yet the graphic says the nominees were “blocked” and Reid in his floor speech said “these nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote.”

Adam Jentleson, Reid’s communication director, says that “block” does not mean that a nomination is fully derailed, but that the minority used delaying tactics that ate up valuable floor time. Reid’s reference to a “fair vote” meant that the minority would not agree to simply proceed to a vote on the nomination without first requiring the Senate to go through the cumbersome cloture process. (Before the Senate began to split along partisan lines, setting up votes by unanimous consent was standard practice.)

“When Senator Reid files cloture it is because Republicans are blocking the nominee from receiving a fair up-or-down vote, and he has determined that the only way to get that vote is to file cloture, and waste the better part of a week,” Jentleson said. “Our whole point in the larger debate here is that it should not become accepted procedure that nominees — even consensus nominees — require almost a week of floor time before they can get a vote.”

Cloture can be time-consuming. After the motion is made, an intervening session day must pass and then up to 30 hours of debate can take place. So in theory almost an entire week can be spent on the issue.

Jentleson supplied another CRS report, not made public before, that documented the number of days it took the Senate in the 112th Congress to work its way through cloture votes on legislation. On average, the Senate spent four days per cloture motion on bills between the time the motion was filed and the time dispositive action was taken. Given that 43 bills were subject to cloture, in theory one could calculate that 190 days were spent burning the cloture clock, but the Senate also is able to conduct other business in this period.

So the question becomes what constitutes a "filibuster". If one goes with a very restrictive definition then only 12 nominations by President Obama never received a final vote or were withdrawn. But a more expansive and commonsensical definition would yield a much higher number. From the article I cited earlier ...

Filibustering includes any use of dilatory or obstructive tactics to block a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote.

dilatory (adjective) - intended to cause delay

obstructive (adjective) - causing or tending to cause deliberate difficulties and delays

In my view the use of these "delaying" tactics are sufficient evidence of a "filibuster" regardless of if the measure is ultimately blocked.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Exhibit A: Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) introduced legislation (S. 2204) to promote renewable energy with the cost offset by a tax hike on large oil producers. The normal process would have been for this legislation to be referred to committee for action. Majority Leader Harry Reid bypassed the committee process, however, and using something called Rule 14 had the bill placed directly on the Senate calendar. Two days later, he started the process to call up the bill by moving to "proceed to it" and immediately filed a cloture petition to end debate on that motion. The following Monday, the Senate then voted 92-4 to curtail debate on the motion to proceed to the bill. The next day, as soon as the bill was before the Senate, Mr. Reid offered five consecutive amendments and one motion in order to effectively block the consideration of any competing amendments or motions.
He then filed a cloture motion to close out debate on the bill. Two days later, the Senate rejected cloture on a party-line vote and moved on to other business, leaving the Menendez bill adrift.

No Republican filibuster, no threat of filibuster, and no obstructionism. This is very simply Harry Reid using parliamentary maneuvers such as Rule 14 in combination with cloture to avoid putting Democrats on record for a difficult up or down vote. You know, that little thing that's a fundamental part of a senator's job description and what we actually PAY them to do? :LOL:

So Sen. Reid invokes "cloture" which puts a 30 hour time limit on a measure's consideration ... and then files amendments and motions on his own that will take up that time and "effectively block the consideration of any competing amendments or motions." Ok. But what you are describing is the Majority Leader using the power of his position to control the legislative agenda. Which IIRC is something the majority has a right to do as a result of winning the election. And somehow I don't think you would find this objectionable if Sen. McConnell were in his shoes. And I've certainly never seen you take issue when Speaker Boehner does this very thing in the House. Mr. Boehner always talks about getting back to "regular order" and letting the "House work its will" .... yet he rarely brings up a measure for a vote even if it has the votes for passage if it doesn't pass the "Hastert Rule". Meaning that it has to have the support of a "majority of the GOP majority" as opposed to a "majority of the House". So as you are apt so say ... "Don't hate the playa, hate the game."

And let's not even get into the issue of the GOP's penchant for introducing non-germane amendments to legislation they know have no chance of passage just to waste valuable Senate floor time and create fodder for political ads in the upcoming election .... or as you put it "put Democrats on record for a difficult up or down vote". When the Senate is debating a renewable energy measure I can certainly understand Sen. Reid not making it easy for the GOP to offer up the umpteenth late-term abortion ban or defund Obamacare amendment to a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with those topics.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Huh? How am I "neglecting the fact" when I just provided a citation and put it in bold for emphasis? Again ....

Neglect; to not pay proper attention to... You may have cited it, but it apparently had no bearing on your analysis.

Senate rules allow there to be "debate" about whether or not to even bring a bill up for consideration AND once past that hurdle, more "debate" about the merits of the bill itself. So how does invoking cloture against a "motion to proceed" to consider a bill or nomination end the prospect of "debate" about the merits of that bill or nomination? Answer? It doesn't! It simply expedites the process. Example ...

But why would the process have to be hastened when there is no filibuster threat? It has been maintained that Republicans are being obstructionist because of their use of the filibuster, but filibusters are being counted by the number of clotures filed. Clotures do not equal filibusters. Reid has been abusing Senate processes in an attempt to vilify Republicans when the reality is they've confirmed all, but two of the President’s court nominees totaling 215 lower court judges.

President Obama appoints Judge Eni Bodi to the federal judiciary. Majority Leader Reid files a "motion to proceed" to consider the nomination. As is the Senate's constitutional duty. And given how the 112th and 113th Congresses are the least productive in history, it's not like this should be an issue since they clearly aren't attending to much other Senate business...

But that's not a filibuster. You seem to be suggesting it's acceptable to file cloture in order to, as you say, "control the legislative agenda", and then turn around and blame it on Republican abuse of filibuster. BZZZT! Whether or not the business of the Senate is productive in your opinion or Reid's opinion only matters to the extent one is willing to abuse parliamentary rules.

So Majority Leader Reid invokes "cloture" on the "motion to proceed" ... which allots 30 hours for this stage of the process ... so that the debate on the merits of the nomination itself can actually begin. But therein lies the rub. Once "cloture" is invoked, the actual debate on the merits of the nomination itself can only begin IF AND ONLY IF 60 votes are secured to end the debate on the "motion to proceed". If those votes are NOT there to even bring a nomination up for "consideration" ... then clearly the nomination is being filibustered!

No, not clearly anything. I've already given you examples where no filibuster threat was present. Reid filed cloture on 17 Judicial nominees that hadn't been filibustered and where no filibuster threat was even submitted to the Senate. That counts as Republican obstructionism whether or not Republicans even heard of the matter or nominee to submit a filibuster.

Where do you get this notion that invoking "cloture" prevents Dems from being put on record for tough votes? The outcome of such a motion is still a VOTE! If the GOP filibusters and defeats the "cloture" motion then they are the ones preventing the vote of the bill or nomination itself. That's what filibuster is If the GOP agrees to invoke "cloture" then the bill or nomination itself gets a VOTE by the entire Senate ... Dems included.

Clotures are generally used to hasten an up or down vote and most often used by proponents of the measure at hand, filibusters are generally used by opponents to delay the measure at hand. If cloture is being filed without a filibuster threat, then the process is being hastened, but this is not Republican obstructionism. Cloture does not equal filibuster. I get the notion from the very example I offered you of this phenomena. If there is nothing else productive going on in the Senate, why wouldn't Democrats want to hear about a means to promote renewable energy with the cost offset by a tax hike on large oil producers? Because it's a tough vote that might cost Democrats in heavy oil States. What to do? "Fill the tree", file cloture and watch that cloture get overruled on a party-line (D) vote thereby tabling the legislation so it wouldn't go to vote; a way of avoiding a tough vote. Unless of course, these least productive classes were clearly attending to other Senate business. In volleyball I believe this is referred to as setting a spike.

So the question becomes what constitutes a "filibuster". If one goes with a very restrictive definition then only 12 nominations by President Obama never received a final vote or were withdrawn. But a more expansive and commonsensical definition would yield a much higher number. From the article I cited earlier ...

dilatory (adjective) - intended to cause delay

obstructive (adjective) - causing or tending to cause deliberate difficulties and delays

In my view the use of these "delaying" tactics are sufficient evidence of a "filibuster" regardless of if the measure is ultimately blocked.

To you, it must be determined before-hand whether or not enough Democrats are willing to go on record to support a measure. If there aren't -- EUREKA, Republican filibuster. Clotures do not equal filibusters.

So Sen. Reid invokes "cloture" which puts a 30 hour time limit on a measure's consideration ... and then files amendments and motions on his own that will take up that time and "effectively block the consideration of any competing amendments or motions." Ok. But what you are describing is the Majority Leader using the power of his position to control the legislative agenda. Which IIRC is something the majority has a right to do as a result of winning the election. And somehow I don't think you would find this objectionable if Sen. McConnell were in his shoes. And I've certainly never seen you take issue when Speaker Boehner does this very thing in the House. Mr. Boehner always talks about getting back to "regular order" and letting the "House work its will" .... yet he rarely brings up a measure for a vote even if it has the votes for passage if it doesn't pass the "Hastert Rule". Meaning that it has to have the support of a "majority of the GOP majority" as opposed to a "majority of the House". So as you are apt so say ... "Don't hate the playa, hate the game."

I don't think you can make the decision on your own to thwart legislation and then blame Democrats for it. If you can cite an example where Boehner has neglected to bring legislation to the floor and blamed that decision on Democrat obstructionism, I'd like to see it and will then rebuke Boehner for dodgy procedural tactics.

And let's not even get into the issue of the GOP's penchant for introducing non-germane amendments to legislation they know have no chance of passage just to waste valuable Senate floor time and create fodder for political ads in the upcoming election .... or as you put it "put Democrats on record for a difficult up or down vote". When the Senate is debating a renewable energy measure I can certainly understand Sen. Reid not making it easy for the GOP to offer up the umpteenth late-term abortion ban or defund Obamacare amendment to a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with those topics.

OAW

Oh no you di'nt go there... The Senate has long-been recognized as the most unique parliamentary body on the globe because while there is a de-facto "leader" of the Senate as the majority head, it is deemed a "leaderless" body with process enabling all 100 Senators a say in the legislative process through extended debate and an open amendment process. This has become too cumbersome for (D) legislative whimsy and it's no surprise to me they've gone nuclear. It is now dictated by the Majority leader putting an end to extended debate and an open amendment process. What are you and I talking about? "Filling the tree".

Tyranny in the US Senate -- Abstract: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has regularly used a procedural tactic called “filling the amendment tree” to restrict Senators’ right to debate and offer amendments. While previous Majority Leaders have occasionally used this tactic, Senator Reid has used this tactic often—more than all of his predecessors combined. This tactic combined with another parliamentary maneuver and demonization of the filibuster threatens to squelch dissent in the Senate and further constrict the national debate on important political issues.

Reid has employed this tactic more than 50 times during his more than five years as Majority Leader to prevent the minority party from forcing votes on politically charged amendments. He inherited this tactic from prior leaders, but he has used it more than all of his predecessors combined.
Reid has also used a parliamentary maneuver to block motions to suspend the rules after debate is completed, further constraining the right of Members to offer amendments. Because of Reid’s tactic of blocking amendments during debate, suspending the rules after debate had become the only safety valve for Senators to offer amendments. These two Reid parliamentary tactics have made most Senators irrelevant to the national debates facing Americans today.

Both Republican and Democratic leaders have used this strong-arm tactic, but Reid has used it as a normal course of business on almost every bill that comes before the Senate.

Say what you want my friend, that's not Republican obstructionism, but something else entirely.

[ebuddy]

And really, what's the hurry anyway? I'm reading an awful lot of complaints online about "delay tactics" when it seems to me most of these are wrapped up in a week. The USS America is a big ship, it doesn't turn on a dime.

Here's an example of a woman's turn-around from application to job as a Data Analyst for an advertising company;
"Finally after two years, I have a job as a Data Analyst for an advertising company, with slightly over two weeks from the recruiter saying “Hi, I passed your resume to the hiring manager, and he’d like to talk to you…” to the job offer, with two phone interviews, an online programming exam, a personality profile, and a problem that the hiring manager gave me to see how I thought on my feet."

Two weeks for a Data Analyst position at an advertising company. How important are these Executive and Judicial nominations and what is an acceptable amount of time to vet them? This Administration couldn't manage to launch a moderately useful website with more than 3 years time and $600 million at their disposal, I don't want them trying to do anything - fast.

[BadKosh]

More creeps

'Under a cloud': Dems advance DHS pick despite claims of political favors | Fox News

[Snow-i]

At this point, no amount of whistle blowing will stop the liberal juggernaut from destroying the last of the checks and balances that have kept this country honest. It started with the republicans in the early part of the decade and has been amplified in recent years several fold. We still have the 1st amendment, for now. But the 2nd, 4th, 5th and I'm sure a few others have been circumvented by overzealous ideologues and suppressed by opportunistic politicians to the point that they are almost meaningless in today's context. The government establishment is winning this war, and unfortunately that means you and I are losing.

The precedent has been set. So long as Pelosi, Reid, and Obama et al continue to be viewed as above the law, the free future of this country is doomed. The next group to hold those positions, republican or democrat, will be stepping into positions that for years have been above reproach and beyond accountability.

The people have spoken. And it appears we're content with our democratic republic being hijacked so long as the government checks keep coming in the mail. We ought to take our country back, but I'm afraid too many stop paying attention so long as "their team" is in office. Until this unsustainable system implodes under the weight of its own absurdity and true leadership emerges from the dust, we are relegated to living under the rule of an oligarchy of special interest and cronyism, with a bleak future in regards to reaching any semblance of the American dream of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.