Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:13 PM Jul 2013

Senate.gov: The Facts on the Senate Rules Debate


Note: The text below is from a .gov website therefore is exempt from the four paragraph copyright rule.


The Facts on the Senate Rules Debate
Jul 15, ’13 2:32 PM
Categories Blog

FILIBUSTERS: LYNDON JOHNSON 1, HARRY REID 413

Senators Lyndon Baines Johnson and Harry Reid have each served as Majority Leader for six years. During their tenures, then-Senator Johnson faced one filibuster while Senator Reid has faced 413. (Official Senate Records)

REPUBLICANS HAVE FILIBUSTERED MORE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NOMINEES THAN EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT COMBINED

At the current rate, President Obama will face more filibusters on Executive Branch nominees than every other American president combined. (People for the American Way, 7/10/13)

Before President Obama took office, there had been a total of 20 filibusters on executive nominations in the entire history of the United States, from George Washington to George W. Bush. (CRS)

Since President Obama took office, there have been 16 filibusters. At this rate, there will be nearly 30 by the end of his second term. (Projection by People for the American Way, 7/10/13)

Executive nominees who are ready to be confirmed by the Senate have been pending an average of 260 days – more than 8 months – since they were first nominated. (Compiled by Office of Senator Reid based on publicly available dates of nominations)


CHANGE WOULD RESTORE SENATE TRADITION OF SIMPLE UP-OR-DOWN VOTE FOR QUALIFIED NOMINEES

For centuries, a President’s nominees received simple up-or-down votes in the Senate, except in extraordinary circumstances. (CRS)

The change contemplated by Senate Democrats would simply restore the Senate’s long tradition of delivering simple up-or-down votes for Executive nominees. Senators would still be free to debate and vote against nominations they oppose.

PRECEDENT FOR CHANGE: SENATE HAS VOTED TO CHANGE ITS RULES BY MAJORITY VOTE 18 TIMES SINCE 1977

The Senate has changed its procedures by a simple majority vote 18 times since 1977, an average of once every other year. (Compiled by Office of Senator Merkley based on Congressional Record, 7/11/13)

REPUBLICANS HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO NOMINEES’ QUALIFICATIONS

Senate Republicans are not arguing that the nominees in question are unqualified. Rather, they are trying to change laws and dismantle departments through the use of obstruction as a tactic.

Sen. Graham: “Given its recent actions, the NLRB as inoperable could be considered progress.” (Press Release, 12/9/11)

Sen. Rubio: “We made clear to the President that without these reforms we would not vote to confirm any nominee to run the CFPB, regardless of political affiliation or qualifications.” (Floor Speech, 12/8/11)

Sen. Hatch: “My opposition to Richard Cordray’s nomination has nothing to do with him personally, but rather to the lack of accountability of the position and the new agency as it’s currently structured.” (Press Release, 12/8/11)


ENDING GRIDLOCK ADDRESSES AMERICANS’ NUMBER ONE CONCERN WITH CONGRESS

The number one reason Americans are critical of Congress is “gridlock.” The second reason: “not getting anything done.” (Gallup, 6/12/13)

http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/07/15/the-facts-on-the-senate-rules-debate/

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Senate.gov: The Facts on the Senate Rules Debate (Original Post) Tx4obama Jul 2013 OP
Great post. But if the Republicans are so against Democratic issues, why oh why does Pres Obama rhett o rick Jul 2013 #1
Because that's his job ... 66 dmhlt Jul 2013 #2
The point was not why does the president nominate Evergreen Emerald Jul 2013 #3
Wrong. His job isnt to appoint those that promote the Republican ideology. Do you support a rhett o rick Jul 2013 #4
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
1. Great post. But if the Republicans are so against Democratic issues, why oh why does Pres Obama
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:24 PM
Jul 2013

nominate so many. Clapper, Mueller, Comey, and Bernanke come to mind.

66 dmhlt

(1,941 posts)
2. Because that's his job ...
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 08:44 AM
Jul 2013

Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution

"... he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law"


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Evergreen Emerald

(13,071 posts)
3. The point was not why does the president nominate
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 08:48 AM
Jul 2013

I think the point was, why does he nominate republicans who continue to hamstring our democracy?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
4. Wrong. His job isnt to appoint those that promote the Republican ideology. Do you support a
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 10:30 AM
Jul 2013

Republican ideology? The Republican Party is dedicated to hamstringing this country, so why does he embrace them?

It's not hard to see what he is doing. By appointing Clapper, Mueller, Comey, Bernanke, etc. (the list goes on and on) he clearly is supporting Republican ideologies.

Wake up and smell the Republican Oligarchy.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Senate.gov: The Facts on ...