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
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSenate.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 OBAMAS 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 Presidents 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 Senates 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 Cordrays nomination has nothing to do with him personally, but rather to the lack of accountability of the position and the new agency as its 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/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1137 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
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
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
nominate so many. Clapper, Mueller, Comey, and Bernanke come to mind.
66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)2. Because that's his job ...
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
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
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.