Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Filibusters a Vital Senate Safeguard

July 17, 2013

“The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington,” Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in 2005....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(5)

Gooseman

Jul-17-13 5:24 AM

WASHINGTON -- Democrats not only got much of what they wanted in Tuesday's deal to move some of President Barack Obama's nominees through the Senate, they also got what they see as an important bonus -- casting Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in an unflattering light.

The unfortunate moment culminated Tuesday morning, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) marched onto the Senate floor not with the leader from Kentucky opposite him to announce a deal to pass the stalled nominees, but with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

McCain was there, according to several sources who spoke about private, behind-the-scenes talks on the condition of anonymity, because he and and several other Republicans grew fed up with their own side's stalling tactics and went around McConnell (R-Ky.) to cut the deal with Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), avoiding a "nuclear option" rules change to pass the nominees.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Gooseman

Jul-17-13 5:38 AM

"Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times."

"That's more than ALL the filibusters in Senate history prior to 2007.The bipartisan agreement, reached after days of talks and jockeying for political position, will allow Obama to fill out his second-term team with top administrators overseeing efforts to protect workers, consumers and the environment."

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Gooseman

Jul-17-13 5:45 AM

The NR article is so far off the mark of the truth in order to protect the republican obstructionists.

360 Republican filibusters? That has nothing to do with protecting the rights of the minority...but everything to do with preventing a President, elected by the majority of the nation, to do what the majority of the nation voted him in office to do.

Maybe the NR also missed Reids comments about the importance of Senate rules to protect the minority?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

thetruthforonce

Jul-17-13 8:05 AM

Let's look at this logically. How many Supreme Court Justices does it take to declare major Congressional legislation unconstitutional? Answer: 5--a simple majority. Next. How many congressmen does it take to pass legislation in the House? Answer: 218, a simple majority. Next. How many electoral votes does it take to elect the President of our country? Answer: a simple majority. Next. How many votes does it take to get anything accomplished in any group or organization in practically every aspect of our lives? Answer: A simple majority. Question: Then why does it take 60% of senators to agree to get anything done in the Senate? Answer: Who the*****knows.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie

Jul-18-13 6:42 AM

The Dems will return the favor in spades next time they are in the minority. The Senate is a joke.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 5 of 5 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: