Senate Con men being themselves - New England Patriots Forums

***PressCoverage*** · 06-12-2008, 06:45 AM

Senate conservatives repeat obscure objection to block another Judiciary hearing.

This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on how recent Supreme Court decisions have restricted protections of American workers and consumers. Fulfilling their role as the Grand Obstructionist Party, Senate conservatives deployed an obscure parliamentary tactic to halt the hearing, as committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) explained:

This morning an all too familiar pattern was underscored when a hearing on a topic our Republican colleagues did not like was cut short, without warning, by an anonymous Republican objection. … I share the sentiments Senator Whitehouse expressed before recessing the hearing — this behavior is a disgrace to the Senate, and it is especially shameful given that the victims who traveled a long way to tell their stories to the Committee did not get a full hearing.

Conservatives used the same technique yesterday to shut down a hearing on torture tactics used against detainees in U.S. custody.

otis p. driftwood · 06-12-2008, 09:27 AM

Good for them. What was the hearing actually supposed to do? Try and score some cheap points for the "D" party?

Stokes · 06-12-2008, 09:53 AM

Funny that you would blame Congressional Republicans for being obstructionist. I would say turnabout is fair play. Remember what happened in the last few years of the Republican controlled Congress? Democrats were the ones practicing obstructionist tactics, with judicial nominees being the best example. They stopped anything from getting done to hurt the Republicans in the next election (and it worked pretty well I'd say), so why now should they expect Republicans to give them free reign? How about Supreme Court nominees? That was once a civil process too, look how easily Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed, with Republicans respecting the Clinton nominee even though she was way left, versus the treatment Sam Alito got.

I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, and we'd be better off if both sides would stop the constant political posturing and be more willing to work in a bipartisan manner, but for you to insinuate the Republicans are the obstructionist party is ridiculous.

edit:
Here's a little summary of the recent events entitled "Obstruction, who cares?"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7371.html

otis p. driftwood · 06-12-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stokes

Funny that you would blame Congressional Republicans for being obstructionist. I would say turnabout is fair play. Remember what happened in the last few years of the Republican controlled Congress? Democrats were the ones practicing obstructionist tactics, with judicial nominees being the best example. They stopped anything from getting done to hurt the Republicans in the next election (and it worked pretty well I'd say), so why now should they expect Republicans to give them free reign? How about Supreme Court nominees? That was once a civil process too, look how easily Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed, with Republicans respecting the Clinton nominee even though she was way left, versus the treatment Sam Alito got.

I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, and we'd be better off if both sides would stop the constant political posturing and be more willing to work in a bipartisan manner, but for you to insinuate the Republicans are the obstructionist party is ridiculous.

It's not so much 2 wrongs making a right, but as far as I can tell everything the Democrat controlled Senate wants to do now is simply geared toward grandstanding or embarrassing the Republicans and/or the administration. There's no actual value in holding hearings on the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. It's not like the Senate can overturn an SC decision. If they don't like it, bring up a bill to change the law.

***PressCoverage*** · 06-12-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stokes

Funny that you would blame Congressional Republicans for being obstructionist. I would say turnabout is fair play. Remember what happened in the last few years of the Republican controlled Congress? Democrats were the ones practicing obstructionist tactics, with judicial nominees being the best example. They stopped anything from getting done to hurt the Republicans in the next election (and it worked pretty well I'd say), so why now should they expect Republicans to give them free reign? How about Supreme Court nominees? That was once a civil process too, look how easily Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed, with Republicans respecting the Clinton nominee even though she was way left, versus the treatment Sam Alito got.

I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, and we'd be better off if both sides would stop the constant political posturing and be more willing to work in a bipartisan manner, but for you to insinuate the Republicans are the obstructionist party is ridiculous.

edit:
Here's a little summary of the recent events entitled "Obstruction, who cares?"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7371.html

Show me when the Dems have issued an annonymous objection, so as to stall debate...

Patriot_in_NY · 06-12-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

Show me when the Dems have issued an annonymous objection, so as to stall debate...

Summer of 2006 - Child Custody Protection Act

...... and don't parse with annonymous objection either. Obstructionist tactics are obstructionist tactics, and it's really just business as usual in Washington these days. Both sides use it to their advantage. It sounds good when ThinkProgress tells you it, but really, it's a time-honored bi-Partisan tactic.

btw, I don't object to you saying its a crap move, it is. Just that both sides do it.

***PressCoverage*** · 06-12-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot_in_NY

Summer of 2006 - Child Custody Protection Act

...... and don't parse with annonymous objection either. Obstructionist tactics are obstructionist tactics, and it's really just business as usual in Washington these days. Both sides use it to their advantage. It sounds good when ThinkProgress tells you it, but really, it's a time-honored bi-Partisan tactic.

btw, I don't object to you saying its a crap move, it is. Just that both sides do it.

I'll "parse" with my point all I like. If you're going to obstruct on the senate floor, at least be man enough about it so as to be known.

Regardless, did you have to go back 2 years to find an example of Dem obstructionism? Shall we compare the frequency of the two parties and who does it most?

Stokes · 06-12-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot_in_NY

Summer of 2006 - Child Custody Protection Act

...... and don't parse with annonymous objection either. Obstructionist tactics are obstructionist tactics, and it's really just business as usual in Washington these days. Both sides use it to their advantage. It sounds good when ThinkProgress tells you it, but really, it's a time-honored bi-Partisan tactic.

btw, I don't object to you saying its a crap move, it is. Just that both sides do it.

Well, that saved me some work. I agree totally, I'm not saying its OK, I'm saying attributing obstructionist tactics only to Republicans in Congress is ridiculous.

And after reading for a minute about your example, that maneuver was blocking a bill already passed by the Senate! It wasn't even close either, 65-34! They blocked the progression to conference committee, where differences between house and senate versions are reconciled.

Stokes · 06-12-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

I'll "parse" with my point all I like. If you're going to obstruct on the senate floor, at least be man enough about it so as to be known.

Regardless, did you have to go back 2 years to find an example of Dem obstructionism? Shall we compare the frequency of the two parties and who does it most?

Of course you have to go back 2 years, after the 2006 elections the Dems were in control of the Senate! Its usually the minority party that obstructs! Come on PC, that was a crappy rebuttal.

Its OK to admit ThinkProgress goes too far sometimes...

***patsfan13*** · 06-12-2008, 04:40 PM

Just for you PC:

Quote:

Specter, a Republican centrist, never has been much of a partisan, but during five terms he has become a protector of the Senate's faded reputation as the "world's greatest deliberative body." On Monday, Specter deplored Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's use of a parliamentary device called "filling the tree" to prevent the Republican minority from offering amendments to a bill.

As Specter spoke, the Senate chamber typically was empty except for freshman Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin, there as presiding officer. Specter departed from Senate self-congratulation: "The American people live under the illusion that we have a United States Senate. The facts show that the Senate is realistically dysfunctional. It is on life support, perhaps even moribund. The only facet of Senate bipartisanship is the conspiracy of successive Republican and Democratic leaders to employ this procedural device known as filling the tree. It is known that way to insiders, and it is incomprehensible to outsiders."

The device was used last week when Reid called up the bill to control global warming, producing the state of futility that has haunted Reid's year and a half as majority leader. Characteristically, Reid neither found support to pass this bill nor attempted a compromise with opponents. Debating an energy tax as gasoline prices hit four dollars defied political logic. But Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Environment Committee, insisted. Reid bowed to her.

To prevent his Democratic colleagues from facing difficult amendments, Reid filled the tree with interlocking amendments that stave off all other proposed changes. The procedure has been used by majority leaders of both parties since 1985, but never as often as Reid. This marked the 12th time he has resorted to the device.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/R..._of_the_senate

Reid stifles debate to prevent the minority from preventing thier views, they respond in kind and on and on it goes.