GOP Filibusters Habaes Restoration.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-19 01:13pm

Tell me again how the GOP is the party of the rule of law. 57 for Cloture, 1 not voting, 43 against Cloture. List of those voting Here. Only non-GOP member voting against Cloture? Lieberman. In the end, he really is just scum.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-09-19 01:17pm

Stupid authoritarian warmongering prisonmongering anti-American fucks. VOTE EM OUT!

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-09-19 02:34pm

God damnit. Four votes shy?

As happy as I am that both of my state's senators voted yea, I'm kind of pissed that there's no-one I can call up and yell at.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-09-19 02:42pm

Oh. My. FUcking. God

You would think McCain would recognize the horror that is being imprisoned without charge or trial.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-09-19 02:47pm

And here's the breakdown. Hooray for party-line voting!

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-19 03:25pm

Molyneux wrote:As happy as I am that both of my state's senators voted yea, I'm kind of pissed that there's no-one I can call up and yell at.

I'd like to echo Molyneux' complaint, I want an asshole to yell at!

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-09-19 04:33pm

Guess it's time to bitch David Vitter out, then remind him about his hookers in New Orleans.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-09-19 05:08pm

A good chunk, if not most, of the "No" votes are from states where ultra-conservative fundies like to hang-out.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2007-09-19 05:59pm

I've already tried bitching to Norm Coleman.

I'm tempted to write out a check for two thousand dollars, photocopy it, blur out the account number, staple it to this voting tally, circle his name and vote, then mail it to him with the headline "This is going to your opposition."

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-09-19 06:04pm

Do it, Xeriar! Money is the only thing those shitbirds listen to!

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2007-09-19 06:13pm

If you did it for a higher amount, it might get you in the local newspaper. Do it; just make sure you very thoroughly blank out the account number.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-19 06:38pm

So would it be breaking Godwins law for me to start humming Duecheland Uber Alles?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-09-19 06:48pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:If you did it for a higher amount, it might get you in the local newspaper. Do it; just make sure you very thoroughly blank out the account number.

Or at least Digg, which is as good as saying 'nearly the whole internet'.

Flagg wrote:So would it be breaking Godwins law for me to start humming Duecheland Uber Alles?

Yes, but I don't think anyone's gonna mind anymore.

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2007-09-19 06:59pm

Did they actually Filibuster it, or is this another case of saying they would filibuster and thats it?

I am increasingly convinced that the so-called winner-takes-all two-party system in the US is broken - because the winner actually doesn't take all.

Or is this only the case because the Democrats aren't willing to go to the same extremes as the Republicans in abusing the system to their advantage?

It just seems strange to me that a minority party is able to influence decisions and legislation to such an extent, that they can decide what is passed and what fails, even though they are the minority.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-09-19 07:12pm

Xeriar wrote:I've already tried bitching to Norm Coleman.

I'm tempted to write out a check for two thousand dollars, photocopy it, blur out the account number, staple it to this voting tally, circle his name and vote, then mail it to him with the headline "This is going to your opposition."

Xeriar, if you do that it would be awsomer than when you proved sunshine and happiness is a weapon of mass destruction.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-19 07:57pm

D.Turtle wrote:Did they actually Filibuster it, or is this another case of saying they would filibuster and thats it?

They threatened to. But they have shown a willing ness to actually fillibuster, so it's practically teh same thing.

I wonder if the Democrats should adopt what I'm going to call the "tactical nuclear option". Change the rules of the Senate so that any legislation pertaining to Iraq or national security matters only requires a majority vote to end debate and have an 'up or down' vote in the full senate. Or just up the number required to sustain a fillibuster to 65.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-19 08:06pm

You know, the actual link I posted showed that not only was fillibuster attempted, it succeeded. That's what a vote on Cloture means.

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2007-09-19 08:40pm

General Schatten wrote:
Molyneux wrote:As happy as I am that both of my state's senators voted yea, I'm kind of pissed that there's no-one I can call up and yell at.
I'd like to echo Molyneux' complaint, I want an asshole to yell at!

Thidred. Even the republican representative of my state voteded Yea, which I love Arlen Specter for voting against party lines, but damnit!

This is just made of suck and fail.

A-Wing_Slash · Post by **A-Wing_Slash** » 2007-09-19 08:48pm

SirNitram wrote:You know, the actual link I posted showed that not only was fillibuster attempted, it succeeded. That's what a vote on Cloture means.

I don't know too much about congressional rules, but why can't the dems bring in their pillows and/or caffeine pills, and just wait out the filibuster. You can't speak forever.

A-Wing_Slash · Post by **A-Wing_Slash** » 2007-09-19 08:52pm

The above should read:

A-Wing_Slash wrote:
SirNitram wrote:You know, the actual link I posted showed that not only was fillibuster attempted, it succeeded. That's what a vote on Cloture means.
I don't know too much about congressional rules, but why can't the dems bring in their pillows and/or caffeine pills, and just wait out the filibuster? You can't speak forever.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2007-09-19 09:32pm

A-Wing_Slash wrote:
SirNitram wrote:You know, the actual link I posted showed that not only was fillibuster attempted, it succeeded. That's what a vote on Cloture means.
I don't know too much about congressional rules, but why can't the dems bring in their pillows and/or caffeine pills, and just wait out the filibuster. You can't speak forever.

Because the Dems are pussies.

Hell, there's legislation on the books banning fillibuster as of the, IIRC, civil rights era. Why should such strongarm tactics to defeat the will of the legislature be allowed? One man, sufficiently endowed with fortitude against sleep and powerful amphetamines, could defeat any bill he wishes.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-19 10:10pm

MRDOD wrote:
A-Wing_Slash wrote:
SirNitram wrote:You know, the actual link I posted showed that not only was fillibuster attempted, it succeeded. That's what a vote on Cloture means.
I don't know too much about congressional rules, but why can't the dems bring in their pillows and/or caffeine pills, and just wait out the filibuster. You can't speak forever.
Because the Dems are pussies.

Umm, no. It's because once a bill is put up for debate it must be voted on within a certain amount of time or it is automatically defeated. To continue a debate long enough to automatically defeat a bill you need at least 41 votes to continue debate. Democrats did in fact force the Republicans into an all night session to some fanfair that the right wing claimed was a "stunt".

Hell, there's legislation on the books banning fillibuster as of the, IIRC, civil rights era. Why should such strongarm tactics to defeat the will of the legislature be allowed? One man, sufficiently endowed with fortitude against sleep and powerful amphetamines, could defeat any bill he wishes.

I know of no laws banning fillibuster. I know the US House Of Representatives has no fillibuster. The Senate still does, but it's part of their operating rules and could be changed by a simple majority vote, which the Republicans threatened to do at one point over judician nominees. If they had in fact done that, we'd have even more Bush cronies on the bench.

And it takes 41 votes to sustain a fillibuster due to time limits placed on each Senator during debates. So no, it takes a substantial minority to defeat any bill they wish.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-19 10:12pm

SirNitram wrote:You know, the actual link I posted showed that not only was fillibuster attempted, it succeeded. That's what a vote on Cloture means.

Yeah, but the Democrats could have actually made the Republicans debate all night, rather than just accept that they would. They did it earlier this year. Not that it would have made any real difference, of course.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-19 10:13pm

Flagg wrote: I wonder if the Democrats should adopt what I'm going to call the "tactical nuclear option". Change the rules of the Senate so that any legislation pertaining to Iraq or national security matters only requires a majority vote to end debate and have an 'up or down' vote in the full senate. Or just up the number required to sustain a fillibuster to 65.

Should be 45...

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2007-09-19 11:16pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Oh. My. FUcking. God

You would think McCain would recognize the horror that is being imprisoned without charge or trial.

Ah, but you see, that was a bunch of commie gooks who put him in a box for seven years and not Americans, who of course would never lock up anybody who didn't deserve it.