General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMass
(27,315 posts)Suich
(10,642 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)-snip-
... and the filibuster went bipartisan just before 4:00 pm, when Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) joined in.
Wyden said he intended to vote for Brennan's confirmation, but added that the nomination provided an opportunity to seek more information on the Obama administration's legal documentation for targeted killings. He said the Senate Intelligence Committee had gotten that information.
-snip-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibuster_n_2819740.html
reformist2
(9,841 posts)1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)its about the executive assuming abandoning the Bill of Rights and assuming the job of the Court; extrajudicial killing as its sometimes referred to. Its about the President acting as judge, jury, and executioner, its about the avoidance of the rule of law, its about the Constitution itself. And despite being a racist and bigot, Rand Paul is right on this one.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Sen Reid called for a vote on cloture earlier this evening - Rand Paul objected - and the 'filibuster of Brennan' is continuing.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Been listening for several hours, he is reading a lot of information about extra-judicial killings into the Congressional record, and has even stated he will quit the filibuster AND support the vote for Brennan if the Senate votes for a resolution saying that killing Americans on American soil, without due process, is illegal.
Not one Dem took him up on his offer.
There are some issues which go far beyond political party differences.
Glenn Greenwald has been talking about how important this filibuster is.
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)Maybe then, the issue would have more support here.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Ooops I mean Kucinich him. If he persisted, though, who knows...
onenote
(42,758 posts)circumstances, maybe he should come up with a specific proposed set of language that he thinks makes it clear when it is and isn't allowed instead of saying its okay sometimes but not okay when its done 'arbitrarily' to someone sitting at a restaurant.
Cha
(297,598 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Of a democratically elected President.
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)We did it for years. It's the only tool the minority party has to get their message out or to slow down the process.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)"Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business."
and
During President George W. Bush's two term tenure in office, some of his nominations for federal judgeships were blocked by the Senate Democrats either directly in the Senate Judiciary Committee or on the full Senate floor in various procedural moves."
Bush nominees were blocked in 4 consecutive Congresses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies
dsc
(52,166 posts)Judicial appointments are lifetime positions while the cabinet leaves with the President. I don't recall any cabinet position being filibustered for any length of time during Bush.
The US representative to the UN is considered a "cabinet level" position.
dsc
(52,166 posts)not filibustered.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Paul E Ester
(952 posts)is asking some questions. Right now
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/