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
21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
4. Senator Wyden is voting FOR Brennan's confirmation
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:05 PM
Mar 2013

-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


1-Old-Man

(2,667 posts)
6. Yeah,but the filibuster has nothing to do with Brennan's confirmation
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:16 PM
Mar 2013

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)
8. Well factually your incorrect. They are filibustering the nomination of John Brennan.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:20 PM
Mar 2013

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)
10. I am hearing it the same way you are.
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:21 AM
Mar 2013

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.

onenote

(42,758 posts)
18. well given that Paul himself has stated that killing Americans on US soils is legal in some
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:26 AM
Mar 2013

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.

 

Comrade_McKenzie

(2,526 posts)
9. Dems typically do not act like buffoons and impede the nominations...
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:24 PM
Mar 2013

Of a democratically elected President.

Abq_Sarah

(2,883 posts)
12. Oh please
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:35 AM
Mar 2013

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)
14. Dems blocked Bush several times
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:45 AM
Mar 2013

"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)
16. judical appointees and cabinet appointees are two different things
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:59 AM
Mar 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Have any Dems had the cou...