world

Republicans setting filibuster record

24 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

Well, its clear we have some sore losers. But I thought the Republicans made a rule against filibusters when they had Congress? No?

Oh, well. A gridlocked Congress is a good Congress is you ask me. Anything to keep those stooges authorizing the use of force again!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans have the record on filibusters and reconciliation. They got it both ways.

Bunning is a wonderful example of a good republican. Vote for $Trillions in tax breaks without a way to pay for it, vote for $Trillions for the Rx Package with out a way to pay for it. But Bunning will stop a $15Billion package to help the unemployment and other federal programs. 2000 workers had to be sent home. No funds to pay their salary. Good going Bunning. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republicans show once again just how much the most anti-American party in U.S. history "loves" America.

Why do conservatives back this bunch of sad little losers?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, you listen to some people on this forum and you'll be told that the Republicans have never filibustered at all!

Amazing how deluded some folks are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans setting filibuster record

Thank God they're doing so. Otherwise, we'd be subject to the marxist tyranny of Obama and the democrats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But the filibuster is nothing new. Its use dates to the mists of Senate history, but until the civil rights era of the 1950s it was rarely used.

After reading this I checked. It was extensively used during the civil rights era - - by Democrats like Al Gore Sr, and Robert Byrd.

Interesting...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Otherwise, we'd be subject to the marxist tyranny

LOL!!

After reading this I checked. It was extensively used during the civil rights era - - by Democrats like Al Gore Sr, and Robert Byrd.

Of course, the winner was Trent Lott's hero, Strom Thurmond.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was extensively used during the civil rights era - - by Democrats like Al Gore Sr, and Robert Byrd.

Heh, democrats are the real party of "No".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course, the winner was Trent Lott's hero, Strom Thurmond.

The record of history shows that Republican President Eisenhower eventually won out over Democrat Strom Thurmond, and was able to reverse the ignoble course the proto-fascist Woodrow Wilson had plotted for the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamen - "Otherwise, we'd be subject to the marxist tyranny of Obama and the democrats."

lol! I actually thought you were serious for a moment there. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The frequency of filibusters—plus threats to use them—are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Cloture is a Senate procedure to end debate so other business can be brought to the floor. Such votes test the majority’s ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.

In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In this session of Congress, the 111th—for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010—the number already exceeds 40.

Gosh, what a record! 112 cloture votes by the minority party in the 110th Congress of 2007-2008. Wonder what party was in the minority then?

Yabits. Sushi....care to answer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sail, are you saying that the Democrats in the 110th Congress had to hit the Republicans up with 112 cloture votes just to gte business done?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sail, are you saying that the Democrats in the 110th Congress had to hit the Republicans up with 112 cloture votes just to gte business done?

Nah, saying that when the Democrats took back control of Congress in 2006 they went right to work dismantling all of the Bush administrations policy and direction. The republicans where in nothing more than in a holding position then to try to save previously passed legislation. That was the reason for the record, nothing more, nothing less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Filibuster is an entirely appropriate response when the president is a fraud. Barack Obama 'voluntarily' surrendered his law license in 2008 - - a rather odd thing to do for someone who was not only editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review but also, as the world has been told ad nauseum, the first African-American to have held the position.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

.... someone who was ... editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review

Heh, gotta a link to Obama's college transcripts to back up that claim? ;-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With the Senate now made up of 100 members, two for each of the 50 states, an opposition filibuster can only be broken with 60 votes—a three-fifths majority.

Our Senate should have proportional representation. Theoretically, 59 Senators can represent 88% of Americans but get blocked by a Senator that represents only 272,000 people (John Barrasso, for example).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Odogma -

RomeoRamen (on a past thread) "Finally, a job that's not above 0bama's pay grade."

I've lost count of how many comments like this that RomeoRamen has made.

It's a pity you can't notice racial slurs and innuendos when they are right in fron of you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama continues pushing for the current Obamacare to go through. If his staff tells him where he is in the polls and what the American people think of his healthcare plan, then why is he bucking 75 percent of America by continuing to push his unpopular and unworkable healthcare plan?

Political motivations are the only reason left. The republicans have said publicly at the summit Obama held they believe America wants healthcare reform, just not what he and the democrat-controlled congress has currently offered. A huge majority of Americans, do not want Obamacare. The people have told him "start over"; the republicans have told him "start over", but Obama's arrogance has kept him plowing ahead no matter what the American people are saying to him. It defies common sense.

The good news is Obama's jumping off a political cliff that he made for himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No reason to get partisan on this. Its better if both parties get most of their garbage blocked. How many new laws does America need? Seriously! How about erasing some for goodness sakes!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gosh, what a record! 112 cloture votes by the minority party in the 110th Congress of 2007-2008. Wonder what party was in the minority then?

Of course, this is factually incorrect. The cloture vote must be taken by a majority to overturn a filibuster by the minority. The filibustering minority of the 110th Congress were the Republicans.

The statement, if corrected, would read something like: "112 cloture votes taken to defeat filibusters by the minority party..."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course Yabits.

You wouldn't be thinking this A.P article was biased now would you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You wouldn't be thinking this A.P article was biased now would you?

Like most articles that shine a light, it is biased against those who favor keeping the public in the dark.

Note how Shelby took his blanket-hold off all of Obama's appointments as soon as the media focused some attention on it. Wonder how long Bunning will keep up his little filibuster which is denying millions of out-of-work Americans much needed benefit extensions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wonder how long Bunning will keep up his little filibuster

Looks like Bunning is getting ready to drop it. No cloture vote needed -- just a little public attention.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Note how Shelby took his blanket-hold off all of Obama's appointments as soon as the media focused some attention on it. Wonder how long Bunning will keep up his little filibuster which is denying millions of out-of-work Americans much needed benefit extensions.

Yes, no doubt millions of Americans were going to have to do without benefit extentions. We shouldn't worry about how we're going to pay for it. Where the money is going to come from etc. No, just print 10 billion more dollars, thats the solution. 'Jumpin' Jim Jeffords was going on and on about how immoral it was to block this bill. I find it much more immoral to steal money from unborn children, in order to pay for our mistakes today. Especially since the bill was going to pass, Bunning was in favor of it. He just wanted the Senates Pay-Go Rule enforced. And for this, for asking for accountability, he was vilified.

To be honest, I'm thinking we should go back to the 2/3rds Majority rule, where you need to have a 2/3rds majority to overcome a filibuster. Yes, that would hurt some Dem, and some Rep legislation, it would cut both ways. In 2012, when Obama is out of office, and Republicans are trying to undo the damage he's done, the Dems would be able to block it. However, it would force a reduction in the partisan bickering we've been seeing. And hopefully force those in power, to make changes that the American people would be in favor of, rather then craming their 'values' down the throats of unwilling Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites