Filibuster: I just don't get it.

[jedi]

What exaclty is the point of doing a filibuster?

Senator Paul spoke for 13 hours but in the end like this article shows
Senator ends filibuster of Brennan CIA nomination - Yahoo! News

just like other filibusters the senator eventually stops as my understanding is you have to continue to talk about anything (right) without stopping.

So all this really does is just stall the vote of whatever the Senate is trying to pass. However at the end of it the Senate is still going to vote right?

Has there ever been a case where a filibuster goes on long enough to stop a vote?

 

[mbills2223]

What exaclty is the point of doing a filibuster?

Senator Paul spoke for 13 hours but in the end like this article shows
Senator ends filibuster of Brennan CIA nomination - Yahoo! News

just like other filibusters the senator eventually stops as my understanding is you have to continue to talk about anything (right) without stopping.

So all this really does is just stall the vote of whatever the Senate is trying to pass. However at the end of it the Senate is still going to vote right?

Has there ever been a case where a filibuster goes on long enough to stop a vote?

In this case, the goal was to generate massive attention on the issue of domestic drone use. Google "#StandWithRand"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In this case, the goal was to generate massive attention on the issue of domestic drone use. Google "#StandWithRand"

^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^

Rand even admitted he would likely, ultimately vote to confirm Brennen.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Filibuster and Cloture - Rules of the Senate: Filibuster & Cloture

 

[mbills2223]

^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^

Rand even admitted he would likely, ultimately vote to confirm Brennen.

Indeed. I can't find the sound byte or news article but he stated that he believes the President has and deserves a fair bit of discretion in choosing people to fill roles, which I think is valid.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Indeed. I can't find the sound byte or news article but he stated that he believes the President has and deserves a fair bit of discretion in choosing people to fill roles, which I think is valid.

I believe I heard him say exactly that when he was on the Glenn Beck show last week.

 

[mbills2223]

I believe I heard him say exactly that when he was on the Glenn Beck show last week.

Found it, thanks!

It’s About the Drones: Rand Paul Tells Glenn Beck His Vote on Hagel Was About Something Much Bigger | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[88GT]

Indeed. I can't find the sound byte or news article but he stated that he believes the President has and deserves a fair bit of discretion in choosing people to fill roles, which I think is valid.

So the Senate is just there to be a welcoming committee?

That's a new interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[mbills2223]

So the Senate is just there to be a welcoming committee?

That's a new interpretation of the Constitution.

A fair bit

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So the Senate is just there to be a welcoming committee?

That's a new interpretation of the Constitution.

As I recall, (I'm not defending him, only stating what I think I understood him to say), his position is that for temporary appointments such as presidential staff, the "advise and consent" hurdle is not as high as for nominees of lifetime appointments, i.e. SCOTUS. He was challenged by Beck and Pat on this. He believes that without a compelling reason, the president should get who he wants. One of the rationales he offered up as a defense of this position is that what "we" might view as an extreme candidate, when "our guy" is in office and defeat their nomination, the other side will return the favor when they get the opportunity...sort of a M.A.D. agreement, I'd call it.

 

[88GT]

As I recall, (I'm not defending him, only stating what I think I understood him to say), his position is that for temporary appointments such as presidential staff, the "advise and consent" hurdle is not as high as for nominees of lifetime appointments, i.e. SCOTUS. He was challenged by Beck and Pat on this. He believes that without a compelling reason, the president should get who he wants. One of the rationales he offered up as a defense of this position is that what "we" might view as an extreme candidate, when "our guy" is in office and defeat their nomination, the other side will return the favor when they get the opportunity...sort of a M.A.D. agreement, I'd call it.

Oh, yes, the "Let's make everybody our friend" defense. Meanwhile, nobody likes us anyway and nothing we do will change that. Damn, even Rand has gone stupid.

The nominees should be considered on their merits. If one group doesn't like what the other brings to the table, that's too farking bad. That's sort of why the checks were put in there in the first place. I don't agree with Borking a nominee and denying consent simply because he affiliates with a particular party. That's as stupid as rubber stamping a nominee because POTUS should be able to have who he wants. But it kinda pisses me off that Republicans are taking the latter tack in an effort to keep the Dems from taking the former.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So the Senate is just there to be a welcoming committee?

That's a new interpretation of the Constitution.

The point is that according to the proper application of the Senate's role, in the end, a nominee should be confirmed so long as there is not a compelling reason not to do so. In practice, Senate Republicans generally go to the extreme of confirming anyone who is not a convicted felon or patently ineligible and Senate Democrats refuse to vote to confirm anyone who could realistically be accused of being a Republican, which is what I see as the major problem. Robert Bork should have been on the Supreme Court, and Elena Kagan, who never presided over a trial, should not, and Sonia Sotomayor, who made an open declaration about racial bias qualifying her as a justice, should not.

 

[CarmelHP]

Thank God Bork was not on the Supreme Court. He was notoriously anti-gun.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Thank God Bork was not on the Supreme Court. He was notoriously anti-gun.

I missed that, but then again, I was only 13 when he was nominated. My point is that he was shot down in the Senate by virtue of being perceived as a conservative with the primary stated objection being that under oath he admitted to have tried and moved away from marijuana decades prior to his nomination. It sounded to me much like confessing that he loaded his diaper when he was 2 years old, where by contrast, the Rs go to the other extreme and vote to confirm people who are clearly unqualified and/or are obvious enemies of the republic.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thank God Bork was not on the Supreme Court. He was notoriously anti-gun.

I guess I didn't realize this. I really don't remember a whole lot about when all that transpired and I don't remember any of his constitutional opinions.

 

[88GT]

The point is that according to the proper application of the Senate's role, in the end, a nominee should be confirmed so long as there is not a compelling reason not to do so. In practice, Senate Republicans generally go to the extreme of confirming anyone who is not a convicted felon or patently ineligible and Senate Democrats refuse to vote to confirm anyone who could realistically be accused of being a Republican, which is what I see as the major problem. Robert Bork should have been on the Supreme Court, and Elena Kagan, who never presided over a trial, should not, and Sonia Sotomayor, who made an open declaration about racial bias qualifying her as a justice, should not.

I don't recall reading that in the Constitution.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oh, yes, the "Let's make everybody our friend" defense. Meanwhile, nobody likes us anyway and nothing we do will change that. Damn, even Rand has gone stupid.

The nominees should be considered on their merits. If one group doesn't like what the other brings to the table, that's too farking bad. That's sort of why the checks were put in there in the first place. I don't agree with Borking a nominee and denying consent simply because he affiliates with a particular party. That's as stupid as rubber stamping a nominee because POTUS should be able to have who he wants. But it kinda pisses me off that Republicans are taking the latter tack in an effort to keep the Dems from taking the former.

I hear ya. The democrats receive little consternation by playing that game. Anybody else is labeled extreme, draconian, a dog food-feeding, child starving, racist, nazi if they even attempt to play the same game.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't recall reading that in the Constitution.

That is by inference. The Constitution gives the responsibility of making such appointments to the president, therefore it is the president's prerogative. The Senate's job is to, as part of the system of checks and balances, make sure that such a choice is acceptable, not impose itself as the de facto agency of choosing the nominee, much in the same way as when a congregationally governed church elects a new pastor, there is only one candidate who has theoretically been vetted by this point and the vote is dependent on whether or not that person is suitable, not a popularity contest or a vehicle to reopen the selection process for insubstantial reasons. Again, the problem I see is that Senate confirmation fails with the Ds refusing to confirm anyone who has shown any indication of being conservative and the Rs refuse to vote against people who are clearly dangerous to the republic--out of balance in both cases.

 

[cbseniour]

A filibuster only does two things. It irritates the other side and shows that you really give a sh** even thought the rest of the world my not.

 

[Scarecrow]

Worked...

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=735