Quantcast

Thursday, July 24, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 57 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Senate votes to curb filibusters on many nominees

By Alan Fram

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 07:54 a.m. HST, Nov 21, 2013


WASHINGTON » In a victory for Democrats, the Senate has voted to weaken filibusters and make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of the president's nominees for judges and other top posts.

The mostly party-line vote was 52-48. It came today after a series of procedural moves and angry accusations from both parties' leaders.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid complains that Republican gridlock has prevented the chamber from functioning.

But Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says Democrats are using a power play to distract voters from the president's troubled health care law.

The vote clears the way for Senate approval of three Obama picks for a top federal court. But it is unclear how long it would take for those nominees to clear final procedural hurdles.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 57 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(57)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
goinglobal wrote:
Another typical Democrat response... If the rules dont work lets just change the rules... Dont want to hear them cry when Repubs get control and lock them out in the cold.
on November 21,2013 | 06:56AM
superawsomekaratekid wrote:
The Senate Rules have not worked since the beginning of the Presidents term. Thats not the Democrats fault its Republicans look at the last presidents term and compare the kind of obstructionism from the current minority. At last when the Democrats were in the minority they knew that had a duty to help govern. Last time I checked the American people voted for a Democratic President and Democratic Senate it is the duty of those elected to govern, which means compromise at times thats how its been done since our country's founding and frankly everyone needs to grow up.
on November 21,2013 | 07:10AM
ehrhornp wrote:
Actually more people voted democratic for the house too. Only through republican gerrymandering that the house is republican. Be proud of ignoring the will of the people phony conservatives.
on November 21,2013 | 11:10AM
cojef wrote:
Just like the current President, criticized Bush for exercising executive perogatives during his term in office, campaigned against such practices and articulated as constitutional scholar and added that he tutored for over 10 years in this regard. In the 3 months ACA has been amended many times by Obama. Likewise, Senator Reid prior to the ascendancy as the Majority Speaker vehemently protested against the same practice by changing th Senate rules. If it suits your purpose its okay, but if not NO CAN DO. 2 peas in a pod!
on November 21,2013 | 11:44AM
ehrhornp wrote:
So what's your point? What have the republicans done to fix the health care crisis. Or do you think our health care system was perfect the way it was? I am tired of having to pay double what most other industrialized countries have to pay.
on November 21,2013 | 11:53AM
thepartyfirst wrote:
No, the Repubs swept into the House in 2010 because the voters did not like the way the Country was heading. Now the same voters want them out because the newly elected became same ol' same ol' and did not do what the voters wanted them to do. The voting process still works.
on November 21,2013 | 12:19PM
ehrhornp wrote:
And I think the majority who voted republican probably know they screwed up. I mean what have the republicans done since they got in? Nothing, except just say no to Obama. It would be interesting if republicans actually proposed something but they don't. Just say no is not much of a policy. They only still control the house because of gerrymandering. But you know what? This won't last forever. 10 years will be up before you know it. Guess what, the country voted last year and surprise surprise, the democrats won the presidency and the senate. That should tell you something about how wacko the republicans have become.
on November 21,2013 | 01:21PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
They made a budget. Something the Dems are afraid to make. The Dems are secretive and meet behind closed doors and all they could do was this horrible Obamacare Act. The don't consider what the Repubs have to say and everything the Repubs said about the ACA have come true. They should have delay/defund the ACA. Of course the state run media tells you other wise. Forget Dems or Repubs do you like what the Country is going through?
on November 21,2013 | 03:09PM
EightOEight wrote:
The Democrats invited Republicans 17 times in the first quarter of this year to budget conference. The party of no said no17 times, then kept strategizing for a government shutdown and default for the summer. Tell me Exactly what is the Republicans have said about Obamacare that is true, the law, not the web site. What state run media? You believing the teapots paranoia about a communist takeover? And no, I do not like what the country is going through...the 64 million dollar question is who I blame?
on November 21,2013 | 04:23PM
ehrhornp wrote:
It is a shame that the republican party is today only the party of No. Who would have thought that Nixon would be the last republican president to actually do anything positive.
on November 21,2013 | 08:11AM
lawman1175 wrote:
You are a funny. Regarding our current president, Obama Nokea, exactly how has he made our lives or world a better place since coming into office 5 years ago?
on November 21,2013 | 09:19AM
ehrhornp wrote:
Surely you jest? Has someone forgotten that thanks to the previous president, the stock market plunged to under 7000? Has someone forgotten that the previous president took a country with a small surplus and then left 8 years later with a 1.4 trillion deficit? Forgotten this so soon? Obama has since reduced the deficit by 50% to under 700 billion. The stock market is at all time highs now. Guess what? I have recovered my losses from the Bush years.
on November 21,2013 | 11:14AM
lawman1175 wrote:
Stocks traditional have gone upward, regardless of peaks and valleys. So that argument is out the window. Besides, your stocks went up because of capitalistic ingeniuty, NOT goverment interference. Oh, while we are on the subject of stocks, what do you propose will happen once the Feds stop, or merely slow, quantative easing? And so, to keep on topic of what the CURRENT president has (or rather hasn't done), sequestration took care of a cut back in spending. As far as cutting the deficit, the last time I looked the national debt was over $17 thrillion...and still climbing! So, you still have not answered the question. Obviously, you are a part of 37% who thinks ObamaNokea is doing a great job! Keep believing the shibai is shoveling your way.
on November 21,2013 | 01:13PM
ehrhornp wrote:
Yes the stock market has gone up and down. Fact remains it tends to go down more often when republicans are in control and goes up when democrats are in control. GW was just worse than average. Actually I think the market will continue to rise. I could post an article that says this but I don't have the time to locate it. The total debt cannot be reduced as long as we have deficits. Now the last time we didn't have deficits was under Clinton, a democrat by the way. Shame you have been brainwashed by the wacko right. They have been so right. Predicted Clintons tax increase would result in a depression. Wrong. Predicted that Voodoo would keep the federal budget balanced. Wrong. Looks like you are backing the wrong side.
on November 21,2013 | 01:27PM
lawman1175 wrote:
Still waiting for you to answer the question...can't can ya? Thougth so.
on November 21,2013 | 02:14PM
EightOEight wrote:
lawman1175, the stock market nosedived in 2008 because of capitalistic GREED and not enough government regulations, because as Wall Street has proven time and time again they can't self-regulate in an ethical and moral way. As for Obama, OBL was captured and neutralized under his watch as opposed to W's (and he admitted he wasn't even looking!). Obama gave us a national healthcare program that conservatives CANNOT demonstrate has failed and are merely attacking the rollout and the web site. Big deal, it will get fixed. He also signed into law the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act unlike the Republicans who have been on a campaign to erode womens rights. Just some examples. What Obama hasn't done is get us to any bogus wars like the two the Repubicans got us into that we're STILL PAYING FOR. As for the national deficit being decreased by sequestration cuts, it came at a steep price for many of the vulnerable in our society; we have the Republicans to thank for that.
on November 21,2013 | 03:39PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
Yes, Nixon resigned on a lesser lie than Obama. Do you think Obama would man up?
on November 21,2013 | 03:11PM
ehrhornp wrote:
It is about time the democrats have stood up to the Party of No! Republicans are such liars. They are only interested in winning and getting their way. Well politics is suppose to be about compromise, something republicans have long rejected. Now it is only their way or the highway.
on November 21,2013 | 11:09AM
Usagi336 wrote:
It was not that long ago, 2005, that the Democrats were on the other side when G dubya was in office. The republicans wanted the same thing the Dems want now but Senator Obama and others vehemently opposed it. Sen. Barack Obama [now President]: …”hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a, you know, change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever… Uhh, and, what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers — the House and the Senate — but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.” My, how times have changed.
on November 21,2013 | 01:53PM
DemBones wrote:
Whew! Now we can get some work done. Republicans are like that lazy guy in your office, doesn't pull his weight then complains and casts blame when deadlines not reached.
on November 21,2013 | 07:14AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Well, just when things couldn't become nastier and more partisan, they did. So, democrats pack (the courts with radicals) away, but keep in mind that payback is a be@tch and given, the Obamacare implosion, payday may be coming pretty soon.
on November 21,2013 | 07:18AM
DemBones wrote:
Nasty? Partisan? Observe the Republican controlled house. Why do Republicans always speak of "revenge" and payback. How about "Let's get things done!"
on November 21,2013 | 07:24AM
Anonymous wrote:
I love watching Republicans throw their little whiny baby fits and trot out the talking points when they don't get their way.
on November 21,2013 | 07:56AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Joking? Tell me about the democrat "outreach" during passage of Obamacare which includes not one of the major republican healthcare proposals, which passed with zero republican votes, some of which were getable, none of which were sought. And also tell me about Obama's my-way-or-the-highway, "I won", approach to governing. Or tell me about the constant, endless, divisive, often personal vilification directed at all conservatives by Obama and the left these last five years. ------ and when "lets get things done" amounts to dissolving our southern border, spending us into obvious oblivion, or enacting a new entitlement when we already have $86 trillion in unfunded liability and a moribund economy, you somehow expect hands across the water? No. Payback is going to be a be@tch.
on November 21,2013 | 07:57AM
eoe wrote:
Obamacare is a republican plan. The democrat plan was single payer, socialized medicine. Hopefully ACA fails so we can do it the right way.
on November 21,2013 | 08:15AM
ehrhornp wrote:
I think regardless, single payer will eventually win out. ACA will work but only to a certain degree and when people realize how much they have been ripped off, they will want real change. I just find it strange that republicans now are against it where before they proposed it. lol
on November 21,2013 | 11:24AM
Pacej001 wrote:
LOL. You're missing the elephant in the room. The obamacare debacle will all but guarantee that single payer government insurance will never happen. The indelible example of Obama's failure will be conclusive evidence that the government isn't up to managing something of this complexity. Summary: You fellows just shot yourselves in both feet.
on November 21,2013 | 03:21PM
ehrhornp wrote:
lol, Obama care was a republican invention. Richard Nixon and Mitt Romney basically accounted for Obama care. True liberals wanted a single payer universal health plan. If republicans get personal vilification, it is because they deserve it. When one has to go all the way back to Nixon to find a republican president who actually did something, well does;t say much for your party.
on November 21,2013 | 08:18AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Your grasp of history is vaporous. Republicans, evidently, wised up since the Nixon years and realized the scale of the mistake we've made with our entitlement mentality. To simple things down for you, things have changed in the last 50 years. The social welfare state, possibly appealing back then, is trending toward failure all over the world. The lesson is that whole cultures built around disincentives for personal responsibility and individual productivity eventually become so top heavy that they just fall over.--------- What you progresso/liberals don't comprehend is that WE are getting there fast. We have $86 trillion in unfunded federal liability. The expansion of the slow economic growth, entitlement state is guaranteed to fail. That's today's reality. Unfortunately, for members of the liberal fairy land where bills never have to be paid, that recognition of simple fact is illusive>
on November 21,2013 | 08:41AM
ehrhornp wrote:
Keep on believing this. You learned your propaganda well. Fact of the matter is that the economy does better when democrats are in control. Democrats also tend to have less deficits. Republicans are the party of welfare. Unfortunately it is welfare for the rich. GW started two wars based upon lies. Pumped a lot of welfare to many so called conservatives.
on November 21,2013 | 09:11AM
Pacej001 wrote:
The only thing correct in your post is the punctuation. OK, spelling, too.
on November 21,2013 | 09:23AM
thepartyfirst wrote:
No, Bill Clinton signed the resolution to go after Barrack Hussein. And they all agreed that they have to get rid of him sooner than later. All along the Dems kept funding the war but kept saying to bring the troops home. If they were true to their word why did they keep funding the war? And now they blame Bush for spending all that money. And what does Obama do? Well he spends more and keep blaming Bush. How much is the deficit since Obama the Democrat took office?
on November 21,2013 | 08:26PM
EightOEight wrote:
IRT Pace's " What you progresso/liberals don't comprehend is that WE are getting there fast. We have $86 trillion in unfunded federal liability. The expansion of the slow economic growth, entitlement state is guaranteed to fail. That's today's reality. Unfortunately, for members of the liberal fairy land where bills never have to be paid, that recognition of simple fact is illusive". What a load of kaka! The costs of the unnecessary Iraq and Afghanistan wars have already cost us trillions TO DATE, not to mention the human costs...deaths, physical and mental injuries that will require ongoing $healthcare$. And which party brought us to the brink of default TWICE SO FAR on our national debt and is responsible for the last government shutdown that took $24 BILLION dollars out of the national economy??? Could it be the party that is obstructing immigration reform which most economists and business leaders agree would boost our economy? Or the party which has voted 47 times SO FAR to repeal Obamacare despite the fact that they've had decades to come up with their own plan and have none to fix the national healthcare problems that negatively affect the national economy? Don't cry for me Argentina in your conservative land of rainbows and unicorns, Pace, and continually bellyache about unpaid bills, slow economy, social entitlements rather than corporate welfare, and Benghazi!
on November 21,2013 | 11:46AM
Pacej001 wrote:
I believe I touched a nerve. Make that nerves. You're sweating 24 billion supposedly lost from the shutdown, but not worried at all about the inevitable financial disaster that awaits us, not worried about the Medicare trust fund going insolvent in about 10 years, about the negative economic impact of Obamacare, a massive stealth tax increase on the middle class via higher premiums and deductibles.---------- No. You're worried about the Republicans attempts to check this avalanche of $tupidity being pushed by the progressive left. To me,this represents a pretty odd lack of perspective on your part.
on November 21,2013 | 03:29PM
EightOEight wrote:
Yeah, right, Pace. I'm sure we can look forward to amicable lawmaking with the obstructionist Republicans to work with Obama and Democrats on these problems you're so dearthly afraid of. But we will still sing for you Republicans....Don't cry for me Argentina, The truth is I never left you... All through my wild days My mad existence I kept my promise Don't keep your distance Come to the table when you're ready to negotiate in good faith (ok I made this line up)...
on November 21,2013 | 03:47PM
Pacej001 wrote:
808: The people took the House away from the democrats in 2010 with the express purpose of obstructing Obama's agenda. When the same thing happened to Clinton, he moved to the middle, compromised and things got done: Balanced budget, welfare reform, each due to collaboration by a democrat president with republicans. ----- Obama could have done this, but he did not. He is a rigid left wing ideologue and a juvenile, inexperienced man and he will leave much political wreckage behind.
on November 21,2013 | 05:38PM
EightOEight wrote:
Pace, is that why the teapot Republicans are at their HISTORICAL, SINGLE DIGIT RATING in the polls? Unicorns and rainbows, my friend, unicorns and rainbows.
on November 21,2013 | 07:38PM
EightOEight wrote:
Pace, is that why the obstructionist teapot Republicans are at their HISTORICAL SINGLE-DIGIT rating in the polls? Unicorns and rainbows, my friend, unicorns and rainbows...
on November 21,2013 | 07:41PM
superawsomekaratekid wrote:
The senate is afforded the right by the constitution to advise and consent on appointments of the President. That is their job using anonymous blocks and not even allowing a floor vote is far from what the framers imagined, If I recall correctly the american public has had 2 chances since this president has been elected to overthrow the senate, please remember that when speaking of payday.
on November 21,2013 | 07:30AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Please remember that these rules and restrictions in the Senate have had an evolutionary purpose. They moderated the Senates actions, assured a degree of consensus on the most important matters to the nation rather than having sweeping partisan matters thrust on the public by bare majorities. ----------- Anti-democratic your might say. I say this makes a great deal of practical sense. Witness the current Obamacare debacle: Passed with zero bi-partisan buy in, without reasonable restraints and buy-in that comes with a consensus building approach, to use the popular phrase, "rammed down our throats". And now what do you have? An entitlement surviving by extra-constitutional executive order, by continuing resolution, by naked partisanship. Doctor, the prognosis is not good. What happens when an unfriendly executive is elected, an opposition congress? Do I have to spell it out for you?---------- That's what your political camp has given us by your ham fisted, transformational overreach.
on November 21,2013 | 08:07AM
ehrhornp wrote:
Funny considering that Obama care was a republican invention. That is what I love about republicans. Their idea of compromise is adopting their position. Well the democrats did, you should be happy.
on November 21,2013 | 09:14AM
ehrhornp wrote:
With Radicals? Like who? Fact is republicans, the party of No, has refused to admit that they have lost the last election. Get used to it as as long as republicans only concentrate on No, why would anyone want to vote for them.
on November 21,2013 | 08:14AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Uh, democrats lost the House in 2010 and kept it lost in 2012. Someone must like NO to Obama's destructive agenda.
on November 21,2013 | 09:25AM
ehrhornp wrote:
Thanks to gerrymandering. Be proud of controlling the house even though more people voted democratic. But hay, keep up the good work. You have turned off women, hispanics, blacks, and anyone else who is not a white boy. Be proud of your accomplishments. By the way, say hello to the Whigs.
on November 21,2013 | 11:30AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Laughable. Like gerrymandering is solely a republican vice. Funny. We'll see how the demographics work out after the dust settles from the Obamacare debacle. My prediction is that you fellows are about to have a very bad year.
on November 21,2013 | 03:36PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
You seem to be a stooge for the Left.
on November 21,2013 | 08:31PM
AhiPoke wrote:
There is little doubt that some future presidents will eventually be republicans. I'm sure the democrats will then cry "foul" when they can't block those presidents' nominations. This is just another example of how broken this country is.
on November 21,2013 | 07:34AM
DemBones wrote:
Ahi I'm confused. Can the Senate block a presidential nomination?
on November 21,2013 | 07:58AM
ehrhornp wrote:
I don't know. I used to think the same but I would not be surprised if the republican party joins the Whigs. `The republican party used to be the conservative party but not any more. Now it is the Voodoo party while the democratic party is the more conservative party. Phony conservatives hate to admit this but it is hard to dispute.
on November 21,2013 | 08:23AM
kahaluu96744 wrote:
People have short memories: When the Senate Democrats were in the minority, how many nominations were filibustered for a Republican President? Now that the Democrats hold the majority, they want to change the rules, and when they become a minority again, see how loud they cry out of the "unfair rules" that they forced upon the minority!
on November 21,2013 | 07:40AM
Kuihao wrote:
"When the Senate Democrats were in the minority, how many nominations were filibustered for a Republican President? Your comment clearly shows you don't have a clue. Do a little research on this question, then get back to us.
on November 21,2013 | 07:54AM
eoe wrote:
Let me do it for you: On this bench 4 of 6 Bush nominees approved, 4 of 5 Obama nominees blocked.
on November 21,2013 | 08:28AM
ehrhornp wrote:
I don't know. Why don't you tell us. I sure don't remember the democrats being the party of No when GW was president. Their problem was that they gave in to GW way too often.
on November 21,2013 | 08:29AM
lawman1175 wrote:
Obviously, problem is the lib dems do not have the foresight to see problems right in front of them. ObamaNokea is a bust. The dems problem is always wanted to take my hard earned $$$ and spend it on something stupid like ObamaNokea! Then the only way they can get people to go along with it, is to lie about it. What's worse is, they are telling lie after lie..after lie...after lie. So when they can't get their way, or behave like adults, they whine and want to change the rules. Typical left wing liberals.
on November 21,2013 | 01:19PM
TLehel wrote:
I agree with Pace whole-heartedlty. He seems to be one of the only people that is awake and has a clear understanding of what's going on and what the end-game is for our current political and economic mess. People trying to debunk arguments against ACA by saying it's a Republican made policy need to understand that it doesn't matter which party began this. This bill was designed by special interests and big insurance companies, so whomever is supporting this is just the peel of a rotten fruit. The peel may tell you everything on the inside is okay, but untill you cut through and actually see for yourself you'll just be as blind as they want you to be. Many people are gonna gonns eat the fruit when they're told, and when it tastes funny they'll just be told it's trendy and everything will be ok. Democrat or Republican, it really doesn't matter. Whoever is supporting ACA clearly has their pockets lined and hates Americans and their freedom.
on November 21,2013 | 09:52AM
ehrhornp wrote:
The ACA is the best that can be passed right now. It will be better than the existing system but that is not saying much.
on November 21,2013 | 11:37AM
lawman1175 wrote:
I'm sure 37% of the american population agrees with you as well. Put the pom-poms down. I want to show you a piece of beachfront property out in makua that I'd like to sell to you...unreal.
on November 21,2013 | 01:21PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News