The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[nonobaddog]

In 2013 alone Obama's nominees were subject to 150 cloture votes. So not quite the worst in history. And yes I looked it up.
Trump nominees have already faced many cloture votes

For the 113th Congress ONLY the rules were changed by the dems. The cloture vote for 2013 and 2014 ONLY was completely different. The debate time was limited to 2 hours and the cloture vote was routinely filed as a way of speeding up the process, not obstructing it. Most of these cloture votes were called for by the dems themselves even when no filibuster was expected. So no, there is no comparison. The 150 number does not represent any obstruction at all but a means for the dems to push their appointees through.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Obummer nominees only faced 17 cloture votes in his entire first term.It is not fair to include any second term because Trump has not had his second term YET.

I'll disagree, and why move the goal posts? Fact is that Obama's nominees faced more cloture votes in a single year than Trump has so far. So it isn't unprecedented.

 

[Fargo]

Obummer nominees faced 17 cloture votes - and frankly some of his appointees were quite controversial to many so some of the debate was very warrated.
Trump nominees have faced 110 cloture votes as of May 2018 and counting - it isn't even close.

You obviously didn't look up any facts or you would find out this is the worst obstruction in history.

How many of those cloture motions failed? You have a really interesting idea of obstruction.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

For the 113th Congress ONLY the rules were changed by the dems. The cloture vote for 2013 and 2014 ONLY was completely different. The debate time was limited to 2 hours and the cloture vote was routinely filed as a way of speeding up the process, not obstructing it. Most of these cloture votes were called for by the dems themselves even when no filibuster was expected. So no, there is no comparison. The 150 number does not represent any obstruction at all but a means for the dems to push their appointees through.

The 113th Congress changed the rules for filibuster due to the repubs filibustering Obama's nominees. And the dems did it back then to speed it up, but now to slow it down? How does that work? A cloture vote isn't needed to "slow down", it limits the amount of debate in effect speeding it up. Without a cloture vote debate can continue endlessly. Who has made the motions for cloture votes this session?

 

[Fargo]

Obummer nominees only faced 17 cloture votes in his entire first term.

It is not fair to include any second term because Trump has not had his second term YET.

Not sure if serious...

 

[Fargo]

The current dem form of obstruction is using cloture votes. Originally meant as a way to limit filibusters, this 100 year old rule has the undesirable side effect of calling for about 30 hours of debate on an issue and can be forced by a small number of senators, currently 16 I think. I don't think when this rule was put in place they considered any congress person would ever sink so low as to use this as a weapon against the United States Government.

The dems are using this obstruction method liberally. If you look at the first terms only (when most appointments are made) of the previous four presidents cloture was used a total of 32 times to debate controversial nominees. In the first year and a half of President Trump's Presidency this has been used 110 times (almost certainly more by now) to obstruct the government. Even when the nominee is uncontroversial they have to spend the time for this debate. Frequently the debate is idle chatter or the floor is simply silent but the time still has to be wasted. This is an attack on America.

Having just read your above postand realized that you think that cloture means the opposite of what it actually does, this all makes much more sense.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

 

[nonobaddog]

The 113th Congress changed the rules for filibuster due to the repubs filibustering Obama's nominees. And the dems did it back then to speed it up, but now to slow it down? How does that work? A cloture vote isn't needed to "slow down", it limits the amount of debate in effect speeding it up. Without a cloture vote debate can continue endlessly. Who has made the motions for cloture votes this session?

The dems have made the motions for the cloture votes this session.

The rules were changed by the dems for the 113th congress ONLY so the cloture vote limited the debate to 2 hours and 8 hours for most nominations. This was done to speed up the confirmation process for the dem nominations. That change expired with the end of the 113th Congress and the cloture vote went back to the old way. In other words the cloture vote was manipulated for the 113th congress to speed things up.

Now it is used to slow things down because it calls for 30 hours of debate when little or no debate is needed. This usage of the cloture vote for this purpose was never intended. It is misusing the existing rules as a weapon to slow down the repubs nominations.

 

[Fargo]

The dems have made the motions for the cloture votes this session.

The rules were changed by the dems for the 113th congress ONLY so the cloture vote limited the debate. This was done to speed up the confirmation process for the dem nominations. That change expired with the end of the 113th Congress and the cloture vote went back to the old way. In other words the cloture vote was manipulated for the 113th congress to speed things up.

Now it is used to slow things down because it calls for 30 hours of debate when no debate is needed. This usage of the cloture vote for this purpose was never intended. It is misusing the existing rules as a weapon to slow down the repubs nominations.

So a bunch of republican are voting with the Dems to invoke cloture? You know it takes 60 right?

 

[Fargo]

The dems have made the motions for the cloture votes this session.

It's really weird, I looked up who filed all of the 192 cloture motions in the last two years. It's this dude name McConnell. He is an obstructionist Democrat right?

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/115.htm

This is possibly the most nonsensical argument I have ever seen on this site.

 

[nonobaddog]

It's really weird, I looked up who filed all of the 192 cloture motions in the last two years. It's this dude name McConnell. He is an obstructionist Democrat right?

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/115.htm

This is possibly the most nonsensical argument I have ever seen on this site.

I warned you it is pretty complicated.

All it takes is 16 dems to sign a petition to force the Senate Majority Leader (McConnell) to file the motion. Filing a motion is his responsibility but it does not mean anything about his stance on the issue.

It is probably not the best procedure to learn one little thing about cloture and misinterpret it without going a little deeper.

 

[Fargo]

I warned you it is pretty complicated.

All it takes is 16 dems to sign a petition to force the Senate Majority Leader (McConnell) to file the motion. Filing a motion is his responsibility but it does not mean anything about his stance on the issue.

It is probably not the best procedure to learn one little thing about cloture and misinterpret it without going a little deeper.

Mmmm hmmm, cause a bunch of republican senators want to screw over their own Nom. They have held a majority for the last two years.

Im going to reiterate the nonsensical part.

 

[Fargo]

Cloture is used to force an end to debate when unanimous consent cannot be gained to move forward. As best I can tell, the Dems are withholding consent forcing McConnell to use cloture to override the withheld consent, thereby delaying the business of the senate. I am yet to find anything referencing the Dems requesting or filing for cloture, they are simply withholding consent so that McConnell will do so.

It is obstructionist, but not by filing for cloture. It is why Trump is complaining that a single senator is being used to block his nominations.

 

[nonobaddog]

Mmmm hmmm, cause a bunch of republican senators want to screw over their own Nom. IT TAKES 60 FOR CLOTURE!

Im going to reiterate the nonsensical part.

Wrong. It only takes 51 votes. This is the nuclear option first used in 2013 by Harry Reid's democrat senate and re-used in 2017 by McConnell.

Also, the thing is you don't have to actually successfully invoke cloture to obstruct the process, you only have to have 16 dems sign the petition to cause significant obstruction. The cloture vote process is enough delay to be obstructive.

One estimate on Trump's nominees says the confirmation process is being obstructed so much it would take 11 years to decide on a relatively lower number of nominees than recent presidents. This estimate is from the GOP so it is most likely a worst-case scenario.

 

[Fargo]

It takes one no vote to prevent matters from proceeding. Im pretty sure withholding that consent forces the majority to invoke cloture.

 

[nonobaddog]

Cloture is used to force an end to debate when unanimous consent cannot be gained to move forward. As best I can tell, the Dems are withholding consent forcing McConnell to use cloture to override the withheld consent, thereby delaying the business of the senate. I am yet to find anything referencing the Dems requesting or filing for cloture, they are simply withholding consent so that McConnell will do so.

It is obstructionist, but not by filing for cloture. It is why Trump is complaining that a single senator is being used to block his nominations.

This was back in 2017 so the numbers are lower but the NY Times says it.
"Democrats have required cloture votes on 31 of 52 nominees approved so far. To be sure, the Trump administration was slow to begin making nominations for the top jobs. But there are currently almost 50 people ready and awaiting Senate action, including national security officials who face votes this week. More than 200 Obama administration nominees had been confirmed at this point in 2009, according to the White House."

 

[nonobaddog]

"But a tiny minority can still demand a cloture vote as a way of slowing things down. Only 16 signatures on a cloture petition are needed to complete the first step. Then the process is grindingly slow: The Senate clerk reads the petition; an “intervening day” must occur for the cloture petition to “ripen” or “mature”; a live quorum call has to take place; the majority leader presents the cloture petition; the actual cloture vote occurs; up to 30 hours of “post-cloture debate” ensues; then, finally, the actual confirmation vote arrives.The numbers tell the story: The Senate held only one cloture vote on any nominee (executive or judicial) during George H.W. Bush’s entire presidency, 10 during Bill Clinton’s first term, four during George W. Bush’s first term, and 17 during Barack Obama’s first term. Mr. Trump has been in office a little more than 18 months, and there have been 108 cloture votes on his nominees.
These delays are usually not about substantive objections. Often Democratic senators eventually vote for confirmation. Their purpose manifestly is to snarl the Senate calendar and severely limit the number of confirmation votes.
Roll-call votes exacerbate cloture delays because they take a long time to organize and conduct. By contrast, a voice vote, once scheduled, takes virtually no time at all. And it takes only 11 senators to demand a roll-call. Again, the numbers illuminate the trend: the Senate held 21 nomination roll-call votes during George H.W. Bush’s presidency, 13 during Mr. Clinton’s first term, 60 during George W. Bush’s first term, 46 during Mr. Obama’s first term—and 119 since Mr. Trump took office.
The Senate has traditionally operated under the principle that the president is entitled to nominate people who reflect his philosophies and policies, especially within the executive branch. Cloture, roll-call votes, and other Senate procedures were not designed to stop confirmations. The current practice is a misuse."

 

[nonobaddog]

It takes one no vote to prevent matters from proceeding. Im pretty sure withholding that consent forces the majority to invoke cloture.

I think it takes 50 percent no votes to prevent a simple majority, it would take 41 percent no votes to prevent a 60 percent majority and it would take 34 percent no votes to prevent a super majority.

 

[nonobaddog]

Cloture is used to force an end to debate when unanimous consent cannot be gained to move forward. As best I can tell, the Dems are withholding consent forcing McConnell to use cloture to override the withheld consent, thereby delaying the business of the senate. I am yet to find anything referencing the Dems requesting or filing for cloture, they are simply withholding consent so that McConnell will do so.

It is obstructionist, but not by filing for cloture. It is why Trump is complaining that a single senator is being used to block his nominations.

That does make more sense but it is not what I have been reading. Time to watch hockey.

 

[Fargo]

That does make more sense but it is not what I have been reading. Time to watch hockey.

Been watching football. Here is what I am referring to.

The procedure for withholding consent is straightforward, but deploying it is tricky. For the Senate to move in a timely fashion on any order of business, it must obtain unanimous support from its members. But if a single senator objects to a consent agreement, McConnell, now majority leader, will be forced to resort to time-consuming procedural steps through the cloture process, which takes four days to confirm nominees and seven days to advance any piece of legislation — and that’s without amendment votes, each of which can be subjected to a several-day cloture process as well.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...lock-trumps-agenda-if-they-want-to-heres-how/

 

[T.Lex]

Heya guys, the overarching point (IMHO) is that the Senate rules on this are purposefully convoluted. The Senate - by design - can be a significant roadblock. This is the chamber where small states have just as much legitimacy as big states. It helps avoid tyranny of the majority, like a limited version of the executive veto.

The minority has those procedural hurdles as a protection.

If they are using that power productively is a political issue for their constituents to discern.