US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

IncubusOrSuccubus
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:52 am

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by IncubusOrSuccubus »

cliffs-notes-for-the-filibuster-rand-paul-in-his-own-words[/break1]theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/cliffs-notes-for-the-filibuster-rand-paul-in-his-own-words/273787/]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ds/273787/
User avatar
kate520
Posts: 16567
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by kate520 »

Rand, you publicity whore, you. I'm not totally against the drones. The FBI and other LEOs have the authority to kill terrorists in the act on US soil; police, the same. How is this different? Paul the Lesser makes it seem like the drones are all just sitting there in the sky with all of our names on them, waiting for the kill signal.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY
MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by MaineSkeptic »

I'm not totally against the drones. The FBI and other LEOs have the authority to kill terrorists in the act on US soil; police, the same. How is this different? Paul the Lesser makes it seem like the drones are all just sitting there in the sky with all of our names on them, waiting for the kill signal.OK, just leave Jane Fonda alone.
A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by A Legal Lohengrin »

Rand, you publicity whore, you. I'm not totally against the drones. The FBI and other LEOs have the authority to kill terrorists in the act on US soil; police, the same. How is this different? Paul the Lesser makes it seem like the drones are all just sitting there in the sky with all of our names on them, waiting for the kill signal.It's not the devices itself. Drones are just objects. They do what they're told.It's the claim by the Obama administration that he can basically kill anyone, anywhere, based on nothing but his own say-so. This is more sweeping than even the claims of the Bush administration.Whether or not I believe Obama would use this power abusively, that is to say, just murder people he doesn't like, I do not trust all future Presidents not to do this. It is an absolutely ghastly precedent, and we simply do not have the information available to decide whether "the President can just murder anyone any time he feels like it" is a good policy.Plus, there's the fact that it's unconstitutional. Too. Also.Not sure if anyone cares about that any more.
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16411
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Reality Check »

Plus, there's the fact that it's unconstitutional. Too. Also.Not sure if anyone cares about that any more.I think we care. I believe there is an implied power that the executive has to defend the country at work here. Do you think it would have been unconstitutional for President Bush to have ordered fighters to scramble and bring down the passenger planes on 911 if he knew the hijackers (whether US citizens or not) intended to fly the airplanes into buildings and that was the only way to stop them? I believe we are talking about very extreme situations. Do I believe the pendulum has swung to far away from individual rights with the Patriot Act and the re-authorization? Yes. However, I think Paul is wrong to say we can tie the president's hands in every conceivable situation.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016
User avatar
Addie
Posts: 42905
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Addie »

[link]Mother Jones,http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03 ... ns-us-soil[/link]





Attorney General: Obama Can't Order Drone Attack On Americans On US Soil





It took Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) filibustering for 13 straight hours, but the White House has finally clarified that President Barack Obama cannot order a drone strike on an American citizen on American soil. In a curt, forty-three word letter, Attorney General Eric Holder clarified the administration's stance.





"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."





Holder had previously stated in a letter to Paul that he believed it would be appropriate to use deadly military force on American soil in two "catastrophic" scenarios—namely another Pearl Harbor or 9/11.





"Nobody questions if planes are flying towards the Twin Towers whether they can be repulsed by the military," Paul said during his filibuster Wednesday. "Nobody questions whether a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled."
"The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for." - Barbara Kingsolver
A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by A Legal Lohengrin »

Do I believe the pendulum has swung to far away from individual rights with the Patriot Act and the re-authorization? Yes. However, I think Paul is wrong to say we can tie the president's hands in every conceivable situation.I think Paul is a complete asshole, and has only taken the stance he has partly for shits and giggles and partly to pander to teabaggers who wouldn't give a shit if drones were taking down their neighbors they don't like. However, just the general concept that the President can, on his own say-so, kill whoever he feels like, U.S. citizen or not, whenever he feels like doing it, is grievously offensive to any notion of ordered liberty the world has ever seen.If we just mindlessly OK this because of present danger, THAT is a suicide pact.
User avatar
Addie
Posts: 42905
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Addie »

[link]Associated Press,http://apnews.excite.com/article/201303 ... DVG82.html[/link]





Senator's filibuster on CIA nominee divides GOP





WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans split bitterly Thursday over a GOP senator's old-school filibuster of President Barack Obama's CIA nominee John Brennan amid claims that the administration could use drones to target Americans suspected of terrorism.





Just hours after Sen. Rand Paul ended his nearly 13-hour talkathon - and got an endorsement from Minority Leader and fellow Kentuckian Mitch McConnell - two senior Republicans on the Armed Services Committee dismissed Paul's claims as unfounded and ridiculous and expressed support for Obama's controversial drone program as the nation wages war against terrorism.





Both Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina also challenged members of their own party.





"To my Republican colleagues, I don't remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone," Graham said in remarks on the Senate floor.
"The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for." - Barbara Kingsolver
User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7051
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Slarti the White »

I think Paul is a complete asshole, and has only taken the stance he has partly for shits and giggles and partly to pander to teabaggers who wouldn't give a shit if drones were taking down their neighbors they don't like. However, just the general concept that the President can, on his own say-so, kill whoever he feels like, U.S. citizen or not, whenever he feels like doing it, is grievously offensive to any notion of ordered liberty the world has ever seen.If we just mindlessly OK this because of present danger, THAT is a suicide pact.I agree regarding Paul being a complete asshole (and I suspect you are right regarding his motives), but I have to support his actions. I haven't seen anyone on this thread arguing against a "talking" filibuster and getting Eric Holder to clarify that the government doesn't have the right to use lethal force on US citizens absent an immediate threat is, in my opinion, a worthy result. I don't see Senator Paul's actions here being in any way inappropriate. Others may feel differently, but I would approve of this if the party designations were reversed, so I can't condem Paul without being hypocritical. (To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone else of hypocrisy in any way, just saying that, given my beliefs, any complaint regarding Paul's actions on my part would constitute a double standard.)
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)
MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by MaineSkeptic »

I haven't seen anyone on this thread arguing against a "talking" filibuster and getting Eric Holder to clarify that the government doesn't have the right to use lethal force on US citizens absent an immediate threat is, in my opinion, a worthy result. I don't see Senator Paul's actions here being in any way inappropriate.FWIW, I am in full agreement.
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6294
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by June bug »

I have no problem supporting Rand Paul's use of a talking filibuster, whatever his purpose. I wouldn't have any problem supporting Rand Paul's pursuit of a definitive answer to a question he actually asked. But look at Holder's initial letter in full: On February 20, 2013 you wrote to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the Administration's views about whether "the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial." As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts. The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.You'll note he only refers, even hypothetically, to extraordinary circumstances involving a catastrophic attack. Now here is the rather terse "clarification" Holder issued today, post-filibuster:"It has come to my attention that [highlight]you have now asked an additional question[/highlight]: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."I think Holder believed he'd answered Paul's question and I think he was right. Paul took to the floor complaining about the lack of a definitive answer to a question he hadn't actually asked. I see that as an exercise in political gamesmanship. YMMV.
User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7051
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Slarti the White »

I think Holder believed he'd answered Paul's question and I think he was right. Paul took to the floor complaining about the lack of a definitive answer to a question he hadn't actually asked. I see that as an exercise in political gamesmanship. YMMV.Accepting your interpretation (which I think is reasonable), this is a case where I believe there is value in calling public attention to the matter and in forcing Holder to be completely clear and unequivocal. In other words, I don't see it as just an exercise in political gamesmanship and I don't begrudge Senator Paul what political advantage he might get for taking actions I deem reasonable and beneficial (whatever his motive).
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6294
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by June bug »

Fair enough as regards the results, although I still find the good Senator's motives suspect.
A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by A Legal Lohengrin »

I'm actually glad, regardless of the subject and the actor, to see a good old-fashioned talking filibuster. That's how it should be done.
User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 13212
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Whatever4 »

I'm actually glad, regardless of the subject and the actor, to see a good old-fashioned talking filibuster. That's how it should be done.Right. I agree with Loh. Someone could talking filibuster chem trails and I would be for the action. Let the light shine on any Senator willing to take to the podium and put his mouth where his money is. The secret filibusters are the ones I object to.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)
User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by esseff44 »

I'm actually glad, regardless of the subject and the actor, to see a good old-fashioned talking filibuster. That's how it should be done.Right. I agree with Loh. Someone could talking filibuster chem trails and I would be for the action. Let the light shine on any Senator willing to take to the podium and put his mouth where his money is. The secret filibusters are the ones I object to.Exactly. Secret filibusters allow a minority or even one person to gum up the works and stop the machinery of legislating.
Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Joseph Robidoux III »

Sen Merkley says he has 51 votes for his proposal, Sen Durbin says Merkley doesn't.


[Sen Harry] Reid, who said Tuesday he expects talks with [Sen Mitch] McConnell to conclude in 24 to 36 hours, insists he has the 51 votes needed to pass the reforms if Republicans don’t agree to a compromise.





In his most recent proposal to McConnell, Reid offered to eliminate filibusters on several procedural measures and to scale back the amount of time allowed to debate a nominee once that nomination has overcome a filibuster.





Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said Reid did not propose requiring senators to speak throughout a filibuster because the idea does not have the support of 51 senators.





The second-ranking Democrat said Reid and McConnell “are not that far apart” and he is hopeful a deal will be reached soon.


[/break1]blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/reid-ratchets-up-pressure-for-filibuster-reform/]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... er-reform/Hopefully some Democratic Senators have been reminded of their January secret caucus vote to reject the Merkley-T Udall filibuster reform package.


Senate Democratic leaders have engaged in preliminary discussions about how to address Republican procedural obstruction, according to a senior Democratic aide, reflecting an awareness that key administration and judicial vacancies might never be filled, and that a watered-down rules reform deal the parties struck early this Congress has failed.





“The general agreement was that Republicans would only filibuster nominees in the case of extraordinary circumstances, and once again Republicans are expanding the definition of that term to make it entirely meaningless,” the aide said.


[/break1]talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/senate-dems-weigh-consequences-for-gop-filibusters-of-key-nominees.php]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013 ... minees.phpOther than Sen Levin (D-MI) I don't know which Democratic Senators opposed the Merkley-T Udall reforms. That is one bit of information I would love to be leaked. Levin won't be in the Senate at the start of the next Congress.
Norbrook
Posts: 579
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:00 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Norbrook »

Other than Sen Levin (D-MI) I don't know which Democratic Senators opposed the Merkley-T Udall reforms. That is one bit of information I would love to be leaked. Levin won't be in the Senate at the start of the next Congress.Feinstein, Tester, Manchin, and Heitkamp were the others. :((
Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Joseph Robidoux III »

Sen Reid is dissatisfied with nominations, especially judicial, not getting to the Senate floor and is threatening some changes. He also spoke about the Richard Cordray nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.Republicans have said repeatedly that no one will be confirmed to that post until Congress makes changes to that agency’s organizational structure.[/break1]rollcall.com/news/reid_hints_at_using_nuclear_option_on_judges-223635-1.html?pos=hftxt]http://www.rollcall.com/news/reid_hints ... ?pos=hftxtI hope the Democratic Senators who refused to support the Merkley-T Udall-Harkin rules changes have noticed the effectiveness of the latest agreement between Reid and McConnell.Quoting Mr Lawrence Peter Berra, "It's like deja-vu, all over again".
User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Mikedunford »

Sen Reid is dissatisfied with nominations, especially judicial, not getting to the Senate floor and is threatening some changes. He also spoke about the Richard Cordray nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.Republicans have said repeatedly that no one will be confirmed to that post until Congress makes changes to that agency’s organizational structure.[/break1]rollcall.com/news/reid_hints_at_using_nuclear_option_on_judges-223635-1.html?pos=hftxt]http://www.rollcall.com/news/reid_hints ... ?pos=hftxtI hope the Democratic Senators who refused to support the Merkley-T Udall-Harkin rules changes have noticed the effectiveness of the latest agreement between Reid and McConnell.Quoting Mr Lawrence Peter Berra, "It's like deja-vu, all over again".Yes. It is. I've said it before, and I will say it again. If Reid is dissatisfied, it's largely his own damn fault. He needs to go, and someone with a backbone needs to be put in the job.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 18258
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Suranis »

I'm sorry, I'm dissatisfied with Harry Reid.
The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.
User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11956
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Plutodog »

I'm sorry, I'm dissatisfied with Harry Reid.That's too mild. [-X
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.
Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Joseph Robidoux III »

Other than Sen Levin (D-MI) I don't know which Democratic Senators opposed the Merkley-T Udall reforms. That is one bit of information I would love to be leaked. Levin won't be in the Senate at the start of the next Congress.Feinstein, Tester, Manchin, and Heitkamp were the others. :((I found an article that listed 2 of the 4 you mentioned.Several senior and centrist Democrats have balked at reforming the filibuster rule to require senators to actively hold the floor. They include Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.).[/break1]com/homenews/senate/278419-reid-to-lay-out-plans-for-filibuster-reform]http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2784 ... ter-reform
Edit: Senators Feinstein, Baucus, Levin, Manchin and Pryor are listed in an article I linked back on Jan 22. :oops: viewtopic.php?p=468632#p468632
Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Joseph Robidoux III »

I've been dissatisfied with Sen Reid on several occasions. On this matter however, I find myself more upset with Senators Feinstein, Baucus, Levin, Manchin and Pryor than with Reid.Reid is forced to negotiate with McConnell when his fellow Democratic Senators won't help him. Since McConnell knows Reid wouldn't be asking for a deal if he already had 51 votes, there is little reason for McConnell not to tell Reid to go pound sand (in a diplomatic Senatorial way of course).
User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11956
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

US Senate Filibuster Reform Proposed

Post by Plutodog »

I've been dissatisfied with Sen Reid on several occasions. On this matter however, I find myself more upset with Senators Feinstein, Baucus, Levin, Manchin and Pryor than with Reid.Reid is forced to negotiate with McConnell when his fellow Democratic Senators won't help him. Since McConnell knows Reid wouldn't be asking for a deal if he already had 51 votes, there is little reason for McConnell not to tell Reid to go pound sand (in a diplomatic Senatorial way of course).The seats Feinstein, Baucus, Levin, Manchin and Pryor were metaphorically seated would have been just a tad hotter had they not been able to hide behind Majority LEADER Reid.Now, Reid is again threatening the so-called "Nuclear Option" if judicial nominees don't get acted on in short order but I don't think the Senate Dems should wait or hope for that. Any Senator can raise a point of order, as I understand it and call for a parliamentary ruling to declare the Senate rules unconstitutional insofar as they require a supermajority to end debate. Then a simple majority could shitcan the damned thing.That's what I'm still for (that and giving no further quarter to Reid's milquetoast leadership). :madz2:
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.
Post Reply

Return to “Congress”