• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats help block Obama’s DOJ pick[W:29]

mac

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Democrats help block Obama?s DOJ pick - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

"Several Senate Democrats rebelled Wednesday to join Republicans in blocking President Barack Obama’s controversial pick to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division.The rejection of Debo Adegbile in a 47-52 vote marks the first time that the Senate has thwarted one of Obama’s nominees since Democrats changed filibuster rules in November — a historic change that was supposed to make it easier for the majority party to move nominations."


 
The filibuster prevented further discussion and an up-and-down vote, which the GOP constantly presses for when they are in the majority.
With the new 'nuclear' rules, would the GOP have rejected their own President's choice for anything ?
 
Now to bring the topic back from the partisan forum:

This person was toast as the law enforcement apparatus of Philadelphia was dead set against her/him (not sure of this person's gender) particularly the Democrat D.A. The final nail came when Bob Casey announced he was against her/him.
 
So a few Congresistas actually voted in a non partisan manner? I must say, I'm impressed.
 
NIMBY said:
The filibuster prevented further discussion and an up-and-down vote, which the GOP constantly presses for when they are in the majority.
With the new 'nuclear' rules, would the GOP have rejected their own President's choice for anything ?
Click to expand...

Good afternoon NIMBY

So like you not to look at the reasons why the President's nominee was so thoroughly rejected, without a filibuster, and try to turn this into something the Republicans need to defend against.

Actually, if the filibuster had still been in place, the Democrats could have hidden behind it and voted for the fool without fear that 60 votes could be mustered. Without the filibuster, Democrats are left naked in the wind having to make their own decisions and live with them.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon NIMBY

So like you not to look at the reasons why the President's nominee was so thoroughly rejected, without a filibuster, and try to turn this into something the Republicans need to defend against.
Click to expand...
The nominee WAS rejected with a filibuster, sustained with DEM Senators.
What did you miss in the article on that?
As well, several DEM Senators wanted to vote on the nomination, not have it filibustered .
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, if the filibuster had still been in place, the Democrats could have hidden behind it and voted for the fool without fear that 60 votes could be mustered. Without the filibuster, Democrats are left naked in the wind having to make their own decisions and live with them.
Click to expand...

The filibuster WAS still in place, which is why VP Biden was there to break a tie.
Seven DEMs voted to sustain the filibuster, while others wanted debate before they voted no.
It is on you for not wanting to read the OP's link, being from Politico .
 
NIMBY said:
The filibuster WAS still in place, which is why VP Biden was there to break a tie.
Seven DEMs voted to sustain the filibuster, while others wanted debate before they voted no.
It is on you for not wanting to read the OP's link, being from Politico .
Click to expand...

I don't read anything from Politico, and never will again - period.

As for claims this was a filibuster vote, that would be counter to the author of the OP - your argument would be with him.
 
You can choose to ignore this was a filibuster vote, though I don't know why.
Maybe you'll listen to others you pay attention to more.
Chiding the link as being from Politico is what it is.
You're smart enough to find another link .
CanadaJohn said:
I don't read anything from Politico, and never will again - period.

As for claims this was a filibuster vote, that would be counter to the author of the OP - your argument would be with him.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
You can choose to ignore this was a filibuster vote, though I don't know why.
Maybe you'll listen to others you pay attention to more.
Chiding the link as being from Politico is what it is.
You're smart enough to find another link .
Click to expand...

Have Googled and haven't found one yet - I'm not ignoring or refuting your claim, I simply said it was counter to the author of the OP's take on it - I like to trust the authors of OP's until factually proven wrong. Wouldn't be the first time Politico got something wrong. And it seems odd, to me, that a filibuster vote would be so lopsided - 13 votes short - and that Biden would be there - that sounds to me like Democrat leadership not having a clue.
 
mac said:
Democrats help block Obama?s DOJ pick - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

"Several Senate Democrats rebelled Wednesday to join Republicans in blocking President Barack Obama’s controversial pick to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division.The rejection of Debo Adegbile in a 47-52 vote marks the first time that the Senate has thwarted one of Obama’s nominees since Democrats changed filibuster rules in November — a historic change that was supposed to make it easier for the majority party to move nominations."
Click to expand...
Yep, even Democrats have to think about the backlash that installing the defense atty of a high profile cop killer in the DoJ would have on their re-election campaigns. Since the position is for the civil rights aspect, probably he's absolutely perfect for the job, but I can totally see them shying away from the imagined and likely ads that will be put up against them if they vote for him.

Additionally, in an article at the LATimes about this, it mentions that some are calling out racism, which I must say in this case seems very much ridiculous. Unless worrying about how installing what can be twisted into being a pro-cop-killer atty into an appointment is the same a racism.
 
The filibuster vote was THREE votes short, not 13, which is why VP Biden was there to break a tie.
Why are you ignoring the New 'Nuke' rules related to nominees ?
CanadaJohn said:
Have Googled and haven't found one yet - I'm not ignoring or refuting your claim, I simply said it was counter to the author of the OP's take on it - I like to trust the authors of OP's until factually proven wrong. Wouldn't be the first time Politico got something wrong. And it seems odd, to me, that a filibuster vote would be so lopsided - 13 votes short - and that Biden would be there - that sounds to me like Democrat leadership not having a clue.
Click to expand...
 
Though this is a proper post, it does not address the OP,
that Obama's appointments should/shouldn't have these problems of clearing procedural hurdles.

The seven DEMs sustained the filibuster, though I support other DEM Senators who wanted debate before voting NO/YES,
opposing the filibuster in principle.

This is exactly what happened with Toomey/Manchin, which got filibustered by the NRA,
in which Toomey was on the other side.

Who is to say that 'legislative' filibusters shouldn't also be 'nuked', which currently require 60 votes,
which Sen. Grassley has already threatened if the GOP takes the Senate ?
AliHajiSheik said:
Now to bring the topic back from the partisan forum:

This person was toast as the law enforcement apparatus of Philadelphia was dead set against her/him (not sure of this person's gender) particularly the Democrat D.A. The final nail came when Bob Casey announced he was against her/him.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
The filibuster vote was THREE votes short, not 13, which is why VP Biden was there to break a tie.
Why are you ignoring the New 'Nuke' rules related to nominees ?
Click to expand...

Come'on NIMBY, that's just playing games. Saying that the Dems couldn't get 50 plus Biden for a nominee isn't a filibuster, it's a straight up rejection of the nominee. Are you telling me that the Senate is inane enough now that they have to have a plus one majority vote on a filibuster before they have a plus one vote on the substance of the issue? I know Democrat politicians are idiots, but that's beyond idiocy.
 
NIMBY said:
The filibuster WAS still in place, which is why VP Biden was there to break a tie.
Seven DEMs voted to sustain the filibuster, while others wanted debate before they voted no.
It is on you for not wanting to read the OP's link, being from Politico .
Click to expand...

My apologies, but I do not understand what you are arguing.

The Democrats broke caucus and voted with your evil and demonic Republicans which is an historic precedent and yet another example of how president Obama's hold on the party is crumbling. When your own people jump ship and go with the "enemies" as Obama defined them, there is no logic in the world that can turn that into a loss for the Republicans.

How and who voted for what months ago isn't really relevant to the OP, another rung down Obama' falling ladder.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Come'on NIMBY, that's just playing games.
Click to expand...
I'll stop here because you refuse to acknowledge that this was a filibuster.
When you're serious, you know where I am, CanadaJohn .
 
Fearandloathing said:
My apologies, but I do not understand what you are arguing.

The Democrats broke caucus and voted with your evil and demonic Republicans which is an historic and yet another example of how president Obama's hold on the party is crumbling. When your own people jump ship and go with the "enemies" as Obama defined them, there is no logic in the world that can turn that into a loss for the Republicans.

How and who voted for what months ago isn't really relevant to the OP, another rung down Obama' falling ladder.
Click to expand...
This is not historic, and Obama has had problems with BlueDogs in the Senate since his initial inauguration. I really wish you conservatives had some semblance of memory retention.
 
Fearandloathing said:
How and who voted for what months ago isn't really relevant to the OP, another rung down Obama' falling ladder.
Click to expand...

So when DEMs vote their conscience on a filibuster, as they did aginst Toomey/Manchin, it's back to Obama Derangement Syndrome .
 
NIMBY said:
I'll stop here because you refuse to acknowledge that this was a filibuster.
when you're serious, you know where I am, CanadaJohn .
Click to expand...



My apologies if this offends you, but that is a gross distortion of that post.

If you cannot stand behind your assertions, you should not make them. Running away is not victory.
 
So you deny that it was a filibuster also?

Fearandloathing said:
My apologies if this offends you, but that is a gross distortion of that post.

If you cannot stand behind your assertions, you should not make them. Running away is not victory.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
The filibuster WAS still in place, which is why VP Biden was there to break a tie.
Seven DEMs voted to sustain the filibuster, while others wanted debate before they voted no.
It is on you for not wanting to read the OP's link, being from Politico .
Click to expand...


This wasn't a filibuster, it was a test vote. A test vote is just to see how the Senate would vote if they brought the vote to the floor. When the test showed that the nomination would fail on the floor they tabled the nominee. Biden was there because, unlike a filibuster, the test vote could conceivably end in a tie.
 
Summerwind said:
This is not historic, and Obama has had problems with BlueDogs in the Senate since his initial inauguration. I really wish you conservatives had some semblance of memory retention.
Click to expand...

Well, you make a gross assumption that I am a conservative. It is perhaps somewhat narrow minded that a Liberal cannot possibly find fault with Obama or his administration, but I happen to be a card carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada and proud of it; I know of no conservative that supports a woman's right to choose, gay marriage and universal health care.

So, now that we have established your credibility, how is Obama not getting his way on an appointee not historic and precedent setting in light of the possibility of Supreme Court appointments.


Can you supply examples of the "problems" Obama has had with "Blue Dogs" as I am do like to learn.

And, would you please reduce your tone? I have no way insulted anyone and the reference to being mentally ill or an Alzhiemer's patient is a disgusting and unnecessary venture into stereotypical small mindedness.
 
NIMBY said:
So you deny that it was a filibuster also?
Click to expand...

I have no idea and do not care.

The results of the vote are the results of the vote.

My post was about a gross distortion of that post, your refusal to address that tells me that you are not honorable and I question whether I should have any further dealings with you.
 
Did you read the OP's link?

And as a huge supporter of Heitkamp and Donnelly, who voted NO,
GOPs/Cons other than you stand out in their attempts to divide DEMs .
jmotivator said:
This wasn't a filibuster, it was a test vote. A test vote is just to see how the Senate would vote if they brought the vote to the floor. When the test showed that the nomination would fail on the floor they tabled the nominee. Biden was there because, unlike a filibuster, the test vote could conceivably end in a tie.
Click to expand...
 
Fearandloathing said:
I have no idea and do not care.

The results of the vote are the results of the vote.
Click to expand...
Then you're offr-topic and derailing the thread.
In the link, the yes/no vote was 47-52 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom