Today it is at a record low. Just 45 percent of Americans have "trust and confidence" in Congress; just 25 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job. A higher percentage of Americans likely supported the British Crown at the time of the Revolution than support our Congress today.
In 1986, Shelby won the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat held by Republican Jeremiah Denton, the first Republican elected to the Senate from Alabama since Reconstruction. He won a very close race as the Democrats regained control of the Senate. He was easily re-elected in 1992 even as Bill Clinton lost Alabama's electoral votes.
Shelby publicly feuded with Bill Clinton during the first half of Clinton's first term (1993-1994). At a meeting with Vice President Al Gore, he turned to 19 Alabama TV cameras and denounced the Clinton program as "high on taxes, low on spending cuts".
On November 9, 1994, Shelby switched his party affiliation to Republican, one day after the Republicans won control of both houses in the midterm elections, giving the Republicans a 53-47 majority in the Senate. He won his first full term as a Republican in 1998 by a large margin, and faced no significant opposition in 2004.
"I didn't like that," responded Clinton a few days later.
And he did something about it.
He took a $375 million program - and 90-plus jobs - from the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., and moved it to Johnson Space Center in Houston.
For good measure, when the University of Alabama's national champion football team came to the White House in March 1993, the White House gave Sen. Howell Heflin of Alabama 15 tickets for him to give to friends. It gave Shelby one ticket.
Isn't filibustering a physically difficult process...It used to be. The constitution provides for unlimited debate, barring a cloture vote.
Isn't filibustering a physically difficult process...
The Constitution is clear that there needs to be actual debate
It's not an indictment of the GOP that Republicans pull stunts like these and get away with it, but of the people who vote or choose not to vote.
Also the "make them talk" contingent annoys the hell out of me. You don't need to "talk" to filibuster if you have 41+ people involved. You just have to demand a quorum check whenever anyone calls a vote. You only need one person to even be there at time, other then that the other 40 guys don't even need to be in the building.
Also think about it, if you have 41 people, how hard would it be to keep talking, forever, in shifts?
"...Her nomination had been pending for over a year when Majority Leader Trent Lott scheduled the vote. With complete Democratic support, and support from 25 Republican senators including Judiciary chair Orrin Hatch, Sotomayor was confirmed on October 2, 1998, by a 67–29 vote. She received her commission on October 7. The confirmation experience left Sotomayor somewhat angry; she said shortly afterwards that during the hearings Republicans had assumed her political beliefs based on her being a Latina: "That series of questions, I think, were symbolic of a set of expectations that some people had [that] I must be liberal. It is stereotyping, and stereotyping is perhaps the most insidious of all problems in our society today.""
"SEC. 134. APPLICATION TO QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS NOT OFFERED THROUGH THE HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.
The requirements of the previous provisions of this subtitle shall apply to qualified health benefits plans that are not being offered through the Health Insurance Exchange only to the extent specified by the Commissioner."
"... "Don't even ask us to consider passing the Senate bill until the other legislation has passed both houses so that we're sure that it has happened, and that we know that what we would be voting for would be as effected by a reconciliation bill or whatever parliamentary initiative they have at their disposable," Pelosi said on a conference call this afternoon. ..."
How can any politician, bureaucrat, or public interest figure come to a simple Yes/No recommendation on a bill so complicated, so technical, as HCR? Much less seperate (sic) House and Senate versions?
Not nearly enough people know what any particular "compromise" might mean, for the there to be a "measurable" public consensus.
Why wouldn't I?
Suppose I withdraw from the thread, and no one posts further until someone posts language from the Senate or House version of HCR that guarantees my current health insurance/health care arrangements, such as they are, in perpetuity?
Sure. Let's say, without me admitting or denying the facts of the issue, that my current plan, is a "super-Cadillac" plan, riding on top of a fully funded, tax-advantaged HCSA. I've locked in benefits you can't imagine, and negotiated premiums, in the 5 figure range per annum plus inflation expectations, through about 2030.
If I ever need a new liver, I'll get a good one, under my current contract. I've got health care advance directives, living wills, interlocking hospital/hospice agreements, living trusts, and teams of lawyers trained at Duke and Vanderbilt on 3 deep call.
Obamacare, as I understand it, wants to make sure I don't benefit, more than others, from such massive investment and foresight. Obamacare, as other portray it, wants to make sure no health insurance company in America can offer such a policy, much less offer it affordably.
In the early 1980s, as many as five times the votes were needed to elect a representative from an urban district compared with those needed for a rural district. Similar disparities existed in the prefectural constituencies of the House of Councillors. The Supreme Court had ruled on several occasions that the imbalance violated the constitutional principle of one person-one vote. The Supreme Court mandated the addition of eight representatives to urban districts and the removal of seven from rural districts in 1986. Several lower house districts' boundaries were redrawn. Yet the disparity is still as much as three urban votes to one rural vote.
"... In a statement, Mr. Shelby’s spokesman, Jonathan Graffeo, disputed that characterization. The holds, he said, were “to get the White House’s attention on two issues that are critical to our national security,” a refueling tanker that would add jobs in Mobile and an F.B.I. antiterrorism center to be built in Alabama. ..."
« Older Since late January of 2010, the International Spac... | The New York Times called it "... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt