Is a Senator blocking a motion by the majority "obstructionist"?

[Palefire]

Is a Senator blocking a motion by the majority an "obstructionist" or is he or she simply trying to represent the people that have elected him or her as best as possible? What is an "obstructionist"? Is it just a word used by the majority to beat on the minority for opposing them? Or is it something more?

[A18]

fil·i·bus·ter

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=filibuster

   1.
         a. The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
         b. An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.

   2.
         An adventurer who engages in a private military action in a foreign country.

[Gabu]

fil·i·bus·ter

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=filibuster

   1.
         a. The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
         b. An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.

   2.
         An adventurer who engages in a private military action in a foreign country.

How do you know that the Democrats aren't just engaging in private military action in a foreign country?

[Palefire]

fil·i·bus·ter

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=filibuster

   1.
         a. The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
         b. An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.

   2.
         An adventurer who engages in a private military action in a foreign country.

I would note that Websters use the word delaying tactic, not obstructonist tactic when defining filibuster. I would also note that Websters define Obstructionist as one who hinders progress or bussiness. So I ask the question again - is a Senator blocking the majority an obstructionist? Certainly in any number of cases they could be seen as preventing progress from being undone and doing the bussiness for which they were elected, in other cases; not so.

One could actually take the definition of "Obstructionist" and apply it to the Republicans on such issues as stem cell research and even their concept of a dead constitution. In both cases they are stopping progress. But that is off topic.

[Platypus]

If it's legal, I have no problem with it. People elected them to use any legal means to futher their cause, and if that means being obstructionist, they're just doing their job.

In Australia, minor parties and independents have held the balance of power in the senate for a couple of decades (about to end though ) and whilst some people get peeved that 5 democrats can block 40 Liberals, I'm not. The minor parties are usually elected to hold the balance of power for a reason-it's the only power they can get, and it stops the government in the lower house from being unchecked, as will practically happen when the new senate is sworn in later this year.

[The Duke]

No.  But whe  you consistently refuse to even sit at the bargaining table, refuse to accept any concessions, and refuse to say yes even to the most non-controversial decisions, you are an obstructionist.

The problem is not that the Democrats wanted to filibuster the judges, though that is quite bad enough, its the pattern of wanting to pull out all the procedural stops and all the PR attacks on almost every question that has made them obstructionists.

[Palefire]

As I noted earlier, it's a matter of perspective. I have no desire to watch the GOP continue to spend tax dollars like it's going out of style and increase their roll as the morality police. Anybody that gets in their way on such issues isn't an obstructionist from my view point, they are doing this nation a favor. But, I believe government should move slowly on many things.

[angus]

yes, of course he's being an obstructionist in that case, and no, being obstructionist doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that he's acting in the best interest of his supporters.  A constituency, for example, may very well object to a bill congress is attempting to pass and would want its legislator to attempt its obstruction. 

[Palefire]

yes, of course he's being an obstructionist in that case, and no, being obstructionist doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that he's acting in the best interest of his supporters.  A constituency, for example, may very well object to a bill congress is attempting to pass and would want its legislator to attempt its obstruction. 

Perhaps; but obstructionist carries a negative connotation. It seems a little like calling somebody that stops a mugging an obstructionist for getting in the way of the mugger.

[angus]

of course you're right.  I remember my US history prof going on about what he called "grr words" and what my sociology prof called "emotionally charged words"  Like socialism, abortion, and obstructionism.  I've noticed that the words race, racist, and racial have become that way too.  I was mentioning something about the shape of my wife's head to a neighbor, and casually mentioned that it was merely a racial phenomenon.  The woman I was talking to cast me a strange glance.  Of course my wife thought nothing of it, as she is no more politically correct than I.  My advice:  don't worry about political correctness unless you're running for office.  If you want to say something, say it.  Pick that word that you know denotes the thing you want to describe and use it. 

Let's take back our language!

[Emsworth]

Yes, but that does not mean that he is unjustified in obstructing legislation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The 44 Democrats in the Senate represent the majority (just look at the populations of the states they represent).

[A18]

Senate represents states, and the GOP is the majority.

[angus]

The 44 Democrats in the Senate represent the majority (just look at the populations of the states they represent).

an interesting, but irrelevant, point.  and no one is convinced that it's even accurate.  first, it assumes senators represent every man, woman, and child in his state, whether a citizen or not.  second, it's open to debate how you'd count the population in states which have two senators from two parties.  third, majority doesn't mean much till you follow it with a prepositional phrase, and the working phrase here, according to law, tradition, and, hopefully, what you were taught in your school, is "of the senators" and not "of the people"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The 44 Democrats in the Senate represent the majority (just look at the populations of the states they represent).

an interesting, but irrelevant, point.  and no one is convinced that it's even accurate.  first, it assumes senators represent every man, woman, and child in his state, whether a citizen or not.  second, it's open to debate how you'd count the population in states which have two senators from two parties.  third, majority doesn't mean much till you follow it with a prepositional phrase, and the working phrase here, according to law, tradition, and, hopefully, what you were taught in your school, is "of the senators" and not "of the people"

It uses census figures, and it's obvious how you'd count it with Senators from different parties.

[angus]

and, unless you have been under a rock for the past twenty years, you know how unreliable those are.  in fact, a good deal of time is spent by the congress to figure out how to "count" people.  on the other hand, most of us can count to a hundred.  and a majority of one hundred, if quantized into indivisible units, is 51 or more.

anyway, I can show you the word republic sometime, and its definition.  you do not live in a democracy, and you know that.

the philosophical problems with your post are many, but are not unlike the typical ruses used by your party (and mine!) to mislead the people.  but we can be honest here.  as a practical matter, your party is the minority party.  Shumer will tell you that.  Reid will tell you that.  this is not misunderstood by anyone, apparently, except you.

[angus]

anyway, look, I don't have any philosophical problems with obstructionism.  I argued vehemently with my colleagues in the late 90s, for example, that "obstruction of justice" was not, in my opinion, an impeachible offense.  I have actively campaigned to obstruct the construction of a cement manufacturing facility in my town unless it agreed to use scrubbers and filters to remove pyrazines and dioxins and various other carcinogenic and mutagenic substances from the stacks.  There is an obstruction, in the form of a curb, near where I often park in order to keep cars off the sidewalk.  And, more relevantly, if the republicans want to ram through an insane attorney or mass murderer the democrats are morally and ethically right to attempt to obstruct his confirmation to the court.  this is relevant to the thread.

I'm not sure arguing over the definition of "majority" is relevant to the thread, but I will remind you that unlike, say, Canada and Germany, the United States (like France and Mexico) is a republic.  I'm sure you know this.  you seem like a well-educated young man.  but we all get carried away sometimes.  I do as well.  sometimes my party gets itself into the most ridiculous and insupportable positions, and I find myself on this forum posting all sorts of sh**t in the name of bullying the opposition.  then I catch myself.  I back off.  I realize what I'm doing.  There's nothing wrong with the occasional reality check.  I think that's what happened with the "gang of 14" for example. 

[MissCatholic]

The democrats were naughty yesterday but i did laugh when i heard.

[angus]

you're not talking bolton are ya? 

my guess is that if both the minority and majority leaders released their caucuses to vote at will, and the ballot was totally secret, then he'd probably get between 30 and 40 votes.

Don't compare Bolton-as-Diplomat to Owens-as-Justice.  It's like comparing apples to..., well, papayas or something.