Notice Catch Your Senator, Jeff Merkley at his finest. CSPAN2

[jlprk]

Right? Those southern conservatives destroyed Bork and John Tower.

Someone of your astute IQ uses 2 examples in all of history to disprove what you know is true? You should be ashamed.

 

[MarAzul]

Irrelevant. That's like saying that history's 5 highest-scoring games were from Wilt Chamberlain, so most NBA players are 7 feet tall.

 

[dead247]

Fatigue with fighting. This is why Democrats always lose. Republicans only understand killing, imprisonment, and torture. Play by their rules. For example, they held hearings on Hillary, delayed them a year to coincide with election season, then dropped them the day after the election. Surely the media won't hold Democrats responsible for partisan divisiveness, since they don't hold Republicans responsible for it...

Hyperbole much?

 

[Jade Falcon]

Hyperbole much?

I know. By his reasoning, Democrats only understand corruption, rioting, and dividing people based on race/gender/sexuality.

 

[Denny Crane]

Someone of your astute IQ uses 2 examples in all of history to disprove what you know is true? You should be ashamed.

Not many have been denied. History isn't full of other examples to support your astute blanket statement about who blocked previous picks via filibuster.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, you can't have it both ways. What kind of scrutiny do you think SCOTUS appointees should be given? Sure, it's a lifetime appointment, but at the end of the day should political differences stop the appointment? If you say no, then Garland should be on SCOTUS right now. If you say yes, then you can't complain about Gorsuch getting filibustered. My view is that I'm tired of hearing the other party did it, so we can do it too. I say start afresh, confirm Gorsuch, but nominate Garland next. That's the best compromise. It would be good to see Congress actually working together and not against each other. Gridlock is not going to get us very far. Incidentally, odd that the R's control virtually every governmental branch and can't seem to get their act together to do anything of consequence. Maybe if they worked with the D's instead of against them, they could actually get some things accomplished.

I suggested that several times.

Gorsuch 100 votes in exchange for a so-called "liberal" appointment next time around. Ginsberg could retire tomorrow, happy that her seat filled by someone she'd approve.

I bet republicans would have gone for it.

It's likely too late. Thank Chucky.

 

[MARIS61]

Yeah, shenanigans like Republicans not allowing a President with a year left in his term to put in his Supreme Court nominee.

I hope the Democrats keep out Trump's nominee for 4 or 8 years or whatever it takes. Just for revenge.

They are powerless to do so, having lost over 1,000 seats in the last election.

They lost the Senate, the House, and the Presidency.

All they have left are dozens of Obama appointee federal judges who are willing to ignore US Laws and make bogus rulings that will be overturned by higher courts. Every time this happens, the Dems have wasted millions upon millions of tax dollars for nothing, and taxpayers are fed up.

The Dems party is officially dead, they're just too stupid to notice it.

 

[MARIS61]

I suggested that several times.

Gorsuch 100 votes in exchange for a so-called "liberal" appointment next time around. Ginsberg could retire tomorrow, happy that her seat filled by someone she'd approve.

I bet republicans would have gone for it.

It's likely too late. Thank Chucky.

No need for that. Thomas Hardiman will be replacing her.

 

[jlprk]

Fatigue with fighting. This is why Democrats always lose. Republicans only understand killing, imprisonment, and torture. Play by their rules.

Hyperbole much?

You must be an anti-Bush Republican. Okay, that's good progress. Now, get the other Republicans onto your side. Have you posted much against what the Republicans did during his 8 years?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

cuck'd.

 

[Chris Craig]

The republicans should not be allowed to simply change the rules to do what they like, nor should the democrats been allowed to do the same. It's a horrible abuse of power. Then again there is no one to ensure check and balance because every thing is controlled by the republicans and they are fucking everything up. A good year for the rich though.

All you republicans who aren't rich are going to get fucked over just like the rest of us. But hey you voted for it

 

[Jade Falcon]

The republicans should not be allowed to simply change the rules to do what they like, nor should the democrats been allowed to do the same. It's a horrible abuse of power. Then again there is no one to ensure check and balance because every thing is controlled by the republicans and they are fucking everything up. A good year for the rich though.

All you republicans who aren't rich are going to get fucked over just like the rest of us. But hey you voted for it

I didn't hear you bitching about Obama's abuse of powers. But hey....it's the Republicans, so it's okay to bitch about THEM, huh?

And if you're still butthurt by the fact that businesses influence this country, then feel free to give up your cars, IPhones, TVs, gas, oil-based products, and basic consumer goods. And medicine. And bottled water. And clothes. And everything else that those supposed "evil rich people" provide us through the corporations that they run.

Because ultimately, this isn't about "Rich People". You don't bitch and moan about Paul Allen when he's building up the Seahawks and Trail Blazers. You don't bitch and moan about a multi-millionaire producer in Hollywood when he makes a blockbuster movie. You don't bitch and moan about Bill Maher's $25 Million/year salary.

No. This isn't about "the rich". This is about your hatred for Corporations.

I've never seen a bigger bunch of whiners and hypocrites since Trump was elected in my entire life. Never. Obama gave numerous tax breaks for corporations when it suited him...nobody here bitched and moaned about that. Obama circumvented Congress and signed executive orders for his agenda in private, not to mention he pissed on the constitution whenever he wanted......nobody here bitched and moaned about that.

But oh....Republicans do it, and everyone loses their minds.

Get over yourselves.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Selective memory, eh?? All the Republicans did from 2008 through 2016 was bitch, moan, slander and obstruct. Nothing Obama did or could do was ever reasonable for the RWNs. The things that were said about Obama would have made a whore blush. It's the nature of the beast, dude. You apparently didn't have any heartburn when the shoe was on the other foot, but now, somehow, you act like it's so unfair. Maybe you need to get over it too. It's called politics and if there is a dirtier game in the world, I'd love to see it. That said, how can you not view Donald Fucking Trump as a serious embarrassment to this country at the very least? And he has yet to do anything positive whatsoever for the "little peopLe" he conned into voting for him. All I've seen is serious damage, with more on the way......

 

[Jade Falcon]

You apparently didn't have any heartburn when the shoe was on the other foot, but now, somehow, you act like it's so unfair.

Firstly, I didn't listen to the media. Secondly, I'm not saying it's unfair. I'm saying it's hypocrisy.

That said, how can you not view Donald Fucking Trump as a serious embarrassment to this country at the very least?

Easy.....I don't watch mainstream media news, read the Washington Post, or listen to late-night talk show hosts. Nor do I take the cherry-picked assumptions of Liberals on forums seriously.

And he has yet to do anything positive whatsoever

He's given more freedoms to businesses, which I consider a win, since without them most of the population in this country would be homeless.

That's a win in my book.

 

[MarAzul]

how can you not view Donald Fucking Trump as a serious embarrassment to this country at the very least?

Naw! but whiners that wail about him are.

 

[jlprk]

I didn't hear you bitching about Obama's abuse of powers. But hey....it's the Republicans, so it's okay to bitch about THEM, huh?

Bullshit as usual from you. You know perfectly well that the 60-vote supermajority was used over and over against the Democrats. Yet they didn't change the rule, as Republicans are now, the first time it's any problem to them.

 

[jlprk]

All through the 60s and before, the filibuster was used by Southern conservatives (who were Democrats and are now Republicans) to stop civil rights. Finally, conservatives have been conned into getting rid of the filibuster. At last.

 

[MarAzul]

Bullshit as usual from you. You know perfectly well that the 60-vote supermajority was used over and over against the Democrats. Yet they didn't change the rule, as Republicans are now, the first time it's any problem to them.

Sorry, but I can not find a statement of truth anywhere in your post.

You know perfectly well that the 60-vote supermajority was used over and over against the Democrats.

uh, no this is the first time a filibuster has been used to block a the approval of a nominee to the court.

Yet they didn't change the rule,

The dems did change the rule for all judges below the SC. 2013 I think.

time it's any problem to them.

Yes, it is the first time the filibuster has ever been used against a SC nominee.

 

[MarAzul]

It is worthy noting that the Constitutions only calls for the advice and consent of the Senate. That would be a majority.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments"

See the Treaties! It is suppose to be 2/3 of the Senate consent. The last treaties was executed without any consent of the Senate.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Bullshit as usual from you. You know perfectly well that the 60-vote supermajority was used over and over against the Democrats. Yet they didn't change the rule, as Republicans are now, the first time it's any problem to them.

LOL. Right. This coming from a guy who thinks heroine dens are a safe place for children.

I assume you're talking about the Nuclear Option? If so, I wouldn't get all high and mighty about it....

https://www.conservativereview.com/...he-nuclear-option-before-they-were-against-it

All through the 60s and before, the filibuster was used by Southern conservatives (who were Democrats and are now Republicans) to stop civil rights. Finally, conservatives have been conned into getting rid of the filibuster. At last.

We're not living in the 60s anymore. Get with the times.

The Senate Republicans’ successful effort on Thursday to end the 60-vote threshold to proceed with confirmation of Supreme Court nominees was really only the final step in a process set in motion by Democrats in 2013 when they removed that threshold for other nominees.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/filibuster-senate-republicans.html?_r=0

So again....it's alright when the Democrats do it.....but oh, not the Republicans! Hypocrite.

Sorry, but I can not find a statement of truth anywhere in your post.


uh, no this is the first time a filibuster has been used to block a the approval of a nominee to the court.


The dems did change the rule for all judges below the SC. 2013 I think.


Yes, it is the first time the filibuster has ever been used against a SC nominee.

There you go. Thank you.

It is worthy noting that the Constitutions only calls for the advice and consent of the Senate. That would be a majority.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments"

Don't tell him facts. He's afraid of that. He'd rather believe dramatic headlines like (for example) "OH NOES! TRUMP REMOVING HEALTHCARE! WE ALL GONNA DIEEEE!" instead of actually studying the topic from unbiased sources.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Confirmed.

 

[dead247]

You must be an anti-Bush Republican. Okay, that's good progress. Now, get the other Republicans onto your side. Have you posted much against what the Republicans did during his 8 years?

So many assumptions here. You're a silly guy.