Republicans Go Nuclear · Page 2

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#21

Except the wife is pretending she didn't do it......so where we sit now it's a false equivalent.

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#22

Except the wife is pretending she didn't do it......so where we sit now it's a false equivalent.

ZRX1200 wrote:

I honestly was not aiming at you, ya gotta believe me. it was just an easy morality analogy.

MACS
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#23

The left will regret this, I bet the next SCJ won't be so milktoast.

Oh, and I find the outrage humorous as Dirty Harry Reid started this......where was the left when he was changing rules and historic traditions?

ZRX1200 wrote:

Truth.

Mr. Jones
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#24

I HEARD
MITCH MCCONNELL
Got a barium enema today...

THE NUCLEAR OPTION

Mr. Jones
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#25

I HEARD
MITCH MCCONNELL
Got a barium enema today...

THE NUCLEAR OPTION

Gene363
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#26

Get the guy approved and let him get to work.

It's all BS drama and rep/democrap kabuki dancing nonsense.

The escape pod: https://cigarbid.freeforums.net

frombeyondthegrave
Enthusiast Topic Starter

9 years ago

#27

Gorsuch confirmed. 54 to 45. 3 Dems from Trump states, concerned about their re-election chances, joined the Reps. One Rep was absent, and therefore, did not vote.

Wait for the next one. There is now nothing the Dems can do to stop whoever the President picks. I'm predicting an ultra right winger, who never would have had a chance otherwise, and the Dems have no one to blame but themselves.

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#28

frombeyondthegrave wrote:

glad it's over, to be honest. but many surprises have happened over the decades in the Court.

I don't really believe Trump is truly as ultra as many would like him to be though. Another president (Cruz type maybe?) and I'd agree with your prediction...but this guy needs love so much he just might try to throw a bone to moderates. After all, he was a Dem not all that long ago, but opportunity knocked and he opened the door.

But yes, I agree and keep telling my shocked lib friends that it's their own fault.

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#29

The GOP criticized Harry Reid when he used the nuclear option in the face of GOP obstructionism in 2013, when none of Obama's nominees for executive positions and federal court vacancies were moving forward because the GOP refused to grant hearings or take votes. They were entrenched in obstructionism.

The right now praises McConnell, who complained the loudest about Reid's use of the nuclear option then, but he led the GOP obstructionism that forced Reid's hand. Chicken or egg? What seems clear is that a pattern has emerged: when one side tries to obstruct the other, the nuclear option will be used by the side with a slim majority.

Is it only OK for the GOP to obstruct?

The absence of a super majority (60 votes) vote for Senate approval will weaken that body. It will increase partisanship because with a bare majority, one side won't have to win anyone over from the other side. Watch how much money will be funneled into tight Senate races in the future.

Another brick in the wall separating the average American citizen from the federal government...and a departure from the intent of the Constitution...

Edited by user 9 years ago | Reason: Not specified

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#30

Another brick in the wall separating the average American citizen from the federal government...and a departure from the intent of the Constitution...

delta1 wrote:

I'm aware of nothing at all in the Constitution which states there must be a 60 vote majority to win Senate confirmation of a SCOTUS nominee.

I didn't like it when Reid did it and I don't like it that McConnell did it. But, lets call a spade a spade. Gorsuch was as mainstream as any justice now sitting on the court. The Dems were pissed that the GOP didn't grant Garland a hearing.

But lest we forget history:

[i]Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) who, while serving in 1992 as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered a sprawling, 90-minute floor address that included a call for halting action on Supreme Court nominees in an election year.

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Biden, as vice president, has called in recent days for the Senate to take up the nomination Obama promises to make to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who was found dead Feb. 13 in Texas.[/h]

Of course when he was Vice-President he attempted to walk back his words.

“To leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, ‘God forbid something happen to the president and the vice president, we’re not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half,’ ” he told Minnesota Public Radio on Thursday.

Biden said Monday in a statement that the 1992 speech pertained to “a hypothetical vacancy” and that the excerpt Republicans highlighted was “not an accurate description of my views on the subject.”

It's a shame that one forgets what one's own party did in the past while condemning the actions of a party with which one disagrees.

:-({|= 👻 👻

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#31

You do know that his statement was never tested...and was widely criticized, until the GOP found themselves in that position and DID obstruct...

Biden's words were just that: words that had no effect, just one senator's opinion/speculation. Note that he said "seriously consider"...all part of advise and consent... Who knows what would've happened had there been a circumstance...he may not have been able to persuade enough of his colleagues...but the GOP did so when it suited them...

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#32

delta1 wrote:

He advocated for it. Taken at face value means he supported that position. Supporting a position and voting on it are the same. Otherwise he was pandering.

tonygraz
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#33

Like Trump's 2013 position on Syrian chemical weapons use ?

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#34

I didn't know Trump was a politician back then... 🤔

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#35

he wasn't but the GOP congress was and they were against it. i know that folks now admire and desire a power grabbing Prez, but I seriously doubt there would have been a standing O for Prez O had he ignored congress at that time.

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#36

it's funny how shoes that look ugly on someone else miraculously fit when you try them on...old Chinese proverb

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#37

lib though I may be, I lean toward fair. I'm pointing out that no one owns morality, yet it just keeps popping up here that one side does.

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#38

it's funny how shoes that look ugly on someone else miraculously fit when you try them on...old Chinese proverb

delta1 wrote:

even OJ's ugly azz shoes?

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: