Bray Wyatt Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 Wasn't a simple majority all that was required prior to 2003?
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 Wasn't a simple majority all that was required prior to 2003? It's all that's ever been required, unless somebody filibustered. Alito and Thomas only got 58 and 52 votes, respectively.
Rob's House Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 It's just so glorious that the dems squandered the Garland high ground and exposed themselves for petty partisan hacks who never gave half a **** about the principles they passionately espoused and have absolutely nothing to show for it.
Bray Wyatt Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 It's all that's ever been required, unless somebody filibustered. Alito and Thomas only got 58 and 52 votes, respectively. I guess I don't see the big deal then about going "nuclear" like the networks seem to think we should
Doc Brown Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 It's just so glorious that the dems squandered the Garland high ground and exposed themselves for petty partisan hacks who never gave half a **** about the principles they passionately espoused and have absolutely nothing to show for it. I recall Republicans like McCain and Cruz threatening to not let any Hillary appointee for SCOTUS get through in her first term if she did become president before election. Both sides are hypocrites and childish.
B-Man Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) I recall Republicans like McCain and Cruz threatening to not let any Hillary appointee for SCOTUS get through in her first term if she did become president before election. Both sides are hypocrites and childish. Link? You are listing two senators who are light years apart. I do not "recall" any such statements Edited April 7, 2017 by B-Man
Benjamin Franklin Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 Link? You are listing two senators who are light years apart. I do not "recall" any such statements http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/cruz-supreme-court-blockade-230363 More evidence of the failing of the Senate, no matter what party put them in, even your guys.
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 I guess I don't see the big deal then about going "nuclear" like the networks seem to think we should I explained it above. RMPL.
KD in CA Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 I just finished reading a newspaper piece on yesterday's "nuclear option" wherein the writer stated that the Senate's tradition of bipartisan cooperation was forever shattered. In the words of that great 20th Century philosophe, Aretha Franklin, "Who's Zoomin Who?" Yes of course, everything was peachy before yesterday. 🙄
KD in CA Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 I guess I don't see the big deal then about going "nuclear" like the networks seem to think we should It's unfortunate, but it's just one more step in a deterioration that's been happening for years, just as Reid's was 4 years ago. Naturally the mainstream fake news outlets only get hysterical about it when the GOP is the party pushing further down the road of no return.
Doc Brown Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 Link? You are listing two senators who are light years apart. I do not "recall" any such statements https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/01/republican-senators-oppose-clinton-supreme-court-nominee
Rob's House Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 I recall Republicans like McCain and Cruz threatening to not let any Hillary appointee for SCOTUS get through in her first term if she did become president before election. Both sides are hypocrites and childish. Don't be "both sides" guy. That guy sucks.
GoBills808 Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 Nothing happened to Garland. The Senate did it's duty. I firmly believe the Senate's duty is to put SC nominees through a rigorous committee vetting and, if he's/she's a good pick, confirm the president's choice. Both Gorsuch and Garland were good picks. They lost all credibility with how they handled Garland. Turns out...big surprise, they're just partisan lightweights. We need term limits ASAP.
row_33 Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 Hurts to lose power, especially when the Dems and the media were doing a big taunting and dance of joy until Trump whipped them. Now they are powerless and even better just got bit in the behind by a reckless move when they held the most important power Looks so good on them.
Doc Brown Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 Don't be "both sides" guy. That guy sucks. I'll always vote Democrat unless they go too far left, but the corruptness and hypocrisy in Washington consumes both sides.
boyst Posted April 10, 2017 Posted April 10, 2017 I firmly believe the Senate's duty is to put SC nominees through a rigorous committee vetting and, if he's/she's a good pick, confirm the president's choice. Both Gorsuch and Garland were good picks. They lost all credibility with how they handled Garland. Turns out...big surprise, they're just partisan lightweights. We need term limits ASAP. they lost credibility with Hagan, you asshat. You can't grill a Scotus nominee. You can't ask them questions about how they may rule. That's not how it works. Instead, you do homework on their past rulings and determine information based off of those facts. They were too lazy and stupid to do that and just showed their ass.
row_33 Posted April 10, 2017 Posted April 10, 2017 The only question that matters to the Dems and the media is "do you approve of completely unrestricted abortion at any time, place, circumstance, even after the child is born if it is inconvenient." That's the only thing on their minds... Yay...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 10, 2017 Posted April 10, 2017 I firmly believe the Senate's duty is to put SC nominees through a rigorous committee vetting and, if he's/she's a good pick, confirm the president's choice. Both Gorsuch and Garland were good picks. They lost all credibility with how they handled Garland. Turns out...big surprise, they're just partisan lightweights. We need term limits ASAP. The Senates Constitutional duty is to "advise and consent". The Constitution does not describe the process by which this is to be done, but rather leaves it to the Senate to define the process per it's own rules. With that said, the Senate absolutely met it's Constitutional obligation in regards to Merrick Garland. And of course there was partisan hackery by Republicans. They weren't left with much choice given the political environment created by Senate Democrats, including the stance of then Senator Joe Biden who spelled out exactly the strategy the Republicans used when it was politically convenient for Senate Democrats. The Republicans were doing nothing more than playing by the rules the Democrats established. As for term limits? Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem. If you want to solve the problem of hard line party politics in the Senate, the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. The way Senators are currently elected they need to report to the fringes of their respective bases, just like the House. As long as Senators are required to represent those elements of their party to hold office, term limits won't help as you'll just have more rapid turnover of the same sort of candidate. To solve the problem, you have to change the type of candidate getting elected. To do that, Senators must return to being representatives of the state governments.
Recommended Posts