Started By
Message
locked post

CNN: First time the rules have been changed.

Posted on 4/6/17 at 11:53 am
Posted by GIbson05
Member since Feb 2009
4292 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 11:53 am
Holy shite.

They just reported that this is the first time the rules have been changed "to take away the rights of the Senate minority to filibuster."

And things will never be the same.


You can't even make up how bad they are.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118819 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 11:55 am to
Didn't Shummer start the filibuster rules for SCOTUS appointments in 2003?
Posted by geauxnavybeatbama
Member since Jul 2013
25134 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 11:55 am to
I've already saved a link from 2013 for when my friends on social media start talking out their arse
Posted by poops_at_parties
Member since Jan 2016
1545 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 11:56 am to
This is what happens when mellinials start joining the professional workplace. They frick up by rushing and others actually trust them because they're "young and hip" gurus.
Posted by Lsupimp
Ersatz Amerika-97.6% phony & fake
Member since Nov 2003
78648 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 11:56 am to
I would not know as I have not watched in months. Viewership is power.
Posted by poops_at_parties
Member since Jan 2016
1545 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 11:57 am to
Please share the link. I want to use it as well.
Posted by SundayFunday
Member since Sep 2011
9299 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 11:58 am to
Mind putting it in here so I can save it too?
Posted by AUstar
Member since Dec 2012
17036 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 11:58 am to
Reid in 2003.
Posted by REG861
Ocelot, Iowa
Member since Oct 2011
36419 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 11:59 am to
quote:

I've already saved a link from 2013 for when my friends on social media start talking out their arse






me too
Posted by FanInLA
Member since May 2008
4966 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:00 pm to
First time for Supreme Court noms.


*You can downvote facts all you want. Doesn't change anything.
This post was edited on 4/6/17 at 12:08 pm
Posted by geauxnavybeatbama
Member since Jul 2013
25134 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:09 pm to
Posted by FanInLA
Member since May 2008
4966 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:12 pm to
US Appeals Court noms. Never for a Supreme Court. I say use it if you have it but it's funny to see the quotes of Republicans in 2013 and now the hypocrisy.
Posted by geauxnavybeatbama
Member since Jul 2013
25134 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:14 pm to
I don't like that the senate changed the rules in 2013 and now. What's the point of rules if you just change them to fit your interests
Posted by ladyluckUGA
Member since Feb 2014
6368 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:14 pm to
quote:

CNN: First time the rules have been changed. by GIbson05


>CNN

see? this is why I don't believe anything they report.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
422561 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:14 pm to
quote:

First time for Supreme Court noms.

IF (possibly big assumption) the OP is posting what CNN reported correctly, CNN did not make that distinction and is misguiding its audience
Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:15 pm to
2003 dipshit
Posted by FanInLA
Member since May 2008
4966 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:16 pm to
quote:

IF (possibly big assumption) the OP is posting what CNN reported correctly, CNN did not make that distinction and is misguiding its audience


Agreed. I was just clarifying.
Posted by MizzouBS
Missouri
Member since Dec 2014
5841 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:18 pm to
They did not change the rules for SCOTUS. The only changed it for the lower courts.

Which what was said. Interput it how you want
Posted by Homesick Tiger
Greenbrier, AR
Member since Nov 2006
54210 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:18 pm to
quote:

I say use it if you have it but it's funny to see the quotes of Republicans in 2013 and now the hypocrisy.


I don't think it's hypocrisy at all. It's fair play since we're talking politics here.
Posted by AUstar
Member since Dec 2012
17036 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 12:19 pm to
That's because no one has ever fillibustered a Supreme Court nominee.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram