re: Senate Democrats to filibuster Trump SCOTUS nominee regardless of who it is

quote:

---

quote:
The US Senate voted on Thursday to change the rules that have enabled Republicans to block Barack Obama's nominees for top administration posts.

By 52 votes to 48, senators approved along partisan lines a measure that would ban the use of the filibuster to prevent nominees from being confirmed.

In a speech in support of the measure, majority leader Harry Reid accused Republicans of blocking nominees in the pursuit of unrelated legislative goals.

"For the first time in the history of our republic, Republicans have routinely used the filibuster to prevent President Obama from appointing an executive team and from appointing judges," Reid said. "The need for change is so, so very obvious. It's clearly visible. It's manifest we have to do something to change things."

Until now, 60 votes have been required to lift or avoid a filibuster. Under the new rules, a simple majority of 51 would suffice. The new measure would not apply to supreme court nominees. "It's an undeniable fact that the obstruction we've seen in recent years is altogether new," Reid said after the vote.


quote:
Republicans have warned, however, that Democrats may regret the move when they next find themselves in the minority. "Some of us have been here long enough to know the shoe is sometimes on the other foot," minority leader Mitch McConnell said, on the Senate floor. "You'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think."


The article does say it does not cover Supreme Court nominations, but I find it funny nonetheless.

LINK

---

except pubs didn't actually have to filibuster anything (nor the dems) ... it's the threat of a filibuster, which is astoundingly stupid ... they won't even carry out an actual filibuster ...

quote:

---

unity.

---

It's what the losers ask for, and the winners disregard.

If you legitimately do what you feel is best for the nation, and your political opposition believes in trying to stop you at all costs then you do what you have to do.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid made that perfectly clear in 2009. They did everything in their power to accomplish their agenda and carried the day. That's how we got Obamacare.

Now they are out of power. Now the voters have spoken and enough voters in enough states said a change was necessary. We got a new president and we maintained a new congress.

Trump would welcome those to his side. Those that want to protect our borders, protect our jobs, protect our resources, and make America great again. Sadly too many want to give away our resources, undermine our security, and aid those who are our enemies at the expense of our people.

Trump understand the stakes, and he has to win at all costs because for too long others have not put America first.

quote:

---

"For the first time in the history of our republic, Republicans have routinely used the filibuster to prevent President Obama from appointing an executive team and from appointing judges," Reid said. "The need for change is so, so very obvious. It's clearly visible. It's manifest we have to do something to change things.

---

This quote will likely be altered and used by the Republicans.

quote:

---

Clinton was pretty compromising as well.

---

True triangulation and a bloody misterm made him a pragmatic president.

quote:

---

I think the toxicity really started ramping up during Bush's 2nd term.

---

Once his approval rating soared post 9-11 it was inevitable they needed to tear him down.

Yep. And you seem to agree with it based on your prior words.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - You're on the clock.

give Merrick the seat or wait 2 more years to see if you can get to 60.

quote:

---

Does any Republican even know what "lame duck" means?

---

This one does, and obviously you do not. Quit embarrassing yourself man.

quote:

---

Definition of lame duck


1:
one that is weak or that falls behind in ability or achievement; especially, chiefly British:
an ailing company


2:
an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor


3:
one whose position or term of office will soon end

---

From Meriam-Webster

I say let them filibuster the SCOTUS pick, and wait before using the nuclear option until after the 2018 elections. Hammer all of the Trump states that have sitting Dems up for re-election that their incumbent senator has been obstructing for 2 years. See how that ends up for them.