- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Senate Democrats to filibuster Trump SCOTUS nominee regardless of who it is
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:36 pm to roadGator
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:36 pm to roadGator
quote:
Only because we accept it.
Sure, and that goes back to the point I made a few pages back. Which side is going to step up and break the cycle? Which side is going to put aside this petty politics, and make more pragmatic decisions? As I see it, neither side has been willing to do that over the past couple of decades.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:38 pm to The Spleen
quote:Bush was pretty compromising with the Dems imo.
past couple of decades.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:39 pm to AUbagman
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 ...
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:41 pm to Sentrius
I mean....what did you expect?
They'll force the GOP to go nuclear. That's their only play.
They'll force the GOP to go nuclear. That's their only play.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:42 pm to Tigerdev
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.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:44 pm to Jbird
quote:
Bush was pretty compromising with the Dems imo.
Yeah, as soon as I hit "submit" on that comment, I had second thoughts. Clinton was pretty compromising as well. I think the toxicity really started ramping up during Bush's 2nd term.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:45 pm to tiderider
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.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:46 pm to roadGator
People are paying more attention now too. The dems are about to lose yet again.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:47 pm to The Spleen
quote:True triangulation and a bloody misterm made him a pragmatic president.
Clinton was pretty compromising as well.
quote:Once his approval rating soared post 9-11 it was inevitable they needed to tear him down.
I think the toxicity really started ramping up during Bush's 2nd term.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:49 pm to Jbird
quote:Well as the nation found out how costly and unnecessary the war was, he didn't really help his cause--despite what I believe were good, but misguided (probably by others), intentions.
Once his approval rating soared post 9-11 it was inevitable they needed to tear him down.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:51 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:rue, however the whisper campaign by the likes of Reid and Clinton early on had zero to do with the war, they needed to knock down the approval rating for political reasons.
Well as the nation found out how costly and unnecessary the war was, he didn't really help his cause--despite what I believe were good, but misguided (probably by others), intentions.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:54 pm to roadGator
Yep. And you seem to agree with it based on your prior words.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 2:03 pm to Jbird
Nice catch. A compromise means rubber stamping.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 2:03 pm to doubleb
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - You're on the clock.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 2:27 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:C'mon man! The only time the weenie republicans grew a pair and opposed a SCOTUS appointee by Barry was after the Demwits killed Scalia. Plus they referenced the Biden rule.... No appointments in an election year. All of Barry's other nominees sailed through.
well the republicans did it to them so it's only fair. As much as I hate to say that
Posted on 1/30/17 at 2:29 pm to Sentrius
give Merrick the seat or wait 2 more years to see if you can get to 60.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 2:34 pm to Sentrius
quote:
The argument doesn't work. It was during an election year with a lame duck POTUS.
This is completely the opposite of that.
Does any Republican even know what "lame duck" means?
A president (or other office holder) is considered a "lame duck" if he/she ran for re-election, was defeated, but has not yet left office because some of the term remains. It is sometimes misused to include a president who was not running for re-election during the period after his/her successor has been elected but before the successor has taken office.
In no situation is the term applicable to any office holder simply because he/she is in his/her last term or the last year of his/her term. The term for president is four years, not three. The idiotic argument by you and others like you that there was some justification for the GOP to blatantly refuse to do its constitutional duty is complete bullshite, and being in ANY way upset or critical whatsoever of Dems for doing it is beyond hypocritical.
But stupidity and hypocrisy are all in a day's work for the post-factual alt-right Trump era.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 2:42 pm to Nuts4LSU
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
Posted on 1/30/17 at 2:47 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:I knew giving Trump the codes was a bad idea!!!!!
Trump has made clear he wants McConnell to go nuclear
But seriously, for a novice like me, what does "nuclear" mean in this discussion?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 2:48 pm to Sentrius
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News