Harris to end filibuster to support abortion

[blackhawk]

So? Republicans want to remove the filibuster so they can take healthcare away from Americans.

Democrats want to remove it so they can guarantee a right to half the country.

So let the Republicans try.

I don’t give a dam which party tries to do it it’s a shortsighted dumbass move. Harry Reid and the Democrats pulled this type of stunt in 2013 getting cabinet nominees and lower Court justices confirmed on simple majority vote that quickly came back to bite them in the ass then Republicans did the same with the Supreme Court and that will bite them in the ass. So rather Democrats do it or Republicans do be assured it will bite you in the ass at some point.

 

[Lesh]

I don’t give a dam which party tries to do it it’s a shortsighted dumbass move. Harry Reid and the Democrats pulled this type of stunt in 2013 getting cabinet nominees and lower Court justices confirmed on simple majority vote that quickly came back to bite them in the ass then Republicans did the same with the Supreme Court and that will bite them in the ass. So rather Democrats do it or Republicans do be assured it will bite you in the ass at some point.

Bullshit. That’s an excuse. McTurtle was always going to nuke the filibuster .

It’s not very different from his claim that SCOTUS appointments shouldn’t be considered in the last year of a Presidential term… which he disregarded to get Barrett in

 

[blackhawk]

Bullshit. That’s an excuse. McTurtle was always going to nuke the filibuster .

It’s not very different from his claim that SCOTUS appointments shouldn’t be considered in the last year of a Presidential term… which he disregarded to get Barrett in

Your comment is bullshit Reid started us down this road and people were warning the Supreme Court would be next after he did his move and it was. These are great examples of how alike the two parties are they do something stupid for short term political gain without ever considering the long term consequences. Like I said if either party ends the filibuster it will bite them in the ass the only real question is which one is stupid enough to do and that’s a toss up,

 

[task0778]

I thought Komrade was abolishing the filibuster to pass the green new deal? I'm pretty sure she's on video saying that...

Could be, I've not been watching or following the daily goings-on cuz it's kinda depressing. But abolishing the filibuster and passing the GND is a damn good reason not to vote for Kamala. Aside from all the other issues she's on the wrong side of IMHO.

 

[task0778]

So? Republicans want to remove the filibuster so they can take healthcare away from Americans.

This is a bold-faced lie on both counts. Despite what Trump said, the GOP does not and will not abolish the filibuster, and neither do they desire to take away healthcare. This is bullshit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Harris can't end the filibuster.
I don't think she knows this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It’s not very different from his claim that SCOTUS appointments shouldn’t be considered in the last year of a Presidential term… which he disregarded to get Barrett in

This statement is false and you knew it was false when you made it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I remember Mitch saying it should be up to the people to decide who gets to pick the next SC justice when Scalia died in Feb. 2016. But when Ginsburg died less that two months before the 2020 election he shoved Barrett down America's throat in a few week.

You don't understand the difference in the two instances, eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only thing Congress is do is pass a Constitutional amendment.

And 38 states have to ratify it.

 

[22lcidw]

Harris is talking on TV, and it sounds like the audience is canned applause and canned laughter. She supposedly is in Pittsburgh again at the Economics Club. It's the inflation Kama la. You ph uked people over.

 

[BlindBoo]

You don't understand the difference in the two instances, eh?

Of course I do. McConnell used the excuse that it was a presidential election year in 2016 to block any hearing or vote on Obama's nominee. Then he flipped flop when Ginsburg died and shoved Barrett down Americas throat in a few weeks even though the presidential election was very near. Apparently you don't understand the difference. Regardless, it will come back and bite them in the ass some day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

McConnell used the excuse that it was a presidential election year in 2016 to block any hearing or vote on Obama's nominee.

Because the current President was at the end of this 2nd term, and regardless of who won, a new President would be elected.

Then he flipped flop

As Trump was up for re-election, the conditions described above did not exist -- thus, he did not "flip flop" his decision.

See? You -didn't- understand the difference.
Just like I said.

 

[BackAgain]

McConnell changed the rules with well under the 60 needed to stop debate. So did Reid.

GOP triggers "nuclear option," changing Senate rules to clear the way for Gorsuch

Republicans have triggered the ‘nuclear option’ - taking the historic step of changing Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, meaning that appointees to the nation’s highest court need just a simple 51-vote majority to be confirmed instead of the previous 60...

www.nbcnews.com

"Senate Republicans used the “nuclear option” Thursday to change the chamber's rules and clear the way for the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch."

Actually, the rules change on the use of a filibuster first came under Harry Reid. You know: a Democrap.

Later, it was a Republican who went there again to prevent the then Democrap Party minority from using it against a SCOTUS nominee.

I think you’re right though. I think it can be accomplished with just a majority vote — ordinarily — EXCEPT when that proposed rule change itself gets filibustered. And that was my point.

 

[Rawley]

It's what McConnell did to the process, not Reid.

Reid started the ball rolling

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually, the rules change on the use of a filibuster first came under Harry Reid. You know: a Democrap.

Later, it was a Republican who went there again to prevent the then Democrap Party minority from using it against a SCOTUS nominee.

I think you’re right though. I think it can be accomplished with just a majority vote — ordinarily — EXCEPT when that proposed rule change itself gets filibustered. And that was my point.

So what? It was McConnell who changed it for populating the third branch of government with ideologues, not Reid. Not to mention that the Neo-GOP were able to use the Reid rule change to their advantage when Dickhead Don took over. It's okay, the rule is now your party must have control of the Senate to install a new justice to the SC. They don't even have to give the nominee a hearing, much less a vote.

 

[BlindBoo]

Reid started the ball rolling

A Symptom of grooming. Every time I bring up the fact that McConnell was the one who changed the rule for SC nominees, the New Republicans all scream in unison, it was Reid's fault that McConnell did that. Conditioned like Pavlov's Dogs.

 

[BlindBoo]

Because the current President was at the end of this 2nd term, and regardless of who won, a new President would be elected.

As Trump was up for re-election, the conditions described above did not exist -- thus, he did not "flip flop" his decision.

See? You -didn't- understand the difference.
Just like I said.

Feel free to quote McConnell on that. He is what he said

“All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.”

"There is no such tradition. The table shows the nine Supreme Court vacancies in place during election years in the Court’s post-Civil War era—once Congress stabilized the Court’s membership at nine and the justices largely stopped serving as trial judges in the old circuit courts. Those nine election-year vacancies (out of over 70 in the period) were all filled in the election year"

McConnell’s fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote

The historical record doesn't support the justifications the Senate GOP have proffered for blocking, and now permitting, election-year Supreme Court appointments, as shown by this case-by-case analysis of how nominations in election years have played out with both unified and divided government.

www.brookings.edu

10 months down the road. Compared to less than 2 to the election when Ginsburg died. He had the power to do it, and he did. He is a hypocrite.

 

[BackAgain]

So what? It was McConnell who changed it for populating the third branch of government with ideologues, not Reid. Not to mention that the Neo-GOP were able to use the Reid rule change to their advantage when Dickhead Don took over. It's okay, the rule is now your party must have control of the Senate to install a new justice to the SC. They don't even have to give the nominee a hearing, much less a vote.

Nope. That was why Haerybdid it other than for SCOTUS justices.

Learn a little history. You won’t sound so stupid all the time.

 

[Rawley]

A Symptom of grooming. Every time I bring up the fact that McConnell was the one who changed the rule for SC nominees, the New Republicans all scream in unison, it was Reid's fault that McConnell did that. Conditioned like Pavlov's Dogs.

Well, clearly you were ignorant of that fact. Don't worry, ignorance is very common in your cult. We're glad to help

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So? She won’t win.

Well, maybe, but I don't quite think that's how candidates run their campaigns.

She is leading the entire party in an election.