Discussion in 'Current Events' started by straight ahead, Sep 18, 2020.
He made a speech on the floor. That doesn't make rules.
The vote to make it a rule.
So, what do you think of all the Democrats going apeshi'ite over something they themselves would do, or support doing?
Rest in Peace.
She was a genius. She was a hero.
There are great Jewish minds on all sides of Political Spectrum.
he announced the rule
none was needed
If there was no vote...there is no rule.
You don't get to "announce rules" in the Senate
The Senate is in charge of their own rules. They change them all the time.
for committtes you don’t. no vote is needed
How was she a genius?
I'm sure you haven't.
Liberal groups back plan to expand Supreme Court
You apparently don't know this, but this part of your "plan" simply won't work. Congress can't pass rules that bind future Congresses like you seem to think they can. The next time Republicans are in power, they'll simply undo the rules that Dems put in only to obstruct them.
I think they are playing politics.
Yeah that's not how it works. The whole idea of the legislative process is that you have to vote on rule changes. Y'know, school house rock and passing a bill?
Well yeah. Welcome to US Politics in the 21st century. Congress will now ping pong back and forth until the whole thing collapses.
The court-packing scheme you are advocating significantly accelerates that collapse. Have you given any thought to what Republicans will do once they're back in power? Do you think they'll just leave those extra SCOTUS justices there that the Dems add?
What we have is a tyranny of the minority. Trump became president despite receiving fewer votes than Clinton. Republicans control the Senate despite receiving fewer votes than the Democrats. The minority controlled Senate then appoints the majority of federal judges. It is a completely anti-democratic system. What smart people should do is fight for a constitutional convention to create a modern, democratic form of government.
Oh, please. Any "freedom" you believe you have is an illusion. The U.S. Code contains so many criminal sections, the government could arrest anyone, at any time, for anything regardless of how careful a citizen tries to be.
Government should control health care. That's is how it is in every other developed country and most, if not all, spend less money on healthcare, and have better outcomes than the shitty US healthcare system. Everyone I know who gets turns 55-60 holds their breath to get on Medicare, because getting on Medicare is the best chance a regular person has to receive the healthcare they need and avoid bankruptcy. Sure, healthcare is great in the US if a person is wealthy or if they work for a company that provides a solid plan. Most people, though, either don't have a decent plan, or their co-pays and deductibles make getting healthcare impossible. And all of this predates the ACA. In addition, a Harvard study showed that 1% of people without adequate healthcare die each year. Before the ACA, that meant 45,000 Americans were dying because they didn't have access to adequate healthcare.
And no one give a damn who you worship. All most normal people want if for the government not to promote (i.e. establish) religion. For example, I don't care if a person puts religious decorations on their private property, but the Ten Commandments don't belong on public buildings (sorry, pedifile, Roy Moore). And silent prayer in school is fine. Just don't make it a display that alienates the kids who don't want to join in.
He is a fascist because he tries to use the levers of government to punish his political enemies and to free his criminal friends. He also sends unmarked "police" into states who violate the Constitutional rights of peaceful protestors. And more....
Wasn't that old lady one of the inner circle of white elites pushing Progressivism?
they weren’t creating legislation
Clinton also received less then 50% of the vote. so by your own words she would have been a tyranny of the minority to.
Democrats were so certain Hillary was going to win they let the aging Ginsberg stay on the Supreme Court. People who are over confident tend to makes very stupid mistakes.
You don't "let" someone remain on the Court. They are there until they retire or die
So much for the good of the party. Did Ginsburg really expect Republicans would honor her dying wish to wait until after the elections before seating a new judge? In Washinton it's all about the power for both parties.
As we are now seeing...that's certainly true of Republicans
And threatening to impeached a president during election year is not a power play by democrats?
If you are talking about the idea that an Impeachment might be used to delay the nomination...that would be a RESPONSE to a naked power play
Separate names with a comma.