Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McConnell in 2013: "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."
youtube.com ^ | January 31, 2017 | "Rich"

Posted on 06/27/2018 6:03:56 PM PDT by jiggyboy

Highlights of Senator Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor (in 2013 I believe) decrying the Democrats' just-implemented "nuclear option" for judicial nominees. My transcript:

"Once again, Senate Democrats are threatening to break the Rules of the Senate, break the Rules of the Senate, in order to change the Rules of the Senate. And over what? Over what? Over a court that doesn't even have enough work to do? ... The majority leader promised, he promised, over and over again, that he wouldn't break the rules of the Senate in order to change them. ... If you want to play games, set yet another precedent that you'll no doubt come to regret, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think."


TOPICS: Humor
KEYWORDS: schadenfreude; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: jiggyboy

Ditch apparently has a line in the sand he will defend.

Who knew?


21 posted on 06/27/2018 7:09:49 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

I remember thinking this when it happened. I really do. Reid got his short term advantages and it was painful. But I had to believe he’d see how incredibly stupid that was some day.


22 posted on 06/27/2018 7:14:16 PM PDT by Persevero (Democrats haven't been this nutty since we freed their slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

Sweet find.


23 posted on 06/27/2018 7:15:34 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

Yep, it was in November of 2013 when Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans used the nuclear option to eliminate the exception for Supreme Court nominees, after the nomination of Neil Gorsuch failed to meet the requirement of 60 votes for ending the debate


24 posted on 06/27/2018 7:18:31 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

Do McConnell and the Republicans have the stones to do this?

Maybe. If so, they’ll get credit from me AFTER they do it, not before. Until then they are still the limp di*ks they have always been. They have given me no reason to think otherwise thus far.

I am a salesman. I don’t get paid for promising a sale. I get paid for making the sale. There is no commission for talking about it. Or trying. Only doing.


25 posted on 06/27/2018 7:25:14 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60's....You weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

“The Rats didn’t think they would be hoisted by their own petard.”

They NEVER thought she could lose...


26 posted on 06/27/2018 7:32:54 PM PDT by tcrlaf (They told me it could never happen in America. And then it did....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

And strangely but goodly, McConnell’s on the Trump train now. That’s cool. He can keep supporting and following the President. That’s fine with me.


27 posted on 06/27/2018 7:46:27 PM PDT by familyop ("Welcome to Costco. I love you." - -Costco greeter in the movie, "Idiocracy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

Democrats are getting ready to prop up Ruth Bader, as in “Weekend At Bernie’s”.


28 posted on 06/27/2018 7:49:29 PM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

The problem is RINO’s like Flake and Collins. Flake is just a dem so he can’t be depended on to put his socks on and Collins has stated she will vote against anyone who would rule against the precedent set by Roe vs Wade.

On this pick I think Trump and the republican leadership would be wise to stick to someone with conservative principles but isn’t too hard on abortion. No more strict than a 20 week limit on them unless medically necessary to save the mother. If a pregnant female hasn’t made up her mind by the 5 month mark when the baby can feel pain; tough boobies. They better stay clean though.

I know many here would want a complete end to abortions and in a perfect world I would too. That isn’t the world we live in though and frankly; many of those women who are in a bad place in their life, far too young, or strung out on drugs and alcohol really shouldn’t be having a baby. A baby that will probably have life-long problems from the drugs and alcohol taken by the mother with no real shot at success.

I view this from a medical point of view; not a religious one.


29 posted on 06/27/2018 8:01:00 PM PDT by Boomer (Leftism is the Mental/Moral Equivalent of End Stage Cancer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

bump


30 posted on 06/27/2018 8:30:51 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cmj328; jiggyboy
Honestly though, I think they’ll only really regret it when the court is 9-0 against them, when all the wretched precedents of the last 50 years are annulled, when abortion and gay marriage are rescinded, when Hollywood is decent, when the border is secure, when American families are having more children than replacement levels, and when children pray in public schools again.

I could have said that. I agree completely.

31 posted on 06/27/2018 9:07:39 PM PDT by SandwicheGuy (*The butter acts as a lubricant and speeds up the CPU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong

Why 60 vote rule?

Like the minimum wage, why not 56 votes? 57 or 58?
63 votes? 85 votes?

It is an irrational stupid number.


32 posted on 06/27/2018 9:27:30 PM PDT by TheNext
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TheNext

And, you might wonder why there’s a 60-vote rule in the Senate, when it just takes a straight majority in the House to pass a bill. The answer is that that’s what the Founders intended. The Senate was designed to be the “cooling saucer,” where the two parties were forced to work together. That 60-vote threshold ensures that in order to pass legislation, the majority party needs to get some buy-in from the minority.


33 posted on 06/27/2018 9:55:43 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

The fix was in.

Until it wasn’t.


34 posted on 06/27/2018 10:24:05 PM PDT by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong

This is senate rules and has been changed several times. Recently in the Gorsuch confirmation. The rules can be changed when the senate votes to change them. The 60 vote rule is not in affect for federal or Supreme Court nominees. Harry Reid changed the rules during Barry’s watch for fed and McConnell for Gorsuch.


35 posted on 06/27/2018 10:28:19 PM PDT by Equine1952 (Get yourself a ticket on a common mans train of thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong
Hello?

1) The Constitution mentions NO 60 vote process.

2) Senate is NOT a cooling off or other Civics class propaganda.

3) The Senate SOLE purpose is to represent the States.

4) The 17thA repealed much of the Senate and rolled it into a terrible Big House.

5) VERY few knowledgeable people understand how our government works.

6) Sadly, someday I will have to write a book explaining how our government actually works.

36 posted on 06/28/2018 12:06:36 AM PDT by TheNext
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TheNext
You are right of course, however, the Constitution does give the Senate the authority to write its own rules. Which at the time the Senate adopted the rules currently in force, the country was not as divided so it actually made for a good rule for the Senate to adopt & follow. While it only takes a simple majority to change Senate rules, if a filibuster was undertaken, it would take a super-majority to end the filibuster, unless the nuclear option were invoked.

Super-majority votes are required in some instances by the Constitution, such as overriding a Presidential veto, proposing Constitutional changes, ratification of a treaty, or the expulsion of a member form either House of Congress.

37 posted on 06/28/2018 4:58:58 AM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong
The answer is that that’s what the Founders intended.

I beg to disagree. Though the founders did, as you mentioned, intend the Senate to be the moderating force. They specified that its members would be chosen by each state legislature rather than by popular vote.

Thus, they thought, the Senators would be beholden to the state's governments and act to disapprove of any legislation that took power away from the states.

The filibuster wasn't thought of till 1806 and was almost never used for a century. It doesn't appear in the Constitution.

38 posted on 06/28/2018 7:43:01 AM PDT by BfloGuy ( Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
That's another issue entirely, but I agree with your statements.

An interesting article on the filibuster, if true. 8>)

39 posted on 06/28/2018 8:54:10 AM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson