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."
Ditch apparently has a line in the sand he will defend.
Who knew?
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.
Sweet find.
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
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.
“The Rats didn’t think they would be hoisted by their own petard.”
They NEVER thought she could lose...
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.
Democrats are getting ready to prop up Ruth Bader, as in “Weekend At Bernie’s”.
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.
bump
I could have said that. I agree completely.
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.
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.
The fix was in.
Until it wasn’t.
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.
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.
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.
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.
An interesting article on the filibuster, if true. 8>)
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.