Posted on 01/04/2017 3:32:49 PM PST by Jim Robinson
The Democrats regard themselves as the natural ruling elite and anything that impedes that natural order is not to be tolerated. In short, they operate on the childhood rule of "Heads I win, tails you lose!" With the able and deep assist given by the fellow-traveler LEFTIST MSM, they have frequently buffaloed the opposition with dire warnings of how they would get retribution for failure to let them have their way.
Except for extraordinary tough individuals in the GOP, Reagan and Gingrich come to mind, the Democrats have had a very successful trend that they see no reason to stop. We forget how GOP successes turn into hazy fumes when the Democrats find weak individuals like Jim Jeffords and Arlan Spector to work their will.
The problem for them NOW is that there are none willing to actually turn their coat and even the wafflers have learned that Trump stands to trump anything that they might do for the opposition Democrats. Add their totally foolish bow to Obama's intolerance of opposition with opening that 'Nuclear Option' and they now find themselves with very little power or persuasion!
Stand FIRM in Congress and you will find two+ years of whimpering Schumer, crying to the LEFTIST MSM about how unfair it is that Harry did not stay to eat his own pudding!
A president chooses the White House staff and that doesn't require Senate confirmation.
But according to the Constitution the "principal Officer in each of the executive Departments" has to be confirmed by the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2).
The words "Cabinet" and "Secretary" don't appear in the text of the Constitution, but that's who it's talking about.
Next thing you know Senators are picked by popular vote and the IRS is helping themselves to a piece of every business and individuals income, from whatever source.
You reversed the order. First, income tax (16th Amendment), then popular election of Senators (17th Amendment), then women's suffrage (19th Amendment). All three thanks to the Progressive Movement.
The Supreme Court would never take a case that is an internal Senate issue...never.
Tango Sierra, Schmukie!
Tango Sierra!
Right, all within a 10 year period, terrible attack on our freedom.
But he VOTED FOR IT!
L.A. Times 11/21/2013
Only three Democrats — Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan — joined Republicans in the 48-52 vote.
Baucus has until Sept. 15 to reach an agreement with Republicans -- and that is still the goal. "But if we don't, it is not going to stop us from moving forward with health care," Schumer told reporters Monday. "If the Republicans are not able to produce an agreement (by then), we will have contingencies in place. Health reform is just too important to let this window pass by." Among the options is invoking a procedural maneuver known as reconciliation, which would allow Senate Democrats to pass a bill with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote filibuster-proof threshold.
Be careful what you wish for....
Chuck Schumer does NOT know what a ‘fair hearing’ is.
I say do the Nuc option on the Supreme Court!
In one sense, you are right. Filibusters are not mentioned in the Constitution. However, the Constitution does give the House and Senate the right to make their own rules. Article I, Section 5, clause 2 says, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."
Filibusters arose very early in the nation's history as part of the rules of each house of Congress. The House of Reps basically did away with it in their rules long ago, but the Senate has kept the filibuster in one form or another since the 1830's.
I don't mind the filibuster in principle, but loathe the way it has evolved since what I would call the phony filibuster came into being in the second half of the 20th Century. It allows a senator to just declare one for almost any reason. The senator does not have to stand and speak on the topic continuously until s/he gets too tired to continue or gets his/her way. Filibusters originally were only intended to prevent the passage of bills, but in the phony filibuster era, senators could declare one for almost any reason.
Now we have the absurd situation where almost everything in the Senate requires 60 votes to pass. So yes, let's get rid of phony filibusters. If the Senate insists on keeping filibusters, then return the practice to its original form. Require the filibustering senator to do it in person on the Senate floor. Also amend the rules so that the filibuster is returned to its original more narrow purpose of only preventing passage of a bill.
Sèe #34
Tango Sierra, baby, Tango Sierra.
who will be the first democrat to become a TRUMP DEMOCRAT???
Just a guess, but Sen Robert Casey, PA. he is a weak link and he is up in 2018...he is in hiding for most of his six year term, but comes out when democrats drag him out...I often call him the ‘church mouse’
He runs on his late Father’s coat tails, and is a lazy, do nothing, worthless member of the Senate.
Hopefully some one in PA wakes up and finds a strong candidate to run against him.
LET’S GET IT DONE, PENNSYLVANIA...WE DID IT ON NOV. 8TH 2016, LET’S DO IT TO CASEY IN NOV.2018.
THANKS for sharing that photo of Val ‘gal pal’ Jarrett..
have y’all seen the recent photo of her...NO glasses, and nose job, and neck tuck...a big difference...probably paid for by tax payers...
Can’t agree with that - as the vote is not actually on passage of any legislation - it is on their own internal rules of moving forward with procedures. It effectively does kill legislation by not allowing it to move forward, yes, but that is their right to set their own rules.
Go pound sand Chucky!
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.