Posted on 11/29/2018 3:52:27 AM PST by SMGFan
The Senate advanced a controversial judicial pick for President Trump on Wednesday after Vice President Pence cast a tie-breaking vote for the nomination.
Senators were deadlocked 50-50 to end debate on Thomas Farr's nomination to be a district judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Pence, presiding over the chamber, then cast the tie-breaking vote.
The fate of Farr's nomination was held in suspense even going into the start of the vote on Wednesday afternoon.
Four Republicans were viewed as potential swing votes: Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). But Collins and Rubio came out in support of Farr earlier this week and Murkowski told reporters roughly two hours before the vote that she would also vote "yes" on his nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Once again thank you Harry Reid
“What a further disgrace it would be if our Republican colleagues march in lockstep,” Schumer said before the vote.
But Democrats nixed the 60-vote filibuster for lower court nominations in 2013, meaning they can’t block a Trump court pick without help from Republicans.”
Close majorities are the very worst thing for the citizenry. Any one or few senators can go rouge and demand blackmail payments for their vote.
Murkowski, Sasse, Romney, and Collins bring any pro-life nominee down to 49.
But DEmocrats vote lockstep unless Chuck approves.
Manchin is allowed some freedom. DEm SEnators Donnelly & Heitkemp who voted for Gorsuch but still lost.
What’s controversial about him?
>> Any one or few senators can go rouge and demand blackmail payments for their vote.
Obamacare was passed with a couple of stolen Senate seats and some bought off Democrats.
And I still see bullsh!t articles that Obamacare had flaws because those weak spots were necessary so Republicans would vote for it (no Republican voted for it).
Tim Scott going wobbly again. I suppose because he doesn’t want judges who believe in vote integrity?
Democrats oppose Republicans.
Did the media ever call anything Obama did “controversial”?
We were told that times were changing and that only hold outs resisted “CHANGE”. Nothing controversial about his plans.
Civil rights groups and the Congressional Black Caucus have been trying to sink Farr’s nomination for nearly a year. The 64-year-old attorney wrote North Carolina’s extreme voter ID law in 2013, which was later struck down by a federal appeals court. The court found the law targeted black people “with almost surgical precision.” Farr also defended the state’s racially discriminatory gerrymandering in federal court in 2015 (and lost), and he may have lied to the Senate about his role in disenfranchising tens of thousands of black voters when he worked for the late Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) in 1990.
The fact that he was appointed by the Republican president. Doesn’t matter who the appointee is, doesn’t matter which Republic president ... “controversial.”
Sasse & Romney?
Has Sasse voted that way? NARAL gave him 0%.
Read Romney changed. So we must wait.
Way down in the actual article, Big Media makes up a bunch of horseclinton about him and calls him controversial.
Farr’s nomination has drawn intense opposition from Democrats and their outside group allies, who warn that, if confirmed, he’ll use his position as a federal judge to rule against minorities.
Part of their opposition dates back to the 1990s, when Farr defended Jesse Helms’s campaign after the Justice Department investigated it for mailing postcards to more than 120,000 North Carolinians, most of whom were black voters, suggesting they were ineligible to vote and could be prosecuted for voter fraud.
Farr - in response to questions from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee - said he did was not involved in the crafting of the postcards.
Schumer reminds me of the type of kids we used to beat up in the school yard for being snotty.
Actually some questionable stuff on what he denied, but seems to have been involved with, re: attempted suppression of the black vote way back during a Jesse Helms campaign.
I can give Scott a pass on that, though I’m not a great fan of his generally.
But IIRC his handwriting was found on some of the campaign documents regarding the plan.
Rouge rogue, red rascal.
But both Sasse and Collins are up in 2020 so they wont want to make waves on judges
Yet this is exactly what you demand of Democrats. Hypocrite. Schumer would only be content if Democrats all voted for his desires and Republicans as well. This is his idea of 'bi-partisan'.
Doesn’t Sasse have a 100 percent pro-life voting record?
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.