Posted on 12/06/2016 4:48:04 AM PST by broken_arrow1
Absolutely not. Read Article 1, Section 5. "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."
LOL, sure and that6 is why the have a huge majority in the House, Governorships and States Legislatures.
And where the hell did you ever get the idea Americans actually consider “balance” when they vote?
I have always wondered why something hasn’t been found to drive Lindsay Graham from public office. His past remains undiscovered and unreported.
Or, as the noted American philosopher Frank Zappa once said,
Do you love it?
Do you hate it?
There it is
the way you made it.
wooooooooooooowwwwwwwwww!
Everybody keeps saying that the R’s will have 52 seats but isn’t the seat in LA expected to go R on December 10th?
Yes, you have summarized the blatant MSM biases perfectly. Republicans are always expected to go along with Democrap plans to prove they are cooperative, while the Demagogues are always expected to obstruct (and defended when they do so).
2. The flip seems to happen when one party controls House, Senate, Presidency-— and not always.
3. The flip may well, and probably is not considered, I said it was a collective subconscious decision.
4. There are only 8 republican senators up for re-election in 2018, doesn't look very good for my prediction. Alas. We'll see in a couple of years.
Anyway, we'll see in about 23 months if I am right or wrong.
I disagree with that section applying to other already constitutionally spelled out methods for passing legislation.
For example, the constitution says the Senate counts the electoral votes for vice president and the candidate with a majority becomes the vice president. Imagine they apply their rules power to that and require no announcement of that winner until the Senate verifies it with a two thirds majority.
A majority vote for the passage of judges is the constitutional requirement. But that can’t move withouta 60% majority. I consider it a sleight-of-hand amending of the constitution.
The consequences are awful. Terrible decisions from former Congresses cannot be fixed with simple majorities
Karma, how sweet it is :-) Such a shame the turtle is a diabetic.
Democrats can't filibuster a nominee. But they can delay by requiring debate and introducing motions, and they can prevent a vote by placing a hold. That's different from a filibuster and would still require 60 votes for cloture.
Payback is a bitch—and she has a long memory...
I don’t get ‘even’. I get ahead—no matter bow many years it takes.
IF Congress is foolish to RECESS this month—Obama can still put Garland into the USSC.
Democrats never think twice about anything.
What? It never occurred to them that the R’s might take control one day? Seriously? How STUPID are they?
I quit reading the article after that line . But it is cnn .
Their "final solution" for Republican/conservative opposition was in full swing and but for Trump it would have been accomplished with this year's election.
The combination of nonexistent immigration controls and government abetted voter fraud was engineered to end all real political opposition and transform America into a socialist one-party state.
Through the political policies of open-borders, nonexistent interior enforcement, executive amnesties, etc., along side motor-voter, no voter ID, extended voting periods, opposition to culling the dead and felons from the rolls, etc., all opposition voters and politicians were to be overrun, overwhelmed and driven into political/elector gulag.
With the continuing demographic transformation of America neither immigration controls or honest elections could ever be restored and this Democrat strategy against conservative opposition would be a "final solution."
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.
