poof!
Posted on 03/23/2017 8:11:43 AM PDT by PghBaldy
As the Senate Judiciary Committee was hearing from witnesses for and against Judge Neil Gorsuch, his Supreme Court nomination was delivered a critical blow: Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he would join with other Democrats in filibustering Gorsuch — a move that would require at least 60 senators to vote to end debate on the nomination.
Facts can be unpleasant things. These make it more imperative that the Love Losing Caucus in the House gets behind Trump.
Wisconsin’s governor elections will be the model for the RATS in the future. How much of Walker’s time and energy was absorbed in fighting those lunatics. We do not need continuous plebiscites over Senators.
As to the past the Left did not control EVERY major institution and had not discovered the vast information available now. Now you are dealing with people with very deep pockets still in charge of the media and education.
That proposal has not one positive element.
And Harry Reid didn’t create a long memory?
Only if the Democrat party is destroyed.
Past actions are no guarantee of future results. As the media’s influence is negated the GOP’s energy will rise as well. Its terror about the media has determined much of the GOP fecklessness.
Good. The closer we come to the death of the filibuster, the better. It’s nothing but n excuse for inaction.
Yep. Nuke 3 onto the SC.
After 8 years of Obama, 8 years of Obama lies, 8 years of MSM lies, 8 years of liberal lies, I couldn’t possibly care less if Democrats are offended.
Who said he didn’t?
McConnell should use the nuclear option but it will consign the filibuster to the dustbin of history, and that event can have disastrous effects in the future when democrats control Congress.
What is needed is that while McConnell may or may not use the nuclear option, you and others need to be aware of the larger issues and effects, know what is at stake in the future, and why reading carefully #129 is important.
And don’t think #129 is farfetched, it’s not. It’s in the work of many, many states as of this moment.
E N E M I E S . O F . T H E . S T A T E
Schroomer and company...
How much republican form of government exists if the minority party can simply block a very qualified appointee to show how important they are?
Answer: NONE
The failed recall strengthened Governor Walker. He’s a big boy, he can handle it.
Now there will be no recall of Governor Walker because the snakes that tried that approach lost big-time. The republican party in Wisconsin is also stronger as a result. The recall helped the GOP there and that, in turn, helped put Wisconsin in President Trump’s column on November 8, 2016.
Tough people can handle recalls just fine.
Recall is good and it strengthens the party that wins.
MORONS.
You are MORONS.
Who in the HELL told you that you could get even 50 votes if you kill the Filibuster? There are conservatives, experienced and wise conservatives will oppose trashing the Filibuster.
Let me tell you what the Filibuster has done for you:
1) It prevented you losing the right to bear arms. Regulatory bills to hold ammunition makers responsible for gun deaths were stopped by Filibuster. Not lawsuits. Laws. Stopped by the Filibuster.
2) Single Payer Healthplan. What Obamacare Was Meant To Be. Stopped by the Filibuster.
3) Then there was a recent bipartisan filibuster, conducted by D Chris Murphy, R Ben Sasse and FR Darling Pat Toomey, R.
You’re all delusional. The filibuster prevents tyranny by a majority. It’s in place at the Texas, Utah and South Carolina state legislatures, but I suppose y’all wackos think those are liberal states.
poof!
Yes, it has gotten carried away from its original character and intent.
If the 17th Amendment did not exist, I wouldn’t be so alert to the happenings with the filibuster in the Senate. The end of the filibuster is but another step along the path of a long devolvement into a mob-based rule. It is merely a symptom of a wider problem. I don’t think much will stop the end of the filibuster now.
That’s why it is important to understand the happenings and developments with #129 of this thread. That proposal is now in the work of many, many states working in a steady growing movement to reassert their constitutional prerogative under Article V.
I like the amendment—but first it needs to get through Congress before the retification process can begin. Fat chance of that.
You’re wrong on that but don’t be ashamed about it because so many others are in the same boat as you.
I am happy to help bring you and others up to speed and correct misconceptions.
Article V of the Constitution was written to allow States to work outside of Congress and with no involvement of their governors to propose amendments to the Constitution. Once 2/3’s (34 states) have agreed on a proposed amendment, the proposal goes to the National Archives and then back out to the States for ratification where 3/4’s (38 states) must ratify for the proposed amendment for it to become a part of the Constitution.
So Congress has no role. That’s the beauty of it.
That provision was worded and written by a close friend and fellow Virginian of General George Washington, George Mason. He correctly saw that Congress could itself become tyrannical, and thus wrote a safety valve in Article V to allow the states and the people to decide.
Make them actually filibuster. Let’s stop kowtowing to the left. Stand in the well for as long as they plan to hold up this nomination.
You are speaking about a time when there was some degree of integrity and normalcy in the people and leaders. Now both are corrupt enough to encourage perversion.
A filibuster does not stop anything if there is leadership determined to enact its agenda. Rule 19 can be invoked if need be.
As I have already pointed out, but not in this thread, no Rule 19 does NOT get invoked because the people claiming the 2 speech rule can end filibuster know nothing.
The 2 speech rule applies to debateable issues. Every bill can have an amendment offered by any senator and every senator then gets 2 speeches about that amendment, which is a debateable issue. Amendment count can be limited, but NO senators like to restrict amendment wherewithal. FURTHERMORE, every senator can raise points of order. There can be no limit on these and each is a debateable issue. Each is allowed 2 speeches.
So just stop with imagining there are magical procedures. The Dems searched high and low for ways around 60 votes and ALL they could come up with was Reconciliation.
That’s IT. That’s all you can use.
There is no magic. There is no conservative genius. The liberal geniuses couldn’t get around it for Obamacare, conservative geniuses won’t get around it either.
But overall, EXACTLY like Pelosi and the left wing of the 2009 House, bills will be pulled, people will be sat down and educated about the legislative process, and they will eventually come around. This is all normal. These guys are exactly like her liberals. They are behaving exactly the same, and probably imagining themselves unique.
While it does alter the terms of the Senator’s term in office, I don’t see what fix there is for the end of the filibuster.
How does the filibuster end mob rule? It doesn’t. It merely shifts the power to the minority party, which is even worse than majority rule.
What makes the majority a worse prospect than the minority?
The Senate still couldn’t pass anything on it’s own. If course the review process would be the cog in the wheel.
Why should the minority get the final say on appointments?
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.