The Nuclear Option

Postby drawscore » Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:23 pm

Well, the Republicans went "nuclear," and changed the rules of the Senate, so now, just 51 votes will be needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice, and the Democrats have their panties in a wad over it.

But wait! The Democrats have been notorious for changing the rules. How soon we forget that the Democrats changed the rules back in the 60's, reducing the number of votes needed to break a filibuster, from 67 (two thirds), to 60 (three fifths).

And wasn't it the Democrats that "went nuclear" just a few short years ago, when Harry Reid changed the rules? And then, they complain when the Republicans, having gained a majority in the Senate, do the same thing to them?

And what about not giving Obama's Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland, a hearing? The Democrats are all in a snit over that, yet conveniently forget that Obama's vice-president, while still a senator from Delaware, stood on the senate floor, and proclaimed that any vacancy on the Supreme Court, that occurs during a president's last year, should be left for the new president to fill.

And now we came to the air strike on Syria. I have mixed feelings on it. Yeah, after the chemical attack, the SOB deserved it, but sooner or later, we're going to have to put troops on the ground. Having been in a war, I don't like them, and I'll wager that even the most highly trained and lethal black ops people, don't like them, either. An analogy, would be that I am trained in life saving and water safety, and every day, I pray I don't have to use those skills, Those trained in black ops, no doubt hope they don't have to use their skill set, either. But they have those skills if they are needed.

Drawscore

Re: The Nuclear Option

Postby Rachel M » Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:46 am

Reid's move applied to lower court judges and Republicans now had that same power. It didn't apply to a stolen Supreme Court seat.

Joe Biden, 1992 wrote:Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.


Yeah, not what you're claiming he said. Which he also said at a time when there was no vacancy or candidate to begin with.

Thanks for popping out to share your latest right wing memes before you inevitably disappear back up your own butt when you find yourself unable to defend yourself. It's been fun as always.

Re: The Nuclear Option

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:38 am

Both parties are run by a bunch of crooks. I say we need to vote the rascals out of office and create a third party that represents regular citizens; not special interests.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: The Nuclear Option

Postby drawscore » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:07 pm

>>>Both parties are run by a bunch of crooks.<<<

On that account, I will not disagree with you,

Draw2score

Re: The Nuclear Option

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:39 pm

drawscore wrote:>>>Both parties are run by a bunch of crooks.<<<

On that account, I will not disagree with you,

Draw2score

I get the feeling that this is not really the same as agreeing with me, however. :geek:
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...