Politics Thread

[Masterofreality]

Effective filibuster in place when you have the Senate and refuse to bring a nomination to even a committee hearing. (People should decide,etc.)
See Merrick Garland.
But then, you can ram one through in a month if you want to. (Screw the people)
See Amy Barrett.

Fully Constitutional. And your side with Harry Reid’s stupidity started it.
But Paul believes in overturning the Constitution. Sounds Insurrectionny!
BUT DEMOCRACY IS AT STAKE.
(Strokes chin)

[paulxu]

Always trying to find a scapegoat for Republican actions.
Sad.

[XU_Lou]

Blame Harry Reid Paul.

Always trying to find a scapegoat for Republican actions.
Sad.

Nope. Truth. Sad.

[XU_Lou]

"I’m a proud, lifelong Democrat, and it’s my honor to serve the people of Ohio in elected office. It’s because I love my state so much that I’m sounding the alarm about my own party’s nominee for U.S. Senate. Tim Ryan is a fraud who must be defeated. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican, an independent, or a Democrat like me − Ryan does not deserve your vote."

- Dusty Rhodes

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/opini...180836564.html

[xuphan]

Always trying to find a scapegoat for Republican actions.
Sad.

So it is ok if the democrats do it but not the republicans? I agree with your general point about nominations but both parties abuse the system. CanÂ’t have it both ways especially if you are ok with one party doing it but not the other. Maybe instead of attacking one party, start to attack the political system (Both the democratic and republican parties) for the way things operate and run. Outside of agendas and beliefs, the Democratic and Republican Party are the same corrupt lobbying Unions who are more about making money than about helping the American people.

[paulxu]

I think all Supreme Court nominees under Reid were at least afforded a hearing and and a vote.
Reid didn't do away with the filibuster for SC nominees. McConnell did.
And then refused to give Garland even the courtesy of a hearing.
Even Trump's nominees got a hearing and a vote. Despite the rush through on Barrett.

[Strange Brew]

I think all Supreme Court nominees under Reid were at least afforded a hearing and and a vote.
Reid didn't do away with the filibuster for SC nominees. McConnell did.
And then refused to give Garland even the courtesy of a hearing.
Even Trump's nominees got a hearing and a vote. Despite the rush through on Barrett.

McConnell warned Reid he would do it if Harry did away with the filibuster for lower court nominees. Reid did it anyway.

Thank God on Garland. The country dodged a bullet on that one.

[bobbiemcgee]

[QUOTE=
Thank God on Garland. .[/QUOTE]

He's done a nice job prosecuting morons and soon tRump. No one has any confidence in the SC:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/...toric-low.aspx

[Strange Brew]

He's done a nice job prosecuting morons and soon tRump. No one has any confidence in the SC:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/...toric-low.aspx

Ok, Bobbie. Since you think he’s doing well I’ll rest easy knowing he’s not on the bench.

[Masterofreality]

I think all Supreme Court nominees under Reid were at least afforded a hearing and and a vote.
Reid didn't do away with the filibuster for SC nominees. McConnell did.
And then refused to give Garland even the courtesy of a hearing.
Even Trump's nominees got a hearing and a vote. Despite the rush through on Barrett.

Fully Constitutional. Checks and Balances. Advise and Consent.
YOUR guy set the rules. Hurts when they're applied against you doesn't it. No scapegoat about it.
The principles of American DEMOCRACY, that Paul rejects.
Cry more.