81 vs 1 (Cloture in Senate)

1,213 Views | 11 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by cinque
riflebear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:07a, 12/5/19
This might seem like that big a deal but if you want to know how the Dems are playing and not getting anything done for the American people this is one example.

81 times to date in Trump's presidency the Senate has had to call a cloture vote on a District Judge nominee. This means the Dems can stall and take up to 30 hours of debate to slow down the process even though they willl be affirmed. Add almost 30 hours x 81.

Compared to Obama - it only happened 1 TIME (ONCE). Typical Dems.
Reply Quote
3
fubar
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:26p, 12/5/19
You might ought to research the Republican Senate and Obama's judicial nominees a little bit better.

You can start with Merrick Garland.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Booray
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to riflebear • 1:58p, 12/5/19
riflebear said:
This might seem like that big a deal but if you want to know how the Dems are playing and not getting anything done for the American people this is one example.

81 times to date in Trump's presidency the Senate has had to call a cloture vote on a District Judge nominee. This means the Dems can stall and take up to 30 hours of debate to slow down the process even though they willl be affirmed. Add almost 30 hours x 81.

Compared to Obama - it only happened 1 TIME (ONCE). Typical Dems.
Given that for most of Obama's term, the GOP had the majority of the Senate,they did not need to invoke cloture.

They just refused to consider nominations, leaving scores of judgeships open.
Reply Quote
5
GrowlTowel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fubar • 2:21p, 12/5/19
fubar said:
You might ought to research the Republican Senate and Obama's judicial nominees a little bit better.

You can start with Merrick Garland.


Or the Biden Rule. Should Darth Vader Ginsburg die in 2020 and Trump get another pick, then you can ***** about Garland. Until then, don't make rules if you do not want them enforced.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Reply Quote
3
fadskier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fubar • 2:52p, 12/5/19
fubar said:
You might ought to research the Republican Senate and Obama's judicial nominees a little bit better.

You can start with Merrick Garland.
Merrick Garland is not exactly the same. In his case, the President (who nominates) is from a different party that the Senate majority AND it was an election year.
Reply Quote
1
Booray
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fadskier • 4:18p, 12/5/19
fadskier said:
fubar said:
You might ought to research the Republican Senate and Obama's judicial nominees a little bit better.

You can start with Merrick Garland.
Merrick Garland is not exactly the same. In his case, the President (who nominates) is from a different party that the Senate majority AND it was an election year.
That was my point about Riflebear's whole post. Given the GOP senate majority the whole 81-1 comparison is utter nonsense.
Reply Quote
4
fubar
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GrowlTowel • 5:27p, 12/5/19
GrowlTowel said:
fubar said:
You might ought to research the Republican Senate and Obama's judicial nominees a little bit better.

You can start with Merrick Garland.


Or the Biden Rule. Should Darth Vader Ginsburg die in 2020 and Trump get another pick, then you can ***** about Garland. Until then, don't make rules if you do not want them enforced.
Can you show me where the "Biden Rule" was codified?

I'll wait patiently.

Until then, I'll assume that you think rifle has made some salient point of sorts. Which is ridiculous, but go ahead and roll with that.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Reply Quote
4
cinque
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fadskier • 6:07p, 12/5/19
fadskier said:
fubar said:
You might ought to research the Republican Senate and Obama's judicial nominees a little bit better.

You can start with Merrick Garland.
Merrick Garland is not exactly the same. In his case, the President (who nominates) is from a different party that the Senate majority AND it was an election year.
Why was it being an election year relevant?
Make Racism Wrong Again
Reply Quote
GrowlTowel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fubar • 6:32p, 12/5/19
fubar said:
GrowlTowel said:
fubar said:
You might ought to research the Republican Senate and Obama's judicial nominees a little bit better.

You can start with Merrick Garland.



Or the Biden Rule. Should Darth Vader Ginsburg die in 2020 and Trump get another pick, then you can ***** about Garland. Until then, don't make rules if you do not want them enforced.
Can you show me where the "Biden Rule" was codified?

I'll wait patiently.

Until then, I'll assume that you think rifle has made some salient point of sorts. Which is ridiculous, but go ahead and roll with that.


Ask him. Summer 1992.

Butt hurt isn't a defense.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Reply Quote
fubar
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GrowlTowel • 7:16a, 12/6/19
GrowlTowel said:
fubar said:
GrowlTowel said:
fubar said:
You might ought to research the Republican Senate and Obama's judicial nominees a little bit better.

You can start with Merrick Garland.



Or the Biden Rule. Should Darth Vader Ginsburg die in 2020 and Trump get another pick, then you can ***** about Garland. Until then, don't make rules if you do not want them enforced.
Can you show me where the "Biden Rule" was codified?

I'll wait patiently.

Until then, I'll assume that you think rifle has made some salient point of sorts. Which is ridiculous, but go ahead and roll with that.


Ask him. Summer 1992.

Butt hurt isn't a defense.
I asked you. Where is the "Biden Rule" codified? Summer 1992 isn't an answer.

Why won't you answer?
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Reply Quote
2
HuMcK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GrowlTowel • 7:58a, 12/6/19
GrowlTowel said:
fubar said:
GrowlTowel said:
fubar said:
You might ought to research the Republican Senate and Obama's judicial nominees a little bit better.

You can start with Merrick Garland.



Or the Biden Rule. Should Darth Vader Ginsburg die in 2020 and Trump get another pick, then you can ***** about Garland. Until then, don't make rules if you do not want them enforced.
Can you show me where the "Biden Rule" was codified?

I'll wait patiently.

Until then, I'll assume that you think rifle has made some salient point of sorts. Which is ridiculous, but go ahead and roll with that.


Ask him. Summer 1992.

Butt hurt isn't a defense.
Biden said that the Senate should not consider a SCOTUS nominee in an election year, but it may surprise you to learn that towards the end of that same speech Biden also said that the Senate would hold a vote on POTUS' nominee after the election but before the inauguration. Mileage may vary on whether or not you believe him, but he did not say that a POTUS shouldn't get to nominate a prospective Justice in the last year of their term, he only said it shouldn't happen during an ongoing campaign.

Quote:
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
[...]
"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Wallace
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HuMcK • 8:51a, 12/6/19
HuMcK said:
GrowlTowel said:
fubar said:
GrowlTowel said:
fubar said:
You might ought to research the Republican Senate and Obama's judicial nominees a little bit better.

You can start with Merrick Garland.



Or the Biden Rule. Should Darth Vader Ginsburg die in 2020 and Trump get another pick, then you can ***** about Garland. Until then, don't make rules if you do not want them enforced.
Can you show me where the "Biden Rule" was codified?

I'll wait patiently.

Until then, I'll assume that you think rifle has made some salient point of sorts. Which is ridiculous, but go ahead and roll with that.


Ask him. Summer 1992.

Butt hurt isn't a defense.
Biden said that the Senate should not consider a SCOTUS nominee in an election year, but it may surprise you to learn that towards the end of that same speech Biden also said that the Senate would hold a vote on POTUS' nominee after the election but before the inauguration. Mileage may vary on whether or not you believe him, but he did not say that a POTUS shouldn't get to nominate a prospective Justice in the last year of their term, he only said it shouldn't happen during an ongoing campaign.

Quote:
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
[...]
"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."
These dudes don't care about facts. They've been handed a talking point to defend what Mitch did, so case closed. Just like they spent mega$ investigating Benghazi with 0 payout but Dems are wasting $ investigating Trump and Russia with lots of bad dudes behind bars. What they do is great, what Dems do is terrible, case closed. They don't give a **** about democracy just Trump. They aren't Repubs just Trump drones that laugh when he bullies ppl.
Reply Quote
1
cinque
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:21p, 12/6/19
Did Democrats ever withhold a SC nominee during an election year? That would be the test, not what Biden said.
Make Racism Wrong Again
Reply Quote
1
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.