An outbreak of lawlessness

[Freewill]

[quo

Oh sure, it's not like he's changing a law that's already been passed by Congress. Tell me, where in the law is he allowed to delay or amend a law as he so chooses? Perhaps the concept of checks and balances doesn't mean much to you, but it sure as heck means a lot to the rest of us.

"Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk" well yeah, he's a paraplegic who could run you and your liberal talking points under a table in 5 seconds flat. What a ridiculous thing to say about someone, given you have little else to debate with.

"The Senate has rules" you say? They HAD rules. As you can very well see, the rights of the minority party no longer mean much to the majority. Just remember, as Joe Biden once said of the Republican party: "You can't be the majority forever."

You look like someone who could use a better argument. It's funny too, you're accusing the republicans on this board of throwing tantrums like 3 year olds when you're the one who resorted to calling someone a 'stupid jerk.' How hypocritical.

Krauthammer is also one of these guys who insisted up and down that the Iraq War was a wonderful idea, proving that the disabled can be just as amoral, evil and remorseless as the fully-abled.

That he is even allowed to show his face in public after that fiasco, which for those playing along at home, resulted in a TRILLION dollars wasted, 5000 dead Americans and 100,000+ dead Iraqis, and has strengthened Iran's position in the region, is kind of a disgrace.

Do you ever, ever provide links to what you say people say? Ever?

Here is what he had to say about the war in Iraq:

In October 2002, he presented what he believed were the primary arguments for and against the war, writing, "Hawks favor war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, tyrannical and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes into possession of nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of mass destruction he already has, he is likely to use them or share them with terrorists. The threat of mass death on a scale never before seen residing in the hands of an unstable madman is intolerable – and must be preempted."

"Doves oppose war on the grounds that the risks exceed the gains. War with Iraq could be very costly, possibly degenerating into urban warfare".

"I happen to believe that the preemption school is correct, that the risks of allowing Saddam Hussein to acquire his weapons will only grow with time. Nonetheless, I can both understand and respect those few Democrats who make the principled argument against war with Iraq on the grounds of deterrence, believing that safety lies in reliance on a proven (if perilous) balance of terror rather than the risky innovation of forcible disarmament by preemption."[25]
On the eve of the invasion, Krauthammer wrote that "[r]eformation and reconstruction of an alien culture are a daunting task. Risky and, yes, arrogant."[26] In February 2003, Krauthammer cautioned that "it may yet fail. But we cannot afford not to try. There is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11. It’s not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world—oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism."[22] Krauthammer in 2003 wrote that the reconstruction of Iraq would provide many benefits for the Iraqi people, once the political and economic infrastructure destroyed by Saddam was restored: "With its oil, its urbanized middle class, its educated population, its essential modernity, Iraq has a future. In two decades Saddam Hussein reduced its GDP by 75 percent. Once its political and industrial infrastructures are reestablished, Iraq's potential for rebound, indeed for explosive growth, is unlimited."[27]

In a speech to the Foreign Policy Association in Philadelphia, he argued that the beginnings of democratization in the Arab world had been met in 2006 with a "fierce counterattack" by radical Islamist forces in Lebanon, Palestine and especially Iraq, which witnessed a major intensification in sectarian warfare.[28] In late 2006 and 2007, he was one of the few commentators to support the surge in Iraq.[29][30]

Charles Krauthammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may not have agreed with the war in Iraq. Very unlike Hillary, Kerry and a lot of other democrats I would have voted no on war with Iraq. But they had the chance and they voted yes. But I seriously, seriously doubt that if Hillary is nominated you will have one problem voting for her.

You belittle the men and women, unlike YOU, who volunteered to go to war. You don't know you do but you do and you stayed home.

 

[Freewill]

What's the point of voting if winning doesn't get you anything?

How much say does Mitt Romney have in the current administration?

Does it ever occur to you that winning isn't everything? Mitt Romney has nothing to do with this discussion. What's the point of winning if you don't get something productive and meaningful out of it?

Mitt Romney got fewer votes than Barack Obama. That's why we don't allow him to step in and block legislation for four years.

The Republicans are a minority in the Senate because fewer Americans wanted them in the Senate than wanted Democrats.

Now why on earth should they have the right, from that position, to block hundreds of bills and hundreds of nominees that the majority wants to pass and the President wants to sign?

Just remember these words when the Republicans are in the majority. Now, can you name 100s of bills that have been blocked? Can you name any major bills that have been blocked? No I bet you can't you are just a parrot of the DNC.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You may not have agreed with the war in Iraq. Very unlike Hillary, Kerry and a lot of other democrats I would have voted no on war with Iraq. But they had the chance and they voted yes. But I seriously, seriously doubt that if Hillary is nominated you will have one problem voting for her.

You belittle the men and women, unlike YOU, who volunteered to go to war. You don't know you do but you do and you stayed home.

Well, frankly, I was in the service during the first Gulf War. But I made sure to get the hell out when I found out it was a war for Zionism and Oil.

That aside, Hillary and Kerry and a lot of other Democrats were political cowards when they voted for the war, and that's the main reason why Hillary wasn't the nominee in 2008. She paid a price for her political expediency.

That has nothing to do with Charlie Strangelove being one of the biggest cheerleaders for this mess when it started and one of the biggest apologists for it when we found out Cheney had lied us into it.

 

[Flopper]

This is at least the 4th thread on this same stupid column.

Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk.

The president is not breaking any laws. He is administrating. That's what the executive branch does.

The Senate still has rules. It has a 1000 page rule book.

What ridiculous hyperbole.

Conservatives look like 3 year old having a temper tantrum.

Only 13 states, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine (theoretically), Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Utah allow filibusters and only 5 allow completely unlimited debate. The idea of the filibuster was to insure that Senate had the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue and thus promote debate. Today it's used to suppress debate and delay action.

Hawaii is guilty of debate suppression? No way. An Hawaiian is POTUS, he would never allow that.

Hawaii, like most states have rules to curb filibusters.

 

[percysunshine]

Only 13 states, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine (theoretically), Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Utah allow filibusters and only 5 allow completely unlimited debate. The idea of the filibuster was to insure that Senate had the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue and thus promote debate. Today it's used to suppress debate and delay action.

Hawaii is guilty of debate suppression? No way. An Hawaiian is POTUS, he would never allow that.

Hawaii, like most states have rules to curb filibusters.

So what is your point? You just selected 13 States saying there was a problem, and now it isn't really a problem.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What's the point of voting if winning doesn't get you anything?

How much say does Mitt Romney have in the current administration?

Does it ever occur to you that winning isn't everything? Mitt Romney has nothing to do with this discussion. What's the point of winning if you don't get something productive and meaningful out of it?

Mitt Romney got fewer votes than Barack Obama. That's why we don't allow him to step in and block legislation for four years.

The Republicans are a minority in the Senate because fewer Americans wanted them in the Senate than wanted Democrats.

Now why on earth should they have the right, from that position, to block hundreds of bills and hundreds of nominees that the majority wants to pass and the President wants to sign?

[MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]:

How naive. This has nothing whatsoever to do with popularity. The Republican minority in the Senate are still elected officials, who are (in an idyllic scenario) obligated to represent the people who *GASP* elected them. When you take away their voice by eliminating their rights to filibuster, you are also silencing the very constituents they represent. Now you have set in motion a terrible precedent, where the majority can routinely abuse the minority. Don't be surprised if this reaches into legislation as well. Please tell me you thought that answer through before you posted it, Carbine.

 

[Seawytch]

Doesn't anyone want to tell me why Krauthammer had exactly the opposite opinion in 2005?

How come nobody answered any of your questions? Here's Charlie back in '05...

Nuclear? No, Restoration

There has certainly never been a successful filibuster in the case of a judicial nominee who clearly had the approval of a majority of the Senate. And there has surely never been a campaign like the one undertaken by the Democrats since 2001 to systematically deny judicial appointment by means of the filibuster.

Until NOW Charles... The GOP took the handful of filibusters the Dems did in 2005 and cranked it up to 11. Let's see what else Chuck had to say less than 10 years ago.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seems intent on passing a procedural ruling to prevent judicial filibusters. Democrats have won the semantic war by getting this branded "the nuclear option," a colorful and deliberately inflammatory term (although Republican Trent Lott, ever helpful, appears to have originated the term). The semantic device reminds me of the slogan of the nuclear freeze campaign of the early 1980s: "Because nobody wants a nuclear war." (Except Ronald Reagan, of course.)

Democrats are calling Frist's maneuver an assault on the very essence of the Senate, a body distinguished by its insistence on tradition, custom and unwritten rules.

This claim is a comical inversion of the facts. One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. And you surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented.

The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written.

What the Democrats have done is radical. What Frist is proposing is a restoration.

So...the rule change that Harry Reid finally put in place is the exact same one that Chuckie lauded in 2005.

How many nominees were being blocked in 2005 when Charles thought Frist was doing the right thing? How many of President Obama's nominees have been blocked?

How are you people not embarrassed posting Krauthammer's articles?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here is an snippet of the article. The only saving grace of what the democrats are doing is that they will have no complaint, legitimate, if the Republicans ever do the same thing.

As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.

Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the Dream Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.


Charles Krauthammer: The Democrats? outbreak of lawlessness - The Washington Post

We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.

Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.

The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.

That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.

So the partisan right is still whining about this, and exhibiting its ignorance and stupidity in the process.

What’s remarkable is conservatives are so stupid as to believe it was the original intent of the Framers that the Senate minority should be able to block legislation and nominations supported by the majority, or that the majority, duly elected by the American people, constitutes ‘tyranny.’

 

[Freewill]

Here is an snippet of the article. The only saving grace of what the democrats are doing is that they will have no complaint, legitimate, if the Republicans ever do the same thing.

As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.

Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the Dream Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.


Charles Krauthammer: The Democrats? outbreak of lawlessness - The Washington Post

We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.

Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.

The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.

That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.

So the partisan right is still whining about this, and exhibiting its ignorance and stupidity in the process.

What’s remarkable is conservatives are so stupid as to believe it was the original intent of the Framers that the Senate minority should be able to block legislation and nominations supported by the majority, or that the majority, duly elected by the American people, constitutes ‘tyranny.’

Yes, that is exactly what the framers thought. The minority should have some power to influence legislation. That is what compromise is all about, that is what working together is all about. But that is not what Obama and Reid are all about. They are about my way or the highway. But hey I agree do away with the requirement and be happy it is democrats doing it. That way, and they will, when they are in the minority they can just sit back and whine about what they did.

 

[Freewill]

Doesn't anyone want to tell me why Krauthammer had exactly the opposite opinion in 2005?

How come nobody answered any of your questions? Here's Charlie back in '05...

Nuclear? No, Restoration

There has certainly never been a successful filibuster in the case of a judicial nominee who clearly had the approval of a majority of the Senate. And there has surely never been a campaign like the one undertaken by the Democrats since 2001 to systematically deny judicial appointment by means of the filibuster.

Until NOW Charles... The GOP took the handful of filibusters the Dems did in 2005 and cranked it up to 11. Let's see what else Chuck had to say less than 10 years ago.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seems intent on passing a procedural ruling to prevent judicial filibusters. Democrats have won the semantic war by getting this branded "the nuclear option," a colorful and deliberately inflammatory term (although Republican Trent Lott, ever helpful, appears to have originated the term). The semantic device reminds me of the slogan of the nuclear freeze campaign of the early 1980s: "Because nobody wants a nuclear war." (Except Ronald Reagan, of course.)

Democrats are calling Frist's maneuver an assault on the very essence of the Senate, a body distinguished by its insistence on tradition, custom and unwritten rules.

This claim is a comical inversion of the facts. One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. And you surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented.

The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written.

What the Democrats have done is radical. What Frist is proposing is a restoration.

So...the rule change that Harry Reid finally put in place is the exact same one that Chuckie lauded in 2005.

How many nominees were being blocked in 2005 when Charles thought Frist was doing the right thing? How many of President Obama's nominees have been blocked?

How are you people not embarrassed posting Krauthammer's articles?

Actually if you read what he wrote he does not deviate. He said that it has historically been 51 percent and that is what removing the filibuster rule restores. But removing the filibuster rule breaks tradition, that is for sure. I am all for it, because now when the republicans/Tea Party get into the majority they can nominate all the conservative judges they want and the liberal left will just have to lick their wounds and cry about what they did to themselves. See it is like all things liberal, the exact opposite will happen from the stated intent. They want to load the courts with liberal judges, what will happen is that the Republicans will take over in 2014 and stack the court, all because the liberals in Congress don't want to work together and nominate judges which are not flaming left wing liberals. It is not like ALL of the nominations have been blocked only a few of the far far left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does it ever occur to you that winning isn't everything? Mitt Romney has nothing to do with this discussion. What's the point of winning if you don't get something productive and meaningful out of it?

Mitt Romney got fewer votes than Barack Obama. That's why we don't allow him to step in and block legislation for four years.

The Republicans are a minority in the Senate because fewer Americans wanted them in the Senate than wanted Democrats.

Now why on earth should they have the right, from that position, to block hundreds of bills and hundreds of nominees that the majority wants to pass and the President wants to sign?

[MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]:

How naive. This has nothing whatsoever to do with popularity. The Republican minority in the Senate are still elected officials, who are (in an idyllic scenario) obligated to represent the people who *GASP* elected them. When you take away their voice by eliminating their rights to filibuster, you are also silencing the very constituents they represent. Now you have set in motion a terrible precedent, where the majority can routinely abuse the minority. Don't be surprised if this reaches into legislation as well. Please tell me you thought that answer through before you posted it, Carbine.

They have been using the filibuster to stop legislation from passing that had enough votes to pass.

As the minority in a legislature, you deserve to get a 'voice' to which the minority is entitled. You are not entitled to enough 'voice' to make you more powerful than the minority.

That is insane.

btw, if a supermajority is the only rightful method to pass bills, why can the House pass bills by one vote?

Where's your outrage over that? Where's your outrage that there's no filibuster in the House?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Doesn't anyone want to tell me why Krauthammer had exactly the opposite opinion in 2005?

How come nobody answered any of your questions? Here's Charlie back in '05...

Nuclear? No, Restoration



Until NOW Charles... The GOP took the handful of filibusters the Dems did in 2005 and cranked it up to 11. Let's see what else Chuck had to say less than 10 years ago.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seems intent on passing a procedural ruling to prevent judicial filibusters. Democrats have won the semantic war by getting this branded "the nuclear option," a colorful and deliberately inflammatory term (although Republican Trent Lott, ever helpful, appears to have originated the term). The semantic device reminds me of the slogan of the nuclear freeze campaign of the early 1980s: "Because nobody wants a nuclear war." (Except Ronald Reagan, of course.)

Democrats are calling Frist's maneuver an assault on the very essence of the Senate, a body distinguished by its insistence on tradition, custom and unwritten rules.

This claim is a comical inversion of the facts. One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. And you surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented.

The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written.

What the Democrats have done is radical. What Frist is proposing is a restoration.

So...the rule change that Harry Reid finally put in place is the exact same one that Chuckie lauded in 2005.

How many nominees were being blocked in 2005 when Charles thought Frist was doing the right thing? How many of President Obama's nominees have been blocked?

How are you people not embarrassed posting Krauthammer's articles?

Actually if you read what he wrote he does not deviate. He said that it has historically been 51 percent and that is what removing the filibuster rule restores. But removing the filibuster rule breaks tradition, that is for sure. I am all for it, because now when the republicans/Tea Party get into the majority they can nominate all the conservative judges they want and the liberal left will just have to lick their wounds and cry about what they did to themselves. See it is like all things liberal, the exact opposite will happen from the stated intent. They want to load the courts with liberal judges, what will happen is that the Republicans will take over in 2014 and stack the court, all because the liberals in Congress don't want to work together and nominate judges which are not flaming left wing liberals. It is not like ALL of the nominations have been blocked only a few of the far far left.

So you're saying that all these Republicans who are throwing fits over the elimination of the filibuster will not restore it when they have a 50 something majority in the Senate?

And apparently you'll support them on that. lol, you're as hypocritical as Krauthammer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does it ever occur to you that winning isn't everything? Mitt Romney has nothing to do with this discussion. What's the point of winning if you don't get something productive and meaningful out of it?

Mitt Romney got fewer votes than Barack Obama. That's why we don't allow him to step in and block legislation for four years.

The Republicans are a minority in the Senate because fewer Americans wanted them in the Senate than wanted Democrats.

Now why on earth should they have the right, from that position, to block hundreds of bills and hundreds of nominees that the majority wants to pass and the President wants to sign?

Just remember these words when the Republicans are in the majority. Now, can you name 100s of bills that have been blocked? Can you name any major bills that have been blocked? No I bet you can't you are just a parrot of the DNC.

So you support the filibuster now but you'll oppose it when the GOP gets 51 Senators.

lolol, you're the biggest hypocrite here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a most entertaining spectacle here to see the conservatives on USMB going through all these contortions as to why they support the filibuster when the ONLY reason they support is that the GOP is currently in the minority in the Senate.

Do you people really think you're fooling anyone? Is it impossible for you to have the decency not to insult our intelligence?

 

[Freewill]

Mitt Romney got fewer votes than Barack Obama. That's why we don't allow him to step in and block legislation for four years.

The Republicans are a minority in the Senate because fewer Americans wanted them in the Senate than wanted Democrats.

Now why on earth should they have the right, from that position, to block hundreds of bills and hundreds of nominees that the majority wants to pass and the President wants to sign?

Just remember these words when the Republicans are in the majority. Now, can you name 100s of bills that have been blocked? Can you name any major bills that have been blocked? No I bet you can't you are just a parrot of the DNC.

So you support the filibuster now but you'll oppose it when the GOP gets 51 Senators.

lolol, you're the biggest hypocrite here.

Where did I say I supported the filibuster? What I said was that I am glad it was a democrat who changed the rules. It should, but it won't, muffle the shrieks and crying from the Democrats when it is turned against them. That is all.

BTW are you going to name some of the "100s" of bills or the major bills that were blocked?

BTW2, I believe I read within this thread that the Republicans didn't understand the change, apparently you don't either, or maybe me. But as I understand it the removal of the filibuster rule only pertains to judicial nominations not bills.

 

[Freewill]

How come nobody answered any of your questions? Here's Charlie back in '05...

Nuclear? No, Restoration



Until NOW Charles... The GOP took the handful of filibusters the Dems did in 2005 and cranked it up to 11. Let's see what else Chuck had to say less than 10 years ago.



So...the rule change that Harry Reid finally put in place is the exact same one that Chuckie lauded in 2005.

How many nominees were being blocked in 2005 when Charles thought Frist was doing the right thing? How many of President Obama's nominees have been blocked?

How are you people not embarrassed posting Krauthammer's articles?

Actually if you read what he wrote he does not deviate. He said that it has historically been 51 percent and that is what removing the filibuster rule restores. But removing the filibuster rule breaks tradition, that is for sure. I am all for it, because now when the republicans/Tea Party get into the majority they can nominate all the conservative judges they want and the liberal left will just have to lick their wounds and cry about what they did to themselves. See it is like all things liberal, the exact opposite will happen from the stated intent. They want to load the courts with liberal judges, what will happen is that the Republicans will take over in 2014 and stack the court, all because the liberals in Congress don't want to work together and nominate judges which are not flaming left wing liberals. It is not like ALL of the nominations have been blocked only a few of the far far left.

So you're saying that all these Republicans who are throwing fits over the elimination of the filibuster will not restore it when they have a 50 something majority in the Senate?

And apparently you'll support them on that. lol, you're as hypocritical as Krauthammer.

Unlike liberals, I don't suppose to know what everyone will do. Will they restore it when in the majority, maybe. Do I think they should, maybe, but if they don't then the liberal left wing Reid will have no leg to stand on in his whining. That is what I Really think. I think it is a shame that they did away with this rule over a few judges. It shows to me that the left wing doesn't want to work with even their moderate base. What I thin would be great is if the moderate democrats saw this for what it is and voted against the same left wing judges. I would respect the democrats for doing so but I expect that will not happen.

 

[Freewill]

Mitt Romney got fewer votes than Barack Obama. That's why we don't allow him to step in and block legislation for four years.

The Republicans are a minority in the Senate because fewer Americans wanted them in the Senate than wanted Democrats.

Now why on earth should they have the right, from that position, to block hundreds of bills and hundreds of nominees that the majority wants to pass and the President wants to sign?

Just remember these words when the Republicans are in the majority. Now, can you name 100s of bills that have been blocked? Can you name any major bills that have been blocked? No I bet you can't you are just a parrot of the DNC.

So you support the filibuster now but you'll oppose it when the GOP gets 51 Senators.

lolol, you're the biggest hypocrite here.

So you are saying you support the elimination of the filibuster in regards to judicial nominations now, but won't when Republicans have the majority. How hypocritical.