2 Dems to vote for Trump's court nominee

[yiostheoy]

The Reid Rule is in effect now, this is all irrelevant.

But if the GOP now validates the Reid Rule then you can kiss the filibuster goodbye in the Senate.

Maybe kissing it goodbye would be the best thing anyway. There is no filibuster rule written in the Constitution.

The only supermajorities required by the Constitution are (1) to amend the constitution and (2) to convict the POTUS by the Senate during impeachment.

 

[Mac1958]

The Reid Rule is in effect now, this is all irrelevant.

But if the GOP now validates the Reid Rule then you can kiss the filibuster goodbye in the Senate. Maybe kissing it goodbye would be the best thing anyway. There is no filibuster rule written in the Constitution. The only supermajorities required by the Constitution are (1) to amend the constitution and (2) to convict the POTUS during impeachment.

Yeah, I think that's where we're going. Not sure what I think of that yet, though.
.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Reid Rule is in effect now, this is all irrelevant.

But if the GOP now validates the Reid Rule then you can kiss the filibuster goodbye in the Senate. Maybe kissing it goodbye would be the best thing anyway. There is no filibuster rule written in the Constitution. The only supermajorities required by the Constitution are (1) to amend the constitution and (2) to convict the POTUS during impeachment.

Yeah, I think that's where we're going. Not sure what I think of that yet, though.
.

I remember back in 8th Grade when Sister Steiner our History teacher explained how the filibuster works.

Then she asked us what we thought about it?

We were all clueless.

Some of the smartest kids in the school like Tommy Thompson were sitting there just gawking at her through his glasses -- clueless.

Tommy was tall and a BBall athlete as well as a scholar.

Then it got covered again in 11th and 12th Grades in high school as well.

Back then I did not know what to think about it either.

NOW HOWEVER I do not like non-constitutional traditions.

I like to see the Constitution followed very closely by everybody -- by the POTUS, by the Congress, by the SCOTUS, and by the States.

I do not believe in judicial activism from the SCOTUS bench either.

If old Sister Steiner could only ask me now, that's what I would say.

It took me 50 years to figure that question out.

 

[Mac1958]

The Reid Rule is in effect now, this is all irrelevant.

But if the GOP now validates the Reid Rule then you can kiss the filibuster goodbye in the Senate. Maybe kissing it goodbye would be the best thing anyway. There is no filibuster rule written in the Constitution. The only supermajorities required by the Constitution are (1) to amend the constitution and (2) to convict the POTUS during impeachment.

Yeah, I think that's where we're going. Not sure what I think of that yet, though.
.

I remember back in 8th Grade when Sister Steiner our History teacher explained how the filibuster works.

Then she asked us what we thought about it.

We were all clueless.

Some of the smartest kids in the school like Tommy Thompson were sitting there just gawking at her through his glasses -- clueless.

Tommy was tall and a BBall athlete as well as a scholar.

Then it got covered again in 11th and 12th Grades in high school as well.

Back then I did not know what to think about it either.

NOW HOWEVER I do not like non-constitutional traditions.

I like to see the Constitution followed very closely by everybody -- by the POTUS, by the Congress, by the SCOTUS, and by the States.

I do not believe in judicial activism from the SCOTUS bench either.

If old Sister Steiner could only ask me now, that's what I would say.

The thing that concerns me is the "tyranny of the majority".

I'm not fond of either party, and I know what both will do with this.

Seems to me this will only exacerbate the wild swings we're seeing, and they're bad and destructive enough as it is.
.

 

[yiostheoy]

Schumer is a great debater by NCAA standards.

In the NCAA if you can take your debate cards and put them into either pocket, the left or the right, and then argue either side of any issue, that made you a champion debater in the NCAA.

 

[yiostheoy]

The thing that concerns me is the "tyranny of the majority".

I'm not fond of either party, and I know what both will do with this.

Seems to me this will only exacerbate the wild swings we're seeing, and they're bad and destructive enough as it is.
.

Sister Steiner coved "the tyranny of the majority" and I DO remember all about that. But again we were clueless little kids (8th Graders) when she first brought up the issue to us.

The U.S. Constitution is supposed to dampen the tyranny of the majority with it's provisions and prescriptions and proscriptions (tricky words so I have included them all).

And there is nothing in the Constitution about a Senate filibuster.

Ergo if you are operating with a Senate filibuster then you are operating outside of the Constitution.

And if you are therefore operating outside of the Constitution then you are a renegade and you might as well be shot.

Q.E.D.

 

[Mac1958]

The thing that concerns me is the "tyranny of the majority".

I'm not fond of either party, and I know what both will do with this.

Seems to me this will only exacerbate the wild swings we're seeing, and they're bad and destructive enough as it is.
.

Sister Steiner coved "the tyranny of the majority" and I DO remember all about that. But again we were clueless little kids (8th Graders) when she first brought up the issue to us.

The U.S. Constitution is supposed to dampen the tyranny of the majority with it's provisions and prescriptions and proscriptions (tricky words so I have included them all).

And there is nothing in the Constitution about a Senate filibuster.

Ergo if you are operating with a Senate filibuster then you are operating outside of the Constitution.

And if you are therefore operating outside of the Constitution then you are a renegade and you might as well be shot.

Q.E.D.

So was Sister Steiner hot?
.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

And Schumer is pissed

2 Dems to vote for Trump's court nominee; Schumer urges 'no'

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two Democrats facing tough re-elections in GOP states said Thursday they will vote for President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, even as the Senate Democratic leader strongly warned Republicans against changing Senate rules to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York had tough words for his Republican counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, in an interview with The Associated Press.

"He's bound and determined to change the rules and trample on Senate tradition to get a nominee chosen by the hard-right Heritage Society, without any consultation with Democrats. That is a true statement," Schumer said of McConnell. "Let the public judge whether that is a good thing."

Schumer spoke shortly after Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota became the first Democrats to announce their support for Gorsuch, a Denver-based appellate judge. They join all 52 Senate Republicans, who argue Gorsuch is impeccably qualified to join the high court and accuse Democrats, and Schumer in particular, of playing politics by opposing him.

The Senate confirmation vote is expected late next week. Unless 60 senators support Gorsuch — which would require six more Democrats to join Heitkamp and Manchin — Republicans would have to unilaterally change Senate rules to allow Gorsuch to be confirmed with a simple majority vote in the 100-member Senate.

2 Dems to vote for Trump's court nominee; Schumer urges 'no'

Gorsuch was voted in as a Federal judge by a vast margin of Democrats, to vote against him now is only partisan hackery.

 

[yiostheoy]

So was Sister Steiner hot?
.

You nasty boy !!!

Old Sister Steiner was old enough to be a great grandmother when I was 13.

She resembled Whisler's Mother.

 

[yiostheoy]

Smart lady though.

If she had not given her heart to the Lord she could have kicked azz in the US Army.

 

[Disir]

McCaskill may as well be a Republican. She will not really be a loss.

The DEM's need to do whatever it takes to regain the US House.

It is critical that they regain the US House.

So anybody would be a loss. A big loss.

**** 'em.