Senate Dimrats Vow to Filibuster Trumps SCOTUS Pick Without Knowing Who It Is

[Weatherman2020]

The nuclear option only applies to lower court picks, dope.
The rules don't allow it for SC picks. The rule making period in the Senate has passed.

Rules schmools. All is needed is one Senator to raise a point of order, then the leader of the Senate says filibuster is over.

Mucho gracias amigo Harry Reid.

Not true.

• Senator McConnell (the majority leader) would propose proceeding on a vote to confirm the nominee.

• The presiding officer (one of the Republican senators, serving as president pro-tem) would rule that he is out of order as 60 votes are required for cloture.

• Senator McConnell would then appeal his ruling. An appeal of a ruling of the presiding officer is voted on without debate and by simple majority.

• The 52 Republican senators would vote to overturn the ruling of the presiding officer, and then vote to confirm the justice.

GOD BLESS HARRY REID

The rules don't allow for such a motion for a vote on a SC nominee.

The rule change period has passed.

Of course they can still change them.

The delusional left have this fantasy that the Harry Reid option is not available.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The Democrats oppose Trump's Supreme Court nomination for the simple fact that the Republicans stole the nomination.

As they should.

Wait until the feeding tube is removed from Ginsburg and we replace her with the a very very conservative Constitutionalist.

 

[Doc1]

Rules schmools. All is needed is one Senator to raise a point of order, then the leader of the Senate says filibuster is over.

Mucho gracias amigo Harry Reid.

Not true.

• Senator McConnell (the majority leader) would propose proceeding on a vote to confirm the nominee.

• The presiding officer (one of the Republican senators, serving as president pro-tem) would rule that he is out of order as 60 votes are required for cloture.

• Senator McConnell would then appeal his ruling. An appeal of a ruling of the presiding officer is voted on without debate and by simple majority.

• The 52 Republican senators would vote to overturn the ruling of the presiding officer, and then vote to confirm the justice.

GOD BLESS HARRY REID

The rules don't allow for such a motion for a vote on a SC nominee.

The rule change period has passed.

Of course they can still change them.

The delusional left have this fantasy that the Harry Reid option is not available.

They are about to need some Vaseline.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Not true.

• Senator McConnell (the majority leader) would propose proceeding on a vote to confirm the nominee.

• The presiding officer (one of the Republican senators, serving as president pro-tem) would rule that he is out of order as 60 votes are required for cloture.

• Senator McConnell would then appeal his ruling. An appeal of a ruling of the presiding officer is voted on without debate and by simple majority.

• The 52 Republican senators would vote to overturn the ruling of the presiding officer, and then vote to confirm the justice.

GOD BLESS HARRY REID

The rules don't allow for such a motion for a vote on a SC nominee.

The rule change period has passed.

Of course they can still change them.

The delusional left have this fantasy that the Harry Reid option is not available.

They are about to need some Vaseline.

Costco size.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Poor Trumpers, always with the alt facts and out right lies.
View attachment 110048

The left when Ginsburg is replaced by a very conservative Constitutionalist:

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poor, poor Trumpers

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If the choice is for banning abortions,as promised, he's against settled law and mainstream politics and 64% of the country, and should be stopped. This is just the New BS GOP keeping one of its never ending stupid wedge issues alive to distract the chumps from obvious solutions to their pander to the rich thievery.

banning abortions or just not funding them with government money. Big difference really.

 

[francoHFW]

If the choice is for banning abortions,as promised, he's against settled law and mainstream politics and 64% of the country, and should be stopped. This is just the New BS GOP keeping one of its never ending stupid wedge issues alive to distract the chumps from obvious solutions to their pander to the rich thievery.

banning abortions or just not funding them with government money. Big difference really.

It's against the law to fund abortions with gov't money, dupe.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If the choice is for banning abortions,as promised, he's against settled law and mainstream politics and 64% of the country, and should be stopped. This is just the New BS GOP keeping one of its never ending stupid wedge issues alive to distract the chumps from obvious solutions to their pander to the rich thievery.

banning abortions or just not funding them with government money. Big difference really.

It's against the law to fund abortions with gov't money, dupe.

except in cases that involve rape incest or the woman's health.
Medicaid is mandated to cover in these situations.
of course, all it takes is the right (or wrong) doctor to claim there is a health risk and sluts can get the government funding.

off topic but, you got beat up a lot in high school didnt you. Im just guessing by the way, but I think I might be right on this one.

 

[francoHFW]

If the choice is for banning abortions,as promised, he's against settled law and mainstream politics and 64% of the country, and should be stopped. This is just the New BS GOP keeping one of its never ending stupid wedge issues alive to distract the chumps from obvious solutions to their pander to the rich thievery.

banning abortions or just not funding them with government money. Big difference really.

It's against the law to fund abortions with gov't money, dupe.

except in cases that involve rape incest or the woman's health.
Medicaid is mandated to cover in these situations.
of course, all it takes is the right (or wrong) doctor to claim there is a health risk and sluts can get the government funding.

off topic but, you got beat up a lot in high school didnt you. Im just guessing by the way, but I think I might be right on this one.

BS, dupe. NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ABORTION. Hyde Amendment. Duped AGAIN! D'OH!!

When idiots are totally wrong, they get violent. I've never been beaten up anywhere.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If the choice is for banning abortions,as promised, he's against settled law and mainstream politics and 64% of the country, and should be stopped. This is just the New BS GOP keeping one of its never ending stupid wedge issues alive to distract the chumps from obvious solutions to their pander to the rich thievery.

banning abortions or just not funding them with government money. Big difference really.

It's against the law to fund abortions with gov't money, dupe.

except in cases that involve rape incest or the woman's health.
Medicaid is mandated to cover in these situations.
of course, all it takes is the right (or wrong) doctor to claim there is a health risk and sluts can get the government funding.

off topic but, you got beat up a lot in high school didnt you. Im just guessing by the way, but I think I might be right on this one.

BS, dupe. NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ABORTION. Hyde Amendment. Duped AGAIN! D'OH!!

When idiots are totally wrong, they get violent. I've never been beaten up anywhere.

you should actually look into things before you spout the information that you think is right.
and I imagine you are lying about not being beat up, or you are just afraid to be as disrespectful in public.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

• Senator McConnell (the majority leader) would propose proceeding on a vote to confirm the nominee.

• The presiding officer (one of the Republican senators, serving as president pro-tem) would rule that he is out of order as 60 votes are required for cloture.

• Senator McConnell would then appeal his ruling. An appeal of a ruling of the presiding officer is voted on without debate and by simple majority.

• The 52 Republican senators would vote to overturn the ruling of the presiding officer, and then vote to confirm the justice.

GOD BLESS HARRY REID

The rules don't allow for such a motion for a vote on a SC nominee.

The rule change period has passed.

Why won't you tell us who told you this?
Kos?
Soros?
Your auntie?

My vast wealth of knowledge informed me. Try reading something besides prepper mags.

Provide a link or forever be known as the doofus you are showing yourself to be!

Rules regarding the majority required for cloture are set at the beginning of a new Congress. Without an official rules change, any motion for a simple majority vote on a rule change can itself be filibustered thereby requiring 60 votes. It's not as easy as you all believe.

Well, it seems the people who make those rules have been quoted as to the methods used in the media and not one liberal Democrat Senator has had the balls to stand up and correct them, so I assume (and so should you) that they know how the Senate rules work.

 

[francoHFW]

If the choice is for banning abortions,as promised, he's against settled law and mainstream politics and 64% of the country, and should be stopped. This is just the New BS GOP keeping one of its never ending stupid wedge issues alive to distract the chumps from obvious solutions to their pander to the rich thievery.

banning abortions or just not funding them with government money. Big difference really.

It's against the law to fund abortions with gov't money, dupe.

except in cases that involve rape incest or the woman's health.
Medicaid is mandated to cover in these situations.
of course, all it takes is the right (or wrong) doctor to claim there is a health risk and sluts can get the government funding.

off topic but, you got beat up a lot in high school didnt you. Im just guessing by the way, but I think I might be right on this one.

BS, dupe. NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ABORTION. Hyde Amendment. Duped AGAIN! D'OH!!

When idiots are totally wrong, they get violent. I've never been beaten up anywhere.

you should actually look into things before you spout the information that you think is right.
and I imagine you are lying about not being beat up, or you are just afraid to be as disrespectful in public.

I don't talk politics and religion off MBs much...place is full of ugly American GOP bigots....And you're still wrong as always. Hyde Amendment. I'm also 6' 4"

 

[francoHFW]

The rules don't allow for such a motion for a vote on a SC nominee.

The rule change period has passed.

Why won't you tell us who told you this?
Kos?
Soros?
Your auntie?

My vast wealth of knowledge informed me. Try reading something besides prepper mags.

Provide a link or forever be known as the doofus you are showing yourself to be!

Rules regarding the majority required for cloture are set at the beginning of a new Congress. Without an official rules change, any motion for a simple majority vote on a rule change can itself be filibustered thereby requiring 60 votes. It's not as easy as you all believe.

Well, it seems the people who make those rules have been quoted as to the methods used in the media and not one liberal Democrat Senator has had the balls to stand up and correct them, so I assume (and so should you) that they know how the Senate rules work.

Schumer has.

 

[francoHFW]

If the choice is for banning abortions,as promised, he's against settled law and mainstream politics and 64% of the country, and should be stopped. This is just the New BS GOP keeping one of its never ending stupid wedge issues alive to distract the chumps from obvious solutions to their pander to the rich thievery.

banning abortions or just not funding them with government money. Big difference really.

It's against the law to fund abortions with gov't money, dupe.

except in cases that involve rape incest or the woman's health.
Medicaid is mandated to cover in these situations.
of course, all it takes is the right (or wrong) doctor to claim there is a health risk and sluts can get the government funding.

off topic but, you got beat up a lot in high school didnt you. Im just guessing by the way, but I think I might be right on this one.

BS, dupe. NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ABORTION. Hyde Amendment. Duped AGAIN! D'OH!!

When idiots are totally wrong, they get violent. I've never been beaten up anywhere.

you should actually look into things before you spout the information that you think is right.
and I imagine you are lying about not being beat up, or you are just afraid to be as disrespectful in public.

See sig, last line

 

[Oldstyle]

the left cant stop anything, Trump will just go with 51 votes

Can't do that for SC nominee.
Republican will need 8 Dems to get to 60. It won't happen.

Remember when Harry Reid changed the rules in the Senate so you Democrats could pack the courts with liberal appointees, Hutch? Of course you don't! Well, you were warned back then that it set a dangerous precedent for the future because it would enable Republicans to do the same thing. So thank Dingy Harry for what's happening now.

It's called good government- majority rules, not 60%. Bring back a real, seldom used filibuster- and some kind of Fairness Doctrine so the dupes can hear the truth a few minutes/hour...

If you thought it was great when Harry Reid was doing it, Franco...then how could you have a problem with it if Mitch McConnell does it? Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting that you're one of those "Do as I say...not as I do" progressives!

 

[francoHFW]

the left cant stop anything, Trump will just go with 51 votes

Can't do that for SC nominee.
Republican will need 8 Dems to get to 60. It won't happen.

Remember when Harry Reid changed the rules in the Senate so you Democrats could pack the courts with liberal appointees, Hutch? Of course you don't! Well, you were warned back then that it set a dangerous precedent for the future because it would enable Republicans to do the same thing. So thank Dingy Harry for what's happening now.

It's called good government- majority rules, not 60%. Bring back a real, seldom used filibuster- and some kind of Fairness Doctrine so the dupes can hear the truth a few minutes/hour...

If you thought it was great when Harry Reid was doing it, Franco...then how could you have a problem with it if Mitch McConnell does it? Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting that you're one of those "Do as I say...not as I do" progressives!

Because W was able to do it, and Mac/ Trump will, but somehow Clinton and Obama never did..."The un-American, no compromise TP GOP" been around since Rush and Newt 1986. Reaganism rolls on. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

the left cant stop anything, Trump will just go with 51 votes

Can't do that for SC nominee.
Republican will need 8 Dems to get to 60. It won't happen.

Remember when Harry Reid changed the rules in the Senate so you Democrats could pack the courts with liberal appointees, Hutch? Of course you don't! Well, you were warned back then that it set a dangerous precedent for the future because it would enable Republicans to do the same thing. So thank Dingy Harry for what's happening now.

It's called good government- majority rules, not 60%. Bring back a real, seldom used filibuster- and some kind of Fairness Doctrine so the dupes can hear the truth a few minutes/hour...

If you thought it was great when Harry Reid was doing it, Franco...then how could you have a problem with it if Mitch McConnell does it? Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting that you're one of those "Do as I say...not as I do" progressives!

No one has ever used the nuclear option for a SC nominee. False equivalent.

 

[hadit]

the left cant stop anything, Trump will just go with 51 votes

Can't do that for SC nominee.
Republican will need 8 Dems to get to 60. It won't happen.

That's just a Senate rule, and can be changed with a majority vote. Harry Reid opened the door already to the "nuclear option", and I fully expect the Republicans to expand on what he did. Funny how things like that come back to bite democrats in the butt.

Yup, trying to have good, responsive government is so crazy. GOP loves disfunction because reform and fair taxes are such a problem for the greedy idiot rich...

Actions have consequences, and in a partisan world, sometimes extreme consequences. I expect a lot of hypocritical wailing from democrats when they face the specter of seeing their power steadily eroded.

Power my ass, it's fairness and justice and honesty being eroded, dupe.

Naturally, democrats assume that their power equals "fairness and justice and honesty". It does not.

 

[hadit]

Is doing that a good thing, a bad thing, or good when democrats do it but bad when Republicans do it?

Yeah seriously, 'Payback' for what? The dude got a free pass his entire tenure. He served his 8yrs and got just about everything he wanted. I don't see how any Obamabot can be bitching.

Oh, I do agree that Obama got just about everything he wanted and that Republicans caved on most things, but they DID hold up that last SC justice he wanted.

You are out of your tiny mind. Everything he wanted beside the stimulus and ACA was obstructed DUHHHH.

Like what, specifically?

Everything, dupe. Change the channel.
Obama: GOP blocked 500 bills - POLITICO
www.politico.com/story/2014/05/republicans-legislation-obama-dccc-event-106481
May 8, 2014 - Obama: GOP blocked 500 bills. President Barack Obama is railing against congressionalRepublicans, telling a Hollywood crowd that the midterm elections are crucial because the GOP is willing “to say no to everything.”
Republicans' mindless obstruction has helped create something far ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../republicans...obstruction.../46ba9022-e723-11e5-b0...
Mar 11, 2016 - They decided this before President Obama released his budget, refusing ... Republicansonce complained about all the House-passed bills that ...
The Cost To Our Economy From Republican Obstruction And Sabotage
The Cost To Our Economy From Republican Obstruction And Sabotagerepublican-obstruction-and-sa...
Sep 23, 2014 - Since the 2009 “stimulus,” Republicans have obstructed pretty much every ... 2011: “Republicans filibuster Obama infrastructure bill”; 2012: ...

And Harry Reid sat on hundreds of House bills because he didn't want to bring them to a vote. Apparently, everyone is playing that game. Maybe it's time for the democrats to elevate their status a bit and actually be part of a deliberative body instead of just being petty. You know that whoever goes first will gain huge rep from an electorate sick of the status quo.

I do not, however, expect this crop of democrats to do any such thing.