Senate votes to limit debate on Barrett nomination

[Flopper]

I watched some, but skipped through most of it.
Does this mean the Republicans are trying to get this nomination across the goal line asap ?
If so, then were they successful ?
If this helps, the votes were,
Yea 51
Nay 48
Looks like it to me, but what in laymen terms does this mean ?

Much ado about nothing. It means republicans and democrats will give several meaningless speeches that no one will listen to. Then republicans will move to close discussion and vote and democrats will not be able to stop them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

she refused to answer any questions about her policy positions, yet she wants the Senators to vote for her?

that's like before getting married, asking your would be wife if she likes to go to a Bon Jovi concert, and she says: "well, i'll tell you after we get married"

No potential Judge EVER discloses how they might rule on Hypothetical cases EVER.

except when they secretly tell Trump they will destroy Roe and Obamacare

You got nothing and you know it, Go ahead and name a single Liberal Supreme Court Judge that in confirmation hears told the senate what they would rule on potential cases. Provide a link.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

I watched some, but skipped through most of it.
Does this mean the Republicans are trying to get this nomination across the goal line asap ?
If so, then were they successful ?
If this helps, the votes were,
Yea 51
Nay 48
Looks like it to me, but what in laymen terms does this mean ?

Much ado about nothing. It means republicans and democrats will give several meaningless speeches that no one will listen to. Then republicans will move to close discussion and vote and democrats will not be able to stop them.

That sounds exactly like what I heard when I watched and skipped through it.
Thanks

 

[beagle9]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Empty threat.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

For Biden OR Trump

Doesn't matter which. An increase in size would be a good thing no matter who does it.

An increase in size would be a good thing no matter who does it.

WHY would it be a good thing?

Instead of 5-4 decisions, you want 8-7 decisions?

11-10 decisions?

It's only taxpayers money, sure he does.

 

[beagle9]

she refused to answer any questions about her policy positions, yet she wants the Senators to vote for her?

that's like before getting married, asking your would be wife if she likes to go to a Bon Jovi concert, and she says: "well, i'll tell you after we get married"

Your kind of a simple fella did you know that ? You put the supreme court in the same parallel as a bonjovi concert ??? Rotflmbo.

This is why we see Democrats disrespecting the offices of government when amazingly they somehow gain them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why are the left so upset about a procedure that, had they been in the same situation, they would have done exactly the same thing?

Its all a political game. I fully expect the left to railroad something down the pipe the next time they are in power, and the right will do the same thing.

If dems had the senate for garland, he would be on the SC right now, and you would think nothing of it.

 

[Faun]

Same tactic Republicans used in the Trump impeachment

They don’t want any discussion, they just want to ram through a vote

Yeah bend over bitch while it's rammed home. There's more where that came from on the way soon. Say about Nov 4th. You might want to grab your ankles and brace yourself for that one. It's gonna be really really bigly like you've never seen before.

How'd November 4th turn out for ya?

 

[Faun]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Empty threat.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

Actually, that would be called "cheating." It would be like you're losing a checkers game, so you want to add more black checkers on the board.

Not cheating. Completely Constitutional.

Constitutional only if the Democrats gain full control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate.

Doesn't appear that that's going to happen for a long time.