Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Congratulations. You made two logical fallacies in one post.False equivalency. The President has nothing to do with.
'Nuclear' Option triggered today in Senate
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
cawacko
Well-known member
Be my guest. I've simply stated the same thing happened when the roles were reversed as well though which is why each 'side' changes its position on the issue based on where it stands in power. The question I have is what else is going to change in the future in how the Senate does business (not a rhetorical question) because this is a big game changer. (I'm also not asking that in a negative or positive way I'm just asking the question)
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
not really. There is nothing unfair about it. The President has the right to nominate who he wishes with the advice and consent of the Senate. This only assures a nominee gets a straight up and down vote.
You are attempting to distract. The President has something to do with appointees, because he appoints them. He, and past Presidents, have compromised and nominated people who were not wholly ideological because the filibuster could and was invoked to stop obvious overstep in that arena.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Look at the chart in post #10. Why do you think there are so many filibusters against Obama's picks?
christiefan915
Catalyst
None, because Obamacare's not going to sink.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
and that's your other logical fallacy. Obama has not packed his nominations with ideologues and he has been justifiably been criticized for bending over backwards to compromise.
Again, my point was the only reason he did compromise, and several past Presidents, was to avoid the filibuster.
It's working in Venezuela...
Because they're lousy?
christiefan915
Catalyst
You are full of shit it will do nothing but fill the court with liberal progressive ideologues, especially the court which will hear the challenges to obamacare.
Thank god baby killer
To many Neanderthals like you now
But they never pulled the trigger! dumbass
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
It is nice to see the democrat party come around to the notion that a President deserves an up or down vote on his appointees.
If course they didn't have such an aversion six years ago. In fact they held up numerous judicial nominations. Now it isn't fair.
Ironically they always seem to start these little hullabaloos then are shocked when the other side does it.
I am sure their fondness for filibusters will return the day power shifts.
Remember when the democrat party was lecturing us on how the senate was like a saucer where the piping hot liquid from the cup of the house could cool down? Good times. Good times.
If course they didn't have such an aversion six years ago. In fact they held up numerous judicial nominations. Now it isn't fair.
Ironically they always seem to start these little hullabaloos then are shocked when the other side does it.
I am sure their fondness for filibusters will return the day power shifts.
Remember when the democrat party was lecturing us on how the senate was like a saucer where the piping hot liquid from the cup of the house could cool down? Good times. Good times.
where in the constitution does it address the filibuster?
when was the filibuster inaugurated?
how often has it been changed and from what to what?
what party holds the record for filibusters in the last two decades?
cawacko
Well-known member
Why are you asking me these questions?
for the fun of it and to get them out on the thread