The filibuster has to go

If you dont understand the Senate ( a saucer for cooling legislation) is different then a simply majority like the House -you dont understand bicameral intent
 
asshole said:
If you dont understand the Senate ( a saucer for cooling legislation) is different then a simply majority like the House -you don't understand bicameral intent
Click to expand...
If you don't understand that you are a racist piece of shit defending yet another racist policy then you will always be a racist piece of shit.
 
anatta said:
If you dont understand the Senate ( a saucer for cooling legislation) is different then a simply majority like the House -you dont understand bicameral intent
Click to expand...

A cooling saucer is a far cry from "where legislation goes to die."
 
anatta said:
If you dont understand the Senate ( a saucer for cooling legislation) is different then a simply majority like the House -you dont understand bicameral intent
Click to expand...

Normally I would agree, but there is nothing in the constitution about a filibuster - it is a Senate courtesy.

But Senate Republicans rammed through a Supreme Court nominee one week before they decisively lost a national election.

When it comes to Senate courtesies, Republicans do not have a leg to stand on.
 
Cypress said:
Normally I would agree, but there is nothing in the constitution about a filibuster - it is a Senate courtesy.

But Senate Republicans rammed through a Supreme Court nominee one week before they decisively lost a national election.

When it comes to Senate courtesies, Republicans do not have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
appointments are not legislation.
a bad appointment effects the one institution, poorly rushed partisan legislation effect the whole country
 
anatta said:
appointments are not legislation.
a bad appointment effects the one institution, poorly rushed partisan legislation effect the whole country
Click to expand...
Democrats can and should treat treat Senate courtesies the same way your party did. Lifelong appointments included
 
anatta said:
If you dont understand the Senate ( a saucer for cooling legislation) is different then a simply majority like the House -you dont understand bicameral intent
Click to expand...

What does the Constitution say?

Does it say anything about needing 60 votes?

No?

So maybe it's not "we" who don't understand the Senate, maybe it's you who doesn't get it.
 
anatta said:
that's because of lack of compromise
Click to expand...

"Compromise" doesn't mean "give the Conservatives what they want even after they lost an election".


killing the filibuster just exacerbates it further, and leads to less "cooling" (compromise)
Click to expand...

Thanks to you and McConnell, we haven't had compromise in the Senate since 2015. We didn't even have it since 2009. The last "compromise" in the Senate was Medicare Part-D, and that was a disaster that Obamacare had to fix.
 
anatta said:
appointments are not legislation.
Click to expand...

So this is a standard you just invented for the purpose of your argument.

Appointments and Legislation are equal Senate business.


a bad appointment effects the one institution, poorly rushed partisan legislation effect the whole country
Click to expand...

Yup, and we saw that come to fruition the last 4 years, 2 of which were under complete Republican control.

So it would seem the institutions have already been poisoned.
 
Cypress said:
Democrats can and should treat treat Senate courtesies the same way your party did. Lifelong appointments included
Click to expand...

that's how it goes.....we treat you the way you treat us and then you treat us the way we treat you and and then we treat you the way you treat us and then you treat us.....
 
anatta said:
appointments are not legislation.
a bad appointment effects the one institution, poorly rushed partisan legislation effect the whole country
Click to expand...

Jesus this is fucking tone deaf.

Rushed judicial nominees mean partisan legislation from the bench for a generation, at least.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that's how it goes.....we treat you the way you treat us and then you treat us the way we treat you and and then we treat you the way you treat us and then you treat us.....
Click to expand...

When did the modern Democratic Party ram through a Supreme Court nominee just one week before they decisively lost a national election?
 
anatta said:
Reid started this -not Republicans -take it up with Dems
Click to expand...
Nope.

Republicans made historic, relentless, and unprecedented use of the filibuster to block Obama's appointments prior to 2013.

That form of blatant abuse of the filibuster is what opened these floodgates
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top