Discussion for article #247630
we must bow to our NRA and NFIB mastersâŚ
2 Likes
The only lame duck around here is YOU bud.
I wonder if that man can turn off at will his facility for pathological lying when he goes to spend time with his family, or whether he needs a three day intensive boot camp with a dominatrix first?
2 Likes
I find it really interesting that Yertle would prefer to potentially sacrifice his majority in the Senate just to appear to hold the line for the teabaggers. That SCOTUS is seen by the 'baggers as being more important to defend (social issues?) than the Senate is something I donât quite understand from a tactical point of view but, oh well.
1 Like
McConnell Dismisses Idea Of Lame Duck Confirmation Of Garland
⌠âI cannot imagine that the Republican-majority Senate, even if it were soon to be a minority, would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left,â he said.
Thatâs actually a bit less adamant than I expected. The truth is McConnell canât publicly entertain the idea that the GOP might not win the Presidency or retain the Senate next year without getting accused of being a Rino sellout intent on betraying the party. Therefore, McConnell canât entertain the idea of confirming Garland in the post-election lame duck period either.
McConnell and the GOP Senate will change their tune pretty quick once theyâre faced with another Democratic President and a Democratic Senate majority.
4 Likes
When host George Stephanopoulos reminded McConnell that âthe peopleâ elected President Barack Obama, McConnell said the electorate was different in 2012.
âThe last time the American people voted was in 2014 and they elected a Republican Senate,â McConnell said.
I agree with McConnell. I mean, there are 24 republican senators who havenât faced the electorate since 2010. They should not be allowed to vote on any bills, or participate in any confirmation hearings, until after their seats have been voted on in November.
Whatâs that you say? There are now only 30 Republican Senators who can vote and 34 Democratic? Well, those are your rulesâŚ
14 Likes
Given the demographics and the number of GOP-held Senate seats up for grabs this year, I suspect McConnell knows Republicans arenât going to hold the Senate majority next year anyway,
So, possibly, itâs not really that much of a sacrifice.
3 Likes
The problem here is that McConnell isnât guaranteeing that any nominee who might conceivably move the court to the left will ever get a vote in a Republican-controlled Senate.
Theyâll stonewall, forever if necessary. If they lose the Senate, theyâll filibuster. They will fight this to the deaths of the 8 remaining members of the Supreme Court, if necessary.
Itâs gonna get really ugly.
3 Likes
Let them reject Garland. Then when Hillary wins and the Democrats take the Senate back it becomes payback time. Kill the filibuster, Kill the 60 vote threshold, Kill the secret holds, Kill the blue slips on Federal judges and then look at the tears streaming down olâ Mitchâs face when he canât stop Hillary from putting Obama on the Court! And for an added dose of payback, the Democrats expand the size of the courtâŚ
2 Likes
Could we maybe please not write stories and headlines that validate the Republican attempt to redefine âlame duckâ to mean âthe last year in officeâ rather than âbetween election day and the inaugurationâ as that term has been traditionally understood for, well, since the term was first used?
14 Likes
âmost of my members are comfortableââŚshould read "âmost of my members are comfortable with doing nothing. Itâs what has been going on for 7+ years.â
None of this makes any sense.
âI cannot imagine that the Republican-majority Senate, even if it were soon to be a minority, would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left,â he said.
Sure. Theyâd rather watch the incoming Democratic-majority Senate move the court even further to the âleftâ. This is the kind of obvious lie you tell to establish your bona fides with an electorate that is crazy enough to demand it, and stupid enough to believe it.
âThe last time the American people voted was in 2014 and they elected a Republican Senate,â McConnell said.
So, I guess the implication is that the Presidency has a four-year term? Or that we have somehow mutated into a parliamentary system? Itâs a point that has already been made many times, but how do these jagoffs keep a straight face when they claim to be constitution originalists?
6 Likes
It seems every media outlet has a template ready that reads: "McConnell Dismisses (fill in the blank)."
2 Likes
This is maybe the most infuriating and dangerous thing Sen. Yurtle has done. Heâs accepting and setting a precedent that allows the Senate to refuse to do their job during the campaign season under this false narrative of âletting the voters chooseâ, even though they have. This will be used by both parties from now on. No controversial work will be done by the Senate once parties start campaigning. With the perpetual campaign season, this artificial deadline will only expand.
If ever we needed proof that the republicans are not interested in governing, this is it.
2 Likes
Seconded.
It rankles. Itâs nothing but their expression of puerile impatience. Both the GOP/Teatrolls and much of the MSM have wanted to openly render and call Obama powerless since November 8, 2004, and waiting another couple of months is just too much of an ask.
This refusal did not seem categorical ⌠this soulless sack of protoplasm will whistle a different tune if a GOP loss looks imminent. Garland seems like a decent man but I would pull his nomination the day before the election. The only way this can be made into an inducement for the GOP is to make that abundantly and publicly clear and maybe some action would be taken before the election.
In other words, people never choose, regardless of before or after the election. He wonât let them. Itâs he who chooses, according to his constitution.
No hell deep enough for this man and his politics.
Never known one that can.
1 Like