Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tue Dec 6, 2016, 02:43 PMStarbuck2239 (25 posts)A chance to confirm Merrick Garland on January 3rd?From Crooks & Liars:"David Waldman (KagroX on Twitter) has outlined how they can confirm Judge Merrick Garland on January 3rd for the few minutes that they will be the majority in the Senate. Waldman is a long-standing expert on Senate procedure and political plays. He was one of the first to call for passage of the ACA via reconciliation in the Senate after Scott Brown was elected."On January 3, 2017, Democrats will hold the majority in the Senate for a few minutes, until the newly-elected Senators are sworn in. Biden could convene the Senate in those few minutes and call for a vote. The majority could then suspend the rules and vote in Merrick Garland."The key here is that VP Biden would have to be willing to convene the Senate and recognize Senator Dick Durbin instead of Mitch McConnell. Durbin moves to re-nominate Garland, and Senate Democrats then vote to confirm him. They will have a quorum for those few minutes."It's bold. Garland would be confirmed by 34 Democrats and no Republicans. It will certainly enrage Republicans, but they're already enraged and full of hubris about how they're going to screw Democrats anyway, so what do they really have to lose?"Not much. It takes courage. It takes a resolve to do what's right for this country, to reclaim the Supreme Court nomination Republicans think they stole from us. It takes backbone."Here's where the rubber meets the road. We're not talking about "comity" anymore. We're talking about conviction and confirmation."http://crooksandliars.com/2016/12/senate-democrats-have-one-shot-saving
Response to Starbuck2239 (Original post)Tue Dec 6, 2016, 02:46 PMStar Member progressoid (39,129 posts)1. Heh.That would be a nice way to start the year.
Response to Starbuck2239 (Original post)Tue Dec 6, 2016, 02:47 PMStar Member Ninga (5,319 posts)2. Balls. That's what it takes. Mich McConnell has no problem referring to his. Nt
Response to Starbuck2239 (Original post)Tue Dec 6, 2016, 03:27 PMStar Member Old Vet (1,038 posts)4. If anyone thinks the repubs wouldnt do the same..........You got another thing coming. They play take a no holds barred approach like we should.
Response to Starbuck2239 (Original post)Tue Dec 6, 2016, 03:36 PMbucolic_frolic (4,003 posts)6. Swing for the fencesI'm still not clear what they're talking about ... Dems will have themajority for a few minutes ... the minority party traditionallyopens the session?Sadly, Merrick Garland is a solid nominee. He's been a pawn in the GOPend game, and undeservedly so. We do not in this society treat ourbest and brightest who have risen through merit to the top of theirprofession to such schoolyard brawls.But if you're going to play hardball the way puddin' puss Mitch McConnellhas played it, you can't be surprised if the other team brings a baseballbat.
Response to Starbuck2239 (Original post)Tue Dec 6, 2016, 03:39 PMMichMary (63 posts)7. I'm not getting itSorry. But the R's currently have 54 seats, so I'm assuming that the outgoing Senators won't be there, correct?? But, even without them, the filibuster is still in place for SC nominees. All that needs to happen is for one of the R's to announce a filibuster, which will last until the new Senate is sworn in, and they are back in the majority.What am I missing.
Response to MichMary (Reply #7)Tue Dec 6, 2016, 03:45 PMbucolic_frolic (4,003 posts)8. I think this stealth strategy is best kept under wrapsthe element of surprise
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028334823#post21Response to flamingdem (Original post)Tue Dec 6, 2016, 01:49 PMbucolic_frolic (4,003 posts)21. Void the election, do-over in 2017They're doing it in North Carolina
Response to Starbuck2239 (Original post)Tue Dec 6, 2016, 04:05 PMStar Member The Wielding Truth (9,299 posts)12. Do it! We cannot let them usurp Pres. appointment power.
We cannot let them usurp Pres. appointment power.
MichMary (64 posts) 7. I'm not getting itSorry. But the R's currently have 54 seats, so I'm assuming that the outgoing Senators won't be there, correct?? But, even without them, the filibuster is still in place for SC nominees. All that needs to happen is for one of the R's to announce a filibuster, which will last until the new Senate is sworn in, and they are back in the majority. What am I missing.
To quote Frank, oh my!Crazy Robert's Rules of Order parliamentary tricks? Go for it DUmmies! It will backfire in a big way if you even attempted it.Garlandmas will not happen. Dream on.
Ted Kennedy is the only person with an actual confirmed kill in the war on women.
What in the hell is this DUmbass braying about?There is no point in time in which the Democrats will have a majority of Senators.
Response to Starbuck2239 (Original post)Tue Dec 6, 2016, 04:40 PMMichMary (66 posts) 17. Can we do thatif the nomination hasn't made it through the committee?
Apparently just before the new senators are sworn in there will be 34 rats and 33 republicans. They want Joe Biden to call the Senate into session right before the new Senators are sworn in, and then push through the nomination. It makes no sense whatsoever, because at that point there are either 100 Senators from the senate or zero in the new Senate. It might be the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
A chance for Jukin to make mad love to 1968 Raquel Welch........
