New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Kyrsten Sinema: Dems hypocritical for trying to end filibuster after using it 'just last year'

Mick

The Right is always right
"To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority?" Sinema wrote in The Post.

"This question is less about the immediate results from any of these Democratic or Republican goals," she continued. "t is the likelihood of repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty, deepening divisions and further eroding Americans’ confidence in our government."

Kyrsten Sinema: Dems hypocritical for trying to end filibuster after using it 'just last year' | Fox News


Does the hypocritical trash have anything to say for themselves?
 

RickWA

Senator
"To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority?" Sinema wrote in The Post.

"This question is less about the immediate results from any of these Democratic or Republican goals," she continued. "t is the likelihood of repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty, deepening divisions and further eroding Americans’ confidence in our government."

Kyrsten Sinema: Dems hypocritical for trying to end filibuster after using it 'just last year' | Fox News


Does the hypocritical trash have anything to say for themselves?
You owe “hypocritical trash” the world over an apology for likening it to the unrepentant putrid filth that soils this cesspool…err…forum…
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
She's right.

Of course the GOP is rather hypocritical for not giving Garland a hearing for the Supreme Court due to the time left in a President's term 5 years ago or whenever and the rushing through a nomination when the sitting president was of a different party with less time left.

Plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

It may be time to just end the filibuster and let the chips fall where they may. At least we'd get some up or down votes instead of only voting on things that are sure to pass or voting on things just to embarrass the other side.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
"To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority?" Sinema wrote in The Post.

"This question is less about the immediate results from any of these Democratic or Republican goals," she continued. "t is the likelihood of repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty, deepening divisions and further eroding Americans’ confidence in our government."

Kyrsten Sinema: Dems hypocritical for trying to end filibuster after using it 'just last year' | Fox News


Does the hypocritical trash have anything to say for themselves?
GOP election-riggers snicker at such idiocy.

BTW, I don’t see the word “hypocritical” in that quote. Are you lying…again?

;-)
 

Mick

The Right is always right
She's right.

Of course the GOP is rather hypocritical for not giving Garland a hearing for the Supreme Court due to the time left in a President's term 5 years ago or whenever and the rushing through a nomination when the sitting president was of a different party with less time left.

Plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
Garland didn't have the advice and consent of the Senate as is required by the Constitution in order to take a seat on the SCOTUS. The entire majority of the judiciary committee (who hold hearings) signed a letter rejecting his nomination and at least 52 Senators rejected his nomination publicly. Coney-Barrett did have the approval of the entire majority of the judiciary committee and the majority of the Senate.

Maybe Obama should nominate qualified judges that have a chance at being confirmed? Derp.

It may be time to just end the filibuster and let the chips fall where they may.
But it wasn't time when Trump was President? How come? Hypocrisy and evil among the left?
 

Mick

The Right is always right
GOP election-riggers snicker at such idiocy.
Like the corrupt group that spread conspiracies and lies in cahoots with big tech about one candidate while covering up true, potentially damaging stories on theirs?

Or the ones that don't want voters to prove their identity or the ones screeching about dead people being taken off voter rolls?

Your brain is jello. Keep bashing against that rubber wall, fruitcake!

BTW, I don’t see the word “hypocritical” in that quote. Are you lying…again?
Who said it was "quote" special needs? It was AFTER the link.

Definition of hypocritical: "characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel"

Is using the filibuster a few months ago but now claiming it's democracy if not removed the definition of hypocritical? Yes or no?

I don't expect a straight answer from the insane one. He knows the sickness that pervades his thoughts.

:D
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Garland didn't have the advice and consent of the Senate as is required by the Constitution in order to take a seat on the SCOTUS. The entire majority of the judiciary committee (who hold hearings) signed a letter rejecting his nomination and at least 52 Senators rejected his nomination publicly. Coney-Barrett did have the approval of the entire majority of the judiciary committee and the majority of the Senate.

Maybe Obama should nominate qualified judges that have a chance at being confirmed? Derp.



But it wasn't time when Trump was President? How come? Hypocrisy and evil among the left?
You make me laugh.

Garland didn't get a hearing or a vote. There was no "rejection" by the Judiciary committee because they never considered his nomination.

If so, please show me the up and down vote.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Like the corrupt group that spread conspiracies and lies in cahoots with big tech about one candidate while covering up true, potentially damaging stories on theirs?

Or the ones that don't want voters to prove their identity or the ones screeching about dead people being taken off voter rolls?

Your brain is jello. Keep bashing against that rubber wall, fruitcake!



Who said it was "quote" special needs? It was AFTER the link.

Definition of hypocritical: "characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel"

Is using the filibuster a few months ago but now claiming it's democracy if not removed the definition of hypocritical? Yes or no?

I don't expect a straight answer from the insane one. He knows the sickness that pervades his thoughts.

:D
Yep. You lied. Yet again.

I graciously accept your concession.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
You make me laugh.

Garland didn't get a hearing or a vote. There was no "rejection" by the Judiciary committee because they never considered his nomination.

If so, please show me the up and down vote.
In Trumplandia, not voting is voting. Announcing that no Obama nominees will be considered means Obama nominees will be considered.

Trumplandia - a strange, eerie place where the winds blow foul.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
You make me laugh.

Garland didn't get a hearing or a vote. There was no "rejection" by the Judiciary committee because they never considered his nomination.
They REJECTED the nomination, simple mind. Examples....

"My colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have already given our advice and consent on this issue: we will not have any hearings or votes on President Obama’s pick," said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a member of the Judiciary Committee. "Any meeting with any nominee put forward by President Obama would only be a waste of the Senate’s time."

"A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination......" Grassley said.


52 Senators came out and publicly opposed to having hearings. That's not consent. Apparently you don't understand what the requirement for "advice and consent" of the Senate means. Not surprising. Most left wingers are stupid as all get out. That's why most of you are welfare moochers and hate America.

If so, please show me the up and down vote.
The Constitution says nothing about an "up and down vote". It says a nominee must have the "consent" of the Senate. Garland did not have that. No bill, no nominee......is ever owed a hearing if it's rejected outright as inadequate by the Senate majority. Garland was rejected. Facts matter. Left wing mental illness does not.

And it looks like you dropped the asinine claim that "now might be time" to dump the filibuster because you couldn't bring yourself to say this is a two way street and it would have held a year ago, two years ago as well. Notice how Republicans didn't nuke it? You could learn a thing or two. Ouch. It's called being stupid and hypocritical. Take a good look in the mirror.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
They REJECTED the nomination, simple mind. Examples....

"My colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have already given our advice and consent on this issue: we will not have any hearings or votes on President Obama’s pick," said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a member of the Judiciary Committee. "Any meeting with any nominee put forward by President Obama would only be a waste of the Senate’s time."

"A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination......" Grassley said.


52 Senators came out and publicly opposed to having hearings. That's not consent. Apparently you don't understand what the requirement for "advice and consent" of the Senate means. Not surprising. Most left wingers are stupid as all get out. That's why most of you are welfare moochers and hate America.



The Constitution says nothing about an "up and down vote". It says a nominee must have the "consent" of the Senate. Garland did not have that. No bill, no nominee......is ever owed a hearing if it's rejected outright as inadequate by the Senate majority. Garland was rejected. Facts matter. Left wing mental illness does not.

And it looks like you dropped the asinine claim that "now might be time" to dump the filibuster because you couldn't bring yourself to say this is a two way street and it would have held a year ago, two years ago as well. Notice how Republicans didn't nuke it? You could learn a thing or two. Ouch. It's called being stupid and hypocritical. Take a good look in the mirror.
I said he didn't get a hearing.
I was right.

The senate was refusing to do it's job. That isn't "rejecting" anyone...that is just partisan laziness. You should learn the difference. Being daft and hypocritical are not admirable qualities and you shouldn't be so proud to have them.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Which the Constitution does not require. It does require the consent of the Senate, however, which he did not have because 52 Senators rejected his nomination outright.

Man, are you dumb or what?

ROFL
So if the Senate never appointed another justice and the current 9 all died...what then? Thinking that by not doing their job that they are doing their job is, simply put, dumb.

What is the check on the Senate just slowly obliterating the courts by never appointing another federal judge? Please tell us.

Your hilarious attempt to sound intelligent has just caused us to take part in the board's longest pass time...laughing our ass off at you.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
They REJECTED the nomination, simple mind. Examples....

"My colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have already given our advice and consent on this issue: we will not have any hearings or votes on President Obama’s pick," said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a member of the Judiciary Committee. "Any meeting with any nominee put forward by President Obama would only be a waste of the Senate’s time."

"A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination......" Grassley said.


52 Senators came out and publicly opposed to having hearings. That's not consent. Apparently you don't understand what the requirement for "advice and consent" of the Senate means. Not surprising. Most left wingers are stupid as all get out. That's why most of you are welfare moochers and hate America.



The Constitution says nothing about an "up and down vote". It says a nominee must have the "consent" of the Senate. Garland did not have that. No bill, no nominee......is ever owed a hearing if it's rejected outright as inadequate by the Senate majority. Garland was rejected. Facts matter. Left wing mental illness does not.

And it looks like you dropped the asinine claim that "now might be time" to dump the filibuster because you couldn't bring yourself to say this is a two way street and it would have held a year ago, two years ago as well. Notice how Republicans didn't nuke it? You could learn a thing or two. Ouch. It's called being stupid and hypocritical. Take a good look in the mirror.
In Trumplandia, the Senate considers SCOTUS nominees by refusing to consider them.
 

Spamature

President
"To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority?" Sinema wrote in The Post.

"This question is less about the immediate results from any of these Democratic or Republican goals," she continued. "t is the likelihood of repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty, deepening divisions and further eroding Americans’ confidence in our government."

Kyrsten Sinema: Dems hypocritical for trying to end filibuster after using it 'just last year' | Fox News


Does the hypocritical trash have anything to say for themselves?
This is why they should build a new agency that is so embedded in election integrity that wingers by their very nature can't win in elections through their usual deceit, dishonesty, and rule flouting.

They very idea of such an entity would have them scuttling back under their rocks.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
This is why they should build a new agency that is so embedded in election integrity that wingers by their very nature can't win in elections through their usual deceit, dishonesty, and rule flouting.
What does the Russian collusion hoax have to do with the filibuster and Dem's trying to get rid of it after using it over and over and claiming it was a good thing? That Dems are evil? Well, hell, any moral human being realizes that.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
In Trumplandia, the Senate considers SCOTUS nominees by refusing to consider them.
In the brain of a mentally ill bug is straight up rejection not "considering". Keep banging that bug brain against the rubber wall!

Low IQ saps.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
So if the Senate never appointed another justice and the current 9 all died...what then? Thinking that by not doing their job that they are doing their job is, simply put, dumb.

What is the check on the Senate just slowly obliterating the courts by never appointing another federal judge? Please tell us.
What does this have to do with GARLAND being rejected? So rejecting a nominee means they can never accept one? No wonder left wingers are so mentally sick. Your posts make no sense and are as dumb and illogical as hell.

Your hilarious attempt to sound intelligent has just caused us to take part in the board's longest pass time...laughing our ass off at you.
I don't need to be "hilarious". Your dumb posts provide us with enough humor.
 

Spamature

President
What does the Russian collusion hoax have to do with the filibuster and Dem's trying to get rid of it after using it over and over and claiming it was a good thing? That Dems are evil? Well, hell, any moral human being realizes that.
The Dems aren't evil, they just aren't playing hardball with your ilk.
Half of the GOPers would likely retire rather than run in an honest election.
 
Top