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

[Spamature]

I think referring to the filibuster as a defining reflection of democracy and use it over and over only to then flip flop and say it's anti-democracy 6 months later is pretty damn evil. Wouldn't you say?

The filibuster is completely anti democracy because it allows the minority to override the wishes of the majority.

But that is beside the point. As far as I am concerned it's just a political tool.

I don't think they need to touch it.

I have proposed how they can get around it.

 

[condorkristy]

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.

Again, they didn't reject anyone. He never got a vote.

They simply refused to do their job.

I'm sure you understand the difference. Like if you were to call the cops on someone. You're equating their never showing up to being the same thing as them showing up, looking at the situation and then deciding not to arrest some one. The end result is the same but in one case they didn't do their job and in the other they did their job.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

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.

This one swaps “rejection” for “consideration”…didn’t like taking a pounding in the debate….tries to start a different one….insists that the Republicans considered Obama nominees when they told him they would not consider any of his nominees.

;-)

 

[Mick]

This one swaps “rejection” for “consideration”

They aren't swaps, low IQ one. One leads into another. You must consider in order to reject. Man, I think we tripped upon the dumbest bug in the world. No one else could possibly be this "special". Ours is a special doozy.

 

[Mick]

Again, they didn't reject anyone. He never got a vote.

No vote is required. A nominee can be rejected by a simple majority declaring they oppose the nominee's nomination. Around and around we go. The dumber and dumber you appear.

They simply refused to do their job.

ike if you were to call the cops on someone. You're equating their never showing up to being the same thing as them showing up, looking at the situation and then deciding not to arrest some one. The end result is the same but in one case they didn't do their job and in the other they did their job.

Some bizarre, psychotic screed about cops now? Makes zero sense. A cop acts only if there is a threat or a crime has been committed. He won't act if none exists. The Senate only needs to act if the candidate is acceptable to their tastes. Garland was unqualified and rejected outright.

Left wing dummies abound.

 

[write on]

Intellectuals, critical thinkers, and anyone with a sense of reality, laugh at you.

 

[condorkristy]

No vote is required. A nominee can be rejected by a simple majority declaring they oppose the nominee's nomination. Around and around we go. The dumber and dumber you appear.

They simply refused to do their job.


Some bizarre, psychotic screed about cops now? Makes zero sense. A cop acts only if there is a threat or a crime has been committed. He won't act if none exists. The Senate only needs to act if the candidate is acceptable to their tastes. Garland was unqualified and rejected outright.

Left wing dummies abound.

You clearly have no understanding on how our government works.

No vote is required? Wow.

 

[write on]

You clearly have no understanding on how our government works.

No vote is required? Wow.

Wannabe fascist is their line of thought.

Edit:

[Unwelcome language removed]!

 

[write on]

I'm sure
Sinema

freaked you out BIG TIME!

lol

 

[write on]

You're Flitin' With Disaster...

 

[write on]

Sinema trying to be centric, oblivious to what the right ring will do to her.

You've heard me say, Dems are weak up against the fascism that is being laid out.

Who, of you, will speak out?

 

[middleview]

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?

and when did the senate vote on garland? One person decided he would not get a vote.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

They aren't swaps, low IQ one. One leads into another. You must consider in order to reject. Man, I think we tripped upon the dumbest bug in the world. No one else could possibly be this "special". Ours is a special doozy.

This one now stoops to post editing. A truly desperate Trump cultist, searching for some dishonest gambit to salve his wounds…but nothing’s working….

;-)

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

and when did the senate vote on garland? One person decided he would not get a vote.

Not only did Garland not get a vote…Moscow Mitch and his fellow GOP swine told Obama not to bother sending any SCOTUS nominee since none would be considered. Still, lying GOP cultists insist that the GOP fulfilled its constitutional duty to consider nominees.

Deplorable!

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The filibuster is completely anti democracy because it allows the minority to override the wishes of the majority.

But that is beside the point. As far as I am concerned it's just a political tool.

I don't think they need to touch it.

I have proposed how they can get around it.

This is not, and never was, a "democracy" - it is a representative republic.

 

[Mick]

and when did the senate vote on garland? One person decided he would not get a vote.

There is no requirement to bring anything or anyone to "a vote". The Constitution simply requires the "consent" of the Senate. The entire majority of the judiciary committee, who holds hearings, unanimously rejected his nomination and declined hearings. There were 52 senators who came out and publicly supported no hearings. Garland didn't have the consent of the Senate.

Around and around we go. Edited

Edited.

 

[Spamature]

This is not, and never was, a "democracy" - it is a representative republic.

View attachment 63733

We are a kind of democracy.
Google definition.

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.


It's not germane to the discussion anyway.

 

[Bronwyn]

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.

Sorry but that crap didn't fly. The democrat attempt to take over voting rights got flushed as it should have been.

 

[Spamature]

Sorry but that crap didn't fly. The democrat attempt to take over voting rights got flushed as it should have been.

We'll see what flies.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

We are a kind of democracy.
Google definition.

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.


It's not germane to the discussion anyway.

Then why did you bring it up?