REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITES

And apparently lying to the public is just fine, in pursuit of advancing their position.

I guess expecting senators to keep their word is just too much to ask.

 

WTF are you talking about? "during Garland" the dems were the minority party in the Senate. They didn't have the power to "nuke the SCOTUS filibuster".

And as an aside, the filibuster threshold was 60 votes for a long time, not 2/3 majority. You're confused on several points of fact.

 

"The other side does it' is not a defense of Republican's EPIC hypocrisy.

And cruelty, they are trying to repeal the ACA.

 

Then why didn't they nuke the SCOTUS filibuster when the nuked the circuit court filibuster?

Why? I will tell you why, because for SCOTUS appointments, whose rulings affect us all and cannot be taken to a higher court, democrats believed that such appointments should not be decided by one side, that such appointments whose importance is of such a magnitude that the vote should be bipartisan, they let the 2/3 majority rule stand.

But republicans don't give a damn, it's all about naked power. Will of the people, be damned.

They are EPIC HYPOCRITES. There is NO counter argument, period.

 

Did someone complain about "hypocrisy"?

 

Five minutes ago you thought they had the power to do it "during Garland" and were simply exercising restraint, so you'll probably understand if we don't believe a word you say about why they didn't do it in 2013.

The simple answer to your question is: Because there were no SCOTUS vacancies to fill. That's the only reason. There was no high-mindedness about the importance of allowing the opposition party a say. They were using the f***ing nuclear option specifically to eliminate the opposition party's input.

 

And I've already corrected you once on this point. It wasn't a 2/3 majority. It was 60 votes. I'd recommend you review some basic civics.

 

That's Donald Trump and leadership to you, pal. No more bending over and grabbing the ankles to Democrats.

Thank you, Harry Reid

 

A timeline error, so what. Dems could have nuked it but they didn't, proving they wanted 2/3 to stand on SCOTUS appointments.

If Dems wanted to nuke the filibuster, they could have. If they weren't high minded, they would have because it sure as hell would have been in the party's interest to do so.

THey nuked the filibuster for bench appointments precisely because fed judges were being overworked, the judgeships needed to be filled , it was in America's interest to fill them,
and Republicans were blocking their appointments merely for partisan reasons, there was NO other reason for them do it.

The reason Reid nuked it was because of hundreds of vacancies, it was in America's interest.

Repubs nuked it for SCOTUS, that is one vacancy but there was no urgency since Garland was qualified. They nuked it NOT because of America's interest, but their party's interest.

With repubs, all the way down the line, it's always about power, their agenda, it's NEVER about the will of the people.

the will of the people is as follows:


2,868,676 more votes were cast for a democrat president in 2016, 17,537,638 more votes were cast for democrats in the senate in 2018, and 9,710,275 more votes were cast for democrats in the house in 2018 (a historical record). Biden is ahead nationally by several points. These incontrovertible facts prove that democrats, overall, have the message that the public favors

But, of course, republicans do not give a hoot. It's all about naked power and the will of the people be damned.

 

Okay, 60 votes. A detail, BFD. THat doesn't change the premise that with 60 votes input from the other side was required on SCOTUS votes, a position held by dems, but not repubs.

 

Have you noticed that you seem to make a lot of factual errors? I have.


Speaking of which, do you understand why this:

Isn't a good indicator of anything? Or do I need to explain that to you as well?

 

The people did not elect him

 

Yes they did. Have you heard of the Electoral College and how that works? With direct popular vote, NY and California and NJ would always pick the POTUS, leaving all others with no representation. Our Founding fathers were wise to prevent mob rule.

 

My point is the blatant hypocrisy between what they said in 2016 and what they're saying and doing now. I never said it was in any way illegal. Just very dishonorable, but that's what I've come to expect from Trump's GOP.

 

They are just taking her advice!

 

If you're okay with the complete lack of comprehension on the meaning of the word, that's on you.

 

Just trying to explain a word that so many righties don't understand.

 

Je suis d'accord.

 

That literally means the people didn’t elect him.

 

We elected those that did.

 

You elected the electors?
No you didn’t

Basic civics please, is that too much to ask?

 

So how did they get the positions? And you should talk, you dont seem to understand the popular vote is not how it works.

 

So is it safe to say you're point is also the blatant hypocrisy between what the democrats said in 2016 and what they are saying and doing now?

You do get that right?

 

"I'll take two scoops of the double dipped hypocrisy please"...

 

I understand perfectly how the EC works — you are the one that keeps saying the voters chose this when over 6 million more of them voted against it than voted for it.

That you believe the electors are voted in by the people is even more of a failure to understand basic civics.