Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Looks like they're gonna do it

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 11:16

It's true in physics and in politics: For every action, there's an opposite and equal reaction. And so after Senate Republican filibustered President Obama's nominees to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- not on concerns about ideology or qualifications, but over the president's ability to appoint ANYONE to these vacancies -- Senate Democrats are poised to change the rules via the so-called "nuclear option." And while this may seem like a threat you've heard before, this time it seems as if there isn't any deal that will derail this likely action. Senate Democratic aides confirm to First Read that they're expected to vote today to change the rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for all executive appointments, except to the U.S. Supreme Court. Such a move requires just a 51-vote majority, so Democrats could lose four of their colleagues and still win the vote. Senate Republicans counter that if Democrats go through with this change, they'll reciprocate the next time they control the White House and the Senate -- including for Supreme Court picks. "If [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said yesterday, per the Washington Post. But Harry Reid believes he does have 51 votes, especially since he convinced Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to climb on board this nuke-option train. She had been an influential holdout in the past.

end quote

Personally, I think the President has the constitutional duty to nominate federal judges, and the Senate has the constitutional duty to confirm or deny them. But the Senate does not have the right, duty, or standing to filibuster dozens of nominations just for political nonsense.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

I think it's fine...just no whining when there is a republican in the White House.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

I am flummoxed by the graphic. I hadn't realized the full horror of Republican obstructionism until today. If not treasonous, then seditious behavior and surely unConstitutional. I don't include Senate Rules as part of the Constitution.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Exactly what Marshall said. Obstructionists who deserve the 9% approval rating they have.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Just do it, already. I'll never understand whey the Dems have constantly rolled over and have done so for years. Money controls all.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Well, they did it.

"The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn on Thursday, when Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.

The rule change means federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote super majority that has been required for more than two centuries."


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Harry's playing with fire.

He's going to get burned.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

kinda tit for tat isn't it? They did it to us so we do it to them.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

No. Harry's not playing with fire at all. I wondered what was taking him so long. It's your T-party buddies who are playing with fire. Harry is just trying to keep the government on track. There's really very little to lose since the republicans would have been able to the same thing if they ever regained the majority.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Keeping in mind that when the filibustered, long-delayed nominations are finally brought up for a vote, its unanimous or 97:2 kinds of votes. So even the senators filibustering the candidates know that they're qualified and vote for them, after delaying for 6 months.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is the incubator for Supreme Court justices... Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Elena Kagan would have served there had Republicans not blocked her nomination.

I'm sure that has not gone by unnoticed, though I don't think articulated in any big way - yet, in GOP circles. Did hear some yammerings about packing the court. (Like they wouldn't given half a chance!)


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

They did it...it's finally time they stood up to the Tea Party anarchists. Now the Republicans are reacting by threatening: "When we're in power in the Senate, then you can't do all the obstructionism we're been up to." It's not a very convincing argument since, when Democrats are in the minority, they don't go to the absurd lengths that conservatives do in blocking appointments. Sure, there have been such tactics by Democrats in the past, but it's a matter of extent. The misbehavior by a significant portion of Senate Republicans over the last several years has been in a whole new category of disruption of the legislative process.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

  • Posted by rosie NE Georgia 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 18:13

There's nothing tit for tat here. Conservatives who want to blame someone for this should blame themselves. The GOP/TP really no longer knows where to stop its abuses of power, and, even more appalling, why.

How dare the GOP threaten the nation with a nuclear response because we finally did what we always could have to stop a small part of the abuses of power that have become their SOP? They should be glad.

This change ONLY eliminates the use of the filibuster against "most presidential nominees," so the president can do that part of the job he's supposed to do. Would the GOP show such restraint if this situation were reversed?

As for being afraid, yes, the thought of what today's GOP would do if it could is frightening. But today's GOP has virtually no chance of gaining control of both the Senate AND the presidency. We all know why.

Tomorrow's? Well, I personally have been waiting over 20 years for the remnants of the Grand Old Party it to reject the extremists, hatemongers and now government-haters that have come to define it. I've always been disappointed, though, and never more so than these days.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

The filibuster rule has been in place for 225 years. A true blow to democracy today. It was wrong when the republicans tried it in 2005, and it is wrong today.

In 2005, Then-Sen. Barack Obama Called For His Colleagues Considering The Nuclear Option To Think About “Protecting Free And Democratic Debate.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country. I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate.” (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Floor

Click Here To Watch

Obama: “If They Choose To Change The Rules And Put An End To Democratic Debate, Then The Fighting, The Bitterness, And The Gridlock Will Only Get Worse.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

Obama: “It Certainly Is Not What The Patriots Who Founded This Democracy Had In Mind. We Owe The People Who Sent Us Here More Than That.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe. These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

In 2005, Biden Called The Nuclear Option The “Single Most Significant Vote” In His “32 Years In The Senate” And “An Example Of The Arrogance Of Power.” SEN. JOE BIDEN: “Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I have not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I have been here for over three decades. This is the single most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate. I suspect the Senator would agree with that. We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party, propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It is nothing more or nothing less. … We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 5/23/05)

Biden: “I Pray God When The Democrats Take Back Control, We Don’t Make The Kind Of Naked Power Grab You Are Doing.” BIDEN: “Isn’t what is really going on here that the majority does not want to hear what others have to say, even if it is the truth? Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said: You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. But I am afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

And it goes on. You reap what you sow.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

mrskjun-
We finally agree on something..."You reap what you sow." This is the bitter harvest for the Republicans.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

kudzu, I think the bitter harvest won't be on the part of Republicans. I'm actually glad the dems did this.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

MrsK today @ 11:24:

I think it's fine...just no whining when there is a republican in the White House.

MrsK today at 18:19:

It was wrong when the republicans tried it in 2005, and it is wrong today

What happened? You were for it before you were against it?


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Next talking point up - "This is a mere distraction from Obamacare".


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

No jill, I think it's wrong for either party to do it. I'm just glad it was the dems who get to pay the price for undoing 225 years of democracy on the senate floor. Now they are simply the second house of reps.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Well, maybe if the GOP hadn't filibustered, for no apparent reason other than obstruct the function of government, 82 nominees, this wouldn't have happened.

And now, just you watch. Obama is going to trot out and find the most liberal, corporate-hating, socio-commie muslim Kenyan born judges and RAM THEM DOWN OUR THROATZ !!@!!!!

Picture of Harry Reid dealing with unprecedented GOP obstructionism:


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

  • Posted by rosie NE Georgia 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 19:19

That was Rush's exact line earlier today when he promised his listeners that it wouldn't happen and was just the biggest, desperate attempt yet to distract them from healthcare.

DH looked to see what form his foaming was taking and found a transcript that was removed from his site but saved in Google's cache. On his site now is a replacement "they did it" broadcast.

Link to the first broadcast below just for anyone who wants it, but it's repetitive and boring. And, of course, in the end no more wrong than his usual.

Here is a link that might be useful: Democrats Distract Us with Nuclear Option


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

well, if the dims don't think this will bite them in the ass, they are dimmer than imagined! Typical knee jerk reaction, its what they do best. Oh well


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

No jill, I think it's wrong for either party to do it.

Oh so when you said:

I think it's fine...

You meant it's wrong?

You shouldn't wonder why those darn liberals don't understand you.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

I fail to see how it's going to "bite the dems in the ass". AGAIN, I point out that the option would also available to the republicans if they could manage to win an election and they would not hesitate to use it if they only could.

The roadblock on nominations is lifted and finally the president can nominate judges which is an important part of his job.

The republicans got exactly what they asked for - they taunted and taunted and the democrats called their bluff.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

'Round and 'round the cobbler's bench... (the appropriate nursery rhyme music as accompaniment.)


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Do nothing idiots & their endless obstructions !


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

  • Posted by rosie NE Georgia 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 20:48

Well, I understand my unhappiness when some victory by the far right was dragging us farther into a national decline, so I can project that at least.

And they've had so many disappointments over the past several years. Now, right on top of seeing Obamacare roll out there's another big one: They're going to lose the effective 9-5 conservative majority on the DC Appellate Court they had created by obstructing the president's right to appoint judges.

Cheer up. In a hopelessly complex world, there will be wins somewhere for the GOP in this. I'll have to wait to read about them because the only one that comes to mind now is that it's one less way they'll be alienating the electorate, but I'm sure more satisfying ones will turn up.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Another graph -

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Posted by demifloyd 8 (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 13:44

Harry's playing with fire.

He's going to get burned.

Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 14:24

No. Harry's not playing with fire at all. I wondered what was taking him so long. It's your T-party buddies who are playing with fire. Harry is just trying to keep the government on track. There's really very little to lose since the republicans would have been able to the same thing if they ever regained the majority.

*
Jerzeegirl for your information I don't have any "tea party buddies."

Define yourself, do not falsely define me and my affiliations.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

mrskjun-
"undoing 225 years of democracy"? It used to take 67 votes for cloture, but in 1975 that was changed to 60 votes. Now it's a simple majority. The Senate is a dynamic institution, and now they've made a change to deal with unprecedented obstructionism. Let's not get ourselves too wrapped up in the flag about this.

All the dire threats from Republicans is just so much sour grapes. They got called on their misbehavior and they don't like it.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

That chart and graph are unreal. I knew it was bad , but the obstruction is crazy. This is not the way a democracy is run. It's about time.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

"That chart and graph are unreal. I knew it was bad , but the obstruction is crazy. This is not the way a democracy is run. It's about time."

Maybe that chart reveals the polarity that someone like Obama brings to the table.

I have this nagging thought that you need to be careful about "forcing down people's throats" radical ideas that come down to just a few votes to happen. Especially when it delineates along party lines. There's a danger in that.

In that vein, I think, too, that it's too easy for a small, determined group to ram through their favorite legislation while the rest of us take our naps and we shouldn't be making it easier for that to happen.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

I have this nagging thought that you need to be careful about "forcing down people's throats" radical ideas that come down to just a few votes to happen. Especially when it delineates along party lines. There's a danger in that.

*

As usual, you call it hay.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

"undoing 225 years of democracy"?

"forcing down people's throats"

OK, let's make up our minds, folks. Is a majority vote (51%) an example of "undoing" democracy? Or is it an example of "forcing down people's throats?

Our country is built on the idea of majority votes (51% or higher). Since when did it become undemocratic to practice majority votes?

Why is extreme obstructionism viewed as somehow more democratic? That makes no sense. If the majority opposes that extreme obstructionism, is the majority "forcing" their views down the minority's throats? I just can't figure out how the minority view can be considered the majority view and therefore imposing the minority view on the majority is somehow NOT forcing the minority view down the majority's throat! If the minority view prevails, how can that be considered a democratic vote?

As far as the filibuster is concerned, why is a majority vote of 60% more democratic than a majority vote of 51%?

Of course, the real problem arguing such ideas with Republicans is that they are split on the issue and don't even know it. The T-party Repubs do NOT believe in "democracy"--they actively OPPOSE that idea (which is why they carry on and on about USA being a Republic--meaning that it is NOT a democracy.) But conservative Repubs claim they do believe in democracy. I wish their right hand would talk to their left hand (biblical metaphor for mrsK) so that Repubs would not speak with a forked tongue.

Let's face it, obstructionism (like the filibuster and other tactics) is the ploy of the MINORITY WILL trying to force its beliefs down the throat of the democratic MAJORITY.

Kate


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

I think the Obama sees the writing on the wall. If he wants to get any of his radical agenda passed before the 2014 elections, this is the only way to do it. But, as with Obamacare, most democrats have not thought this out to it's ultimate conclusion. They will be the minority next year, and will have silenced their own voice. Liberals may feel that the minority should have no voice, but only if the minority disagrees with them.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

If he wants to get any of his radical agenda passed before the 2014 elections

HOOT!

The abolishing of the filibuster applies only to judicial nominees -- except for the Supreme Court -- and executive-office appointments.

Nothing to do at all with legislation.

As far as President Obama's judicial nominees, they are centrists to have the support of the Senate Republicans.

The GOP leadership in the Senate overplayed their hand.

I remember the threats during the Bush Administration, with Republicans in control of the Senate, of invoking the nuclear option when there was talk of a Democratic filibuster against a nominiee.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Here's how it works. The President wants to appoint Mr. Smith to be ambassador to Ukraine. He's already vetted him so that he won't be embarrassed if it turns out that Mr. Smith has a proclivity for hookers and blow.

The nomination then goes to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, and they vet him further, interview him, blah blah blah, they grandstand for the cameras, and finally vote to recommend him, or not. If he's not recommended, then it stops right there and the President goes and finds another potential ambassador to Ukraine.

If recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee, Then the nomination of Mr. Smith goes along to the full senate where, if he gets 51 votes, he's the new Ambassador.

So what is happening now is that after passing the foreign affairs committee, someone in the Senate puts an often anonymous hold (or filibuster) on Mr. Smith, and there the nomination sits, waiting, for months.

As the charts above show, this has happened far too often, and when/if the nominations do finally come up for a vote, its overwhelmingly in favor.

Unless someone wants to push for 60 votes to override the hold, or the 'filibuster'.

And now, it only takes 51 votes to over-ride the hold and bring the candidate up for a confirmation vote in the senate.

Which I see no problem with no matter who runs the senate. If its some bozo, then he/she won't pass the vetting process, nor likely get the necessary vote.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Don't kid yourself, the door has been opened and it's already being talked about extending it to legislation. It's kind of like, if you like your healthcare you can keep it. It's only for judicial nominees.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Don't kid yourself, the door has been opened

The GOP was recommending the nuclear option in 2005.

I don't remember the hand wringing then.

Harry Reid is a cautious strategist, and I don't expect that the filibuster for legislation will be up for a vote. I doubt if there would be unaminity among the Democrats in the Senate on the wisdom of that move.

I'm surprised that Reid waited so long, unless he was hampered by a lack of Democratic support.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on
Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 11:02

If he wants to get any of his radical agenda passed before the 2014 elections

HOOT!

The abolishing of the filibuster applies only to judicial nominees -- except for the Supreme Court -- and executive-office appointments.

*
--is this legislation that it will only be used for this purpose?

If it is not legislation, then on whose word? Harry Reid's?

Barack's Obama's word- BWAAAHAHAHAHHA

Yea right.


Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 11:09

Don't kid yourself, the door has been opened and it's already being talked about extending it to legislation. It's kind of like, if you like your healthcare you can keep it. It's only for judicial nominees.

*

--You Betcha.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 11:28


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

He threatened a month or so ago, and there was another "gentleman's agreement" and the Senate rapidly passed several nominations that had been held up for months. One guy withdrew his nomination as some sort of compromise. But they filled the position as head of the ATF that had been filibustered and left vacant for 7 years.

Then the Republicans started up again with the DC court of appeals. And Reid threatened again, and McCain was out there last week spouting off about how this really was an extraordinary circumstance to block three nominations because they'd (the Senate Republicans) just decided that this appeals court didn't need to exist.

To quote the estimable Marshall - "horse pucky" Reid called their bluff.

And now its onto the hankie wringing.

This post was edited by david52 on Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 11:32


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Here's how it works. The President wants to appoint Mr. Smith to be ambassador to Ukraine. He's already vetted him so that he won't be embarrassed if it turns out that Mr. Smith has a proclivity for hookers and blow.

This made me giggle out loud.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Just last week bought a 60" strand of pearls David, inspired by your posts.

But you're wrong about the frown and grasping them.

I'm smiling and enjoying wearing them.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

--is this legislation that it will only be used for this purpose?

The change in Senate rules - that which was voted upon yesterday - concerned only what I wrote above. For a change in rules re filibusters on legislation, that would require another vote in the Senate.

I trust that the GOP, for as long as it remains the minority party in the Senate, will scream loud and long if Harry Reid were to propose a change in rules for legislative filibusters. If the GOP were to gain majority status in the Senate, there would be no objection to changing the rules for legislative filibusters.

How Pearls Lost Their Status Symbol Sheen


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Thanks, Nancy.

I don't wear pearls for any status symbol reasons, though.

They're just one more type of jewelry to enhance different clothing.

That kind of makes what you posted not worth the time.

But I'm sure it made you feel better to try and dig at me for responding to David's taunts of fainting couches and pearls.

Your friend Miki Moto.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

"If he wants to get any of his radical agenda passed before the 2014 elections, this is the only way to do it."

The problem is that anything Obama proposes, even when it mirrors past Republican ideas, is automatically labeled radical. What would be radical is for Republicans to come up with some constructive, alternative proposals. Instead, we have situations like the Affordable Care Act which they keep parroting was shoved down their throats (despite being passed democratically by a majority, and validated by a majority of our conservative Supreme Court). Now they are spending untold amounts of time and money to undo the ACA legislation rather than accomplish something positive.

I'd like to see Obama undertake a radical agenda -- one that would fix some of the damage wrought by the Bush-Cheney administration -- but I'm searching in vain for it.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Sounds like nancy needs a good string of pearls from
Santa this year!


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

kudzu, if Harry Reid allows the Upton bill to come up for a vote in the senate, I might give some credence to what you are saying. My bet is, it will go into file 13 along with most bills passed by republicans.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

mrskjun-
I'll be interested to see what happens, too. However, my understanding of the Upton bill is that it would not only allow people to keep their existing, sub-standard policies indefinitely, but that it would also allow sales of these inferior policies to new customers. The effect would be to perpetuate the failed system that the ACA is trying -- imperfectly -- to fix.
I thought it was an unfortunate, but necessary, compromise for Obama to temporarily extend how long these crappy policies could remain in place, but I'm sure he would veto a bill to permanently allow it. You may hate Obamacare and the flawed implementation, but it's not realistic to expect Obama to sign-on to something that would undercut his healthcare program. Maybe it's good that Upton proposed this in the first place, but now I think it's moot, regardless of whether the Senate considers it.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

lots of pearls before the swine...or is that lots of swine whinning for pearls?


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

kudzu, the point is will Reid allow it to come up for a vote. Something he doesn't do with republican bills mostly. If Obama veto's it that is something else entirely. But the senate should be allowed to vote.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

"lots of pearls before the swine...or is that lots of swine whinning for pearls?"

I wonder who you've got cast as the pearl tosser, and who are the low animals. BTW, you sounded like labrea there.

"whining," unless you meant "whinnying", but that's horses. Hm.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Yeah! I've tumbled to the Labrea Level of Extremis phrasas while whinnying! Thank you, dear spellchecker.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Uh-oh. Now I'm flashing on dear Charllie's famous "winning!"

Could be the lack of daylight.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Posted by marshallz10 z9-10 CA (My Page) on
Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 22:45

lots of pearls before the swine...or is that lots of swine whinning for pearls?

*

Marshall do you think I am swine?


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

No dear demi. But we as a species seem to like imitating our bacon brothers and sisters, especially on partisan issues. Accounts for the trampling of suckling piglets and gestating sows (along with rights, ideas and solutions.)


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

Good to know.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

What a wise response, Marshall.


 o
RE: Looks like they're gonna do it

But the senate should be allowed to vote.

Boehner does the same thing in the House, mrskjun. Is that ok?


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here