I'm pretty upset

Apr 6, 2017 6:22 PM

The senate just voted to alter their own rules - Supreme Court nominees now require a simple majority instead of 60% to confirm.

Why the fuck did I learn how congress works in civics class if they were just going to make shit up whenever it's convenient? Send Palpatine memes.

current_events

politics

whose_line_is_it_anyway

Article 22 was established long ago and isn't made up or new. Learn some more before you open that ignorant trash hole you call a mouth.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

So we get a life-time judge nominated by a president who's administration is under FBI investigation for possible collusion with Russia.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Yea, so OP; you need to look up "Harry Reid" and "Nuclear Option". That's who you need to be thanking. Stop drinking that drive-by kool-aid.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

The filibuster is made up anyway. It started as a loophole in the rules.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Of course you are upset, you do not understand the rules and are upset, that you keep losing, lol

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 8

The previous party literally changed the rules last administration.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 4

True, but until now that rule change didn't apply to Supreme Court nominations, only for executive and lower court nominations.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

You can thank the 2013 Democratic congress for setting the precedent that allowed the current congress to do this.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 5

"Hey my fake "facts" are more important than your real facts"

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Maybe if democrats would have stopped being dicks for the past 30 years causing this. Also filibustered a judge nominee they started this.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 7

Remember the lively debates the senate held over Garland?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Same thing happened to Bush from Dems to wait for Obama and Sotomayor.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

No, it didn't. There was no vacancy on the Supreme Court until over a year into Obama's first term, when Souter retired.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

After his retirement, Sotomayor was nominated, and was confirmed with a 68-31 vote a month later.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

If the Republicans had DONE THEIR FUCKING JOB and given Garland a hearing, it wouldn't have come to this either.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

So if we are going back in time, Democrats did the same thing during Bush then came Obama and Sotomayor

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Back then if Democrats would have done their job another judge would be their. But that one was ok

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

They DID do their job. They held a hearing, and it was clear after the hearing that her nomination would fail, so it was withdrawn.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Republicans caved then as they have over several judges before but enough was enough. Thats what this was about. They shpuld have done the 1

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No, they didn't. Bush nominated Harriet Miers, who WAS given a hearing. After her hearing, Democrats and several Republicans objected.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Then blocked further, exactly what happend to Garland

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Bush then withdrew Miers' nomination, and instead nominated Samuel Alito, who was confirmed.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

That was 2006 Im talking about 2008-2009

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Sotomayor was confirmed with a 68-31 vote. The "nuclear option" used by the Democrats was for executive and lower court nominations.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Also Biden has been on the Thurmond rule since early 90's

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1