3 ms·

Though republicans' stonewalling court appointments, and especially the supreme court appointment, for an entire year is unprecedented. Sadly it seems to have p

by coldpie 10y ago

Though republicans' stonewalling court appointments, and especially the supreme court appointment, for an entire year is unprecedented. Sadly it seems to have paid off. I guess presidents serve 3 year terms now.

code_chimp 10y ago
Unprecedented? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DVnkmGB6Uw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DVnkmGB6Uw
- coldpie 10y ago
  What's the date on that video? Edit: You may find this to be interesting reading. Sorry, it's not a 30-second YouTube clip. Note it was published in July, four months ago. https://rewire.news/article/2016/07/20/republicans-history-obstructing-garland-supreme-court/ https://rewire.news/article/2016/07/20/republicans-history-o...
- tdb7893 10y ago
  I'm not going to lie and say that no Democrat has ever talked about it before. It doesn't stop the fact that this is the longest a Supreme Court candidate has ever went without even a hearing so I don't think that "unprecedented" is inaccurate.
marcoperaza 10y ago
It takes two to tango on court appointments. If the Democrats had a majority in the Senate, then Obama would have gotten his nominee.
Retric 10y ago
Democrats could stall another 4 years. So, it's going to be an interesting fight.
- coldpie 10y ago
  Court nominations? I don't think so, I believe it just requires a simple majority (>=50%) to approve a court nomination.
  - Retric 10y ago
    They can have a filibuster blocking that vote. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation.... " A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee, but a successful filibuster threat could add the requirement of a supermajority of 60 needed in favor of cloture, which would allow debate to end and force a final vote on confirmation."
    - tzs 10y ago
      It only takes a majority, though, to change the rules to limit what can be filibustered. This has been done on occasion.

by coldpie 10y ago

code_chimp 10y ago

Unprecedented? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DVnkmGB6Uw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DVnkmGB6Uw

coldpie 10y ago
What's the date on that video? Edit: You may find this to be interesting reading. Sorry, it's not a 30-second YouTube clip. Note it was published in July, four months ago. https://rewire.news/article/2016/07/20/republicans-history-obstructing-garland-supreme-court/ https://rewire.news/article/2016/07/20/republicans-history-o...
tdb7893 10y ago
I'm not going to lie and say that no Democrat has ever talked about it before. It doesn't stop the fact that this is the longest a Supreme Court candidate has ever went without even a hearing so I don't think that "unprecedented" is inaccurate.

marcoperaza 10y ago

It takes two to tango on court appointments. If the Democrats had a majority in the Senate, then Obama would have gotten his nominee.

Retric 10y ago

Democrats could stall another 4 years. So, it's going to be an interesting fight.

coldpie 10y ago
Court nominations? I don't think so, I believe it just requires a simple majority (>=50%) to approve a court nomination.
- Retric 10y ago
  They can have a filibuster blocking that vote. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation.... " A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee, but a successful filibuster threat could add the requirement of a supermajority of 60 needed in favor of cloture, which would allow debate to end and force a final vote on confirmation."
  - tzs 10y ago
    It only takes a majority, though, to change the rules to limit what can be filibustered. This has been done on occasion.