Democrats are boycotting the Judiciary vote for Barrett, and in their place are large portraits of..

[demmiblue]

Democrats are boycotting the Judiciary vote for Barrett, and in their place are large portraits of people benefiting from the Affordable Care Act whom the senators spoke about last week

Link to tweet

[Sherman A1]

1. Good!

[asiliveandbreathe]

2. Thank you for posting..Our story in pictures..save ACA..save WOMENS RIGHTS,

save LGBTQ, save VOTING RIGHTS, save DEMOCRACY....

[Karma13612]

3. They didn't have much choice did they?

They listened as little miss Amy contorted and obfuscated for 3 days.
They gave their reasons and educated the public on what is at stake.
Many even stated that they would not be voting for her and gave clear reasoned excuses as to why.

I understand their reasoning for not appearing for the committee vote. I do.
And I am 100% in support.

BUT

I give the Repukes about 5 minutes into the vote at which time miss Lindsey will say that the Democrats are setting a terrible example by not voting. You watch. They will try and tie it to the American people voting. You know, “Vote Blue, voting rights, your vote is your voice, etc” . They will call the Dem Committee members hypocrites for not at least voting their conscience in the committee. Instead they are abstaining which we admonish the American public for doing in elections.

Rock/hard place

[Turin_C3PO]

23. This isn't going to hurt Dems.

[Karma13612]

25. Thanks, I think you are right.

There is so much going on right now, people just want to get to the food store, and vote, etc and back Home without getting COVID!!

[lagomorph777]

4. Unless they can block quorum, this doesn't make sense to me.

I think it would be better to explicitly vote against her.

PS - Is Feinstein abstaining? Voting "no?" Voting "yes?"

[Illumination]

12. Maybe Feinstein is retiring???

[FBaggins]

14. They can block a quorum... except they can't

The existing committee rules say you must have at least two members from the minority in order to have a quorum that can conduct business (e.g., take a vote on recommending a nominee).

But the majority can waive/change that rule.

[lagomorph777]

15. And Leningrad Lindsey has just done that.

[FBaggins]

17. No surprise there

It has happened numerous times in the past and we knew it was coming.

It was all for show anyway. There is no requirement for the committee to vote in the first place.

[NoRoadUntravelled]

18. It could have been much more effective if they'd done that.

Each one of them could have said something like, "On behalf of *insert name of person on photo* the people of *insert name of state* vote No."

People will die without ACA. The inability to afford healthcare should not be punishable by death.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. They are showing the GOP how to be a minority

Hopefully the GOP will take notes for 2021. It really would be so much easier they the GOP were absent.

[Old Okie]

6. Quorum

Schumer explained this last night on Rachel; committee rules require two members of the Minority Party (Democrats) for a quorum so technically they will not be able to vote but they will most likely just bring it to a floor vote.

[lagomorph777]

13. Well, that worked great, didn't it?

Leningrad Lindsey just pushed it through. Rules are for suckers, apparently.

[Baclava]

24. Cleared committee 12-0, final confirmation vote on Senate floor on Monday

[yaesu]

7. The Dems did have a nuke option & yes it would have caused pain, but not working with the

fascists on funding the government would have shut this mess down. This fascist run government will do a lot of damage including ending ACA before tRump gets booted next year, we had a change of shutting it down but we were nice, again, and worked with them on the only legislation they would work with us on, funding their ass.

[FBaggins]

16. There was no "nuke option"

Nothing in the current government funding debate would have any impact on current Senate action.

[tritsofme]

29. This is an asinine comment.

Democrats responding to Barrett’s nomination by shutting down the federal government would have accomplished absolutely nothing, and only would have strengthened Republicans electoral position. Good thing our folks in government like Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi are much smarter than this!

[eppur_se_muova]

8. Cue "this isn't going to affect anything" in 3... 2...

OK, maybe not. But if Graham forces a vote anyway he's just written Jaime Harrison's closing ads for him.

IF EVEN A SINGLE GOP SENATOR LOSES BECAUSE OF THIS, IT WILL BE WAY MORE THAN WORTH IT.

Oh, and it's probably the only right thing to do, for what that's worth these days.

[jonstl08]

9. Nice

Not a big fan of boycotts but putting these pictures in their place was a good point of reference.

[kacekwl]

10. Maybe someone could read from trumps giant

book of healthcare they gave 60 minutes. Should take about 20 seconds. Then show it to the American people.

[Illumination]

11. This is an evil woman that has the potential to do lots of harm to Americans. Judge Merrick

Garland should be confirmed. Not her...patriot:

[PatrickforO]

19. GOOD!!! The Republicans have been pulling this 'oh, it wasn't bipartisan' shit for YEARS.

None of them voted for the ACA even though it was their party who thought of the thing. Because the Newtster and the rest of their disgusting leadership told them to oppose everything in lock step so that later they could say, "Well, that wasn't bipartisan."

We saw that with the impeachment as well.

Well.............those FUCKS. Two can play that game.

[usaf-vet]

21. TWO DAMN WELL BETTER PLAY THAT GAME. Starting the moment tRump is a goner. NO later than 01-21-21.

The Dems will lose a lot of supporters and small donators if they go back to let's just move forward and let bygones be bygones

For fu*ks sake, Trump still whines to date and threatens about Hillary's and now Hunter's (delusional) emails.

Repugs never let bygones be bygones!

[SheltieLover]

20. K&R!

Ty for posting!

[Hotler]

22. I hope this cures our leaders of playing nice in the future.

Crossing fingers and toes.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. Democrats should refuse to vote at all on Barrett in any way - it was not a legitimate committee act

There is no actual nomination to vote on. That gives them room to maneuver later.

[BobTheSubgenius]

27. It's both tragic and infuriating that the best that the Democratic members...

...can manage is to turn it into an opportunity for some good optics. It's great that they are still in there pitching.

Democracy has slid so far.

[Cha]

28. Wow! Rt!