Senate "rules" *cough cough

[luv2fly]

So on Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved Trump’s SCOTUS nominee during a hearing boycotted by Democrats. This vote violated committee rules requiring the presence of at least two members of the minority party.

How is this okay? What are the rules for if violating them is simply okay? Any repurcussions for this violation aside from our collective moaning?

Rules my ass. More like suggestions.

[FoxNewsSucks]

1. Obviously, the rules only apply to Democrats.

[Sherman A1]

6. Precisely

The correct answer. Rules do not apply to republicans.

[Buckeyeblue]

2. The Senate loves their rules until they don't

Much like white, wealthy males. They spout the rule of law but have no intention of following them.

[Captain Zero]

4. Thr Republican Party has become corrupt and lawless

They need to be crushed.

[Buckeyeblue]

5. Not just crushed but exposed

They hate 98% of the public. We need to show how corrupt and criminal they are.

[Hoyt]

3. I doubt the rules were written to allow the opposing party to protest and stop nominations or

legislation.

Don't support Barrett, but don't think such stunts in the normal course of legislating should be allowed to shut things down. I realize this is not the normal course, but it's what we've got until trump is beaten, hopefully badly.

[rzemanfl]

8. If the shoe were on the other foot they would stunt like Evil Knievel. n/t

[Hoyt]

9. We wouldn't accept it either. Allowing boycotts to stop legislation was not intent of rules.

[rzemanfl]

10. I didn't write the rule, you didn't write the rule.

I don't know its intent, but you do. Okay.

[Hoyt]

11. I know it wasn't written to allow the other party to stop legislation by merely not showing up.

We wouldn't have Social Security, Civil Right Act, Medicare, ACA, etc., if that were the case.

[rzemanfl]

12. It's a Judiciary Committee Rule. n/t

[Hoyt]

13. Still wasn't written to allow other party to stop nominations by not showing up.

[rzemanfl]

14. It may have been written back when there was a functioning two-party system. n/t

[FBaggins]

22. The shoe has been on the other foot

Our judges got through anyway.

[rzemanfl]

24. Different times. We used to have a functioning Congress. n/t

[FBaggins]

26. Don't be ridiculous

You can’t define “functioning two party system” or “functioning Congress” as “no matter what... the minority can block the majority if they think it’s important enough”

The majority used their power to achieve something they wanted... including the ability to change the rules if they felt the minority was abusing them (and specifically in the context of judicial appointments). The impact of those changes years ago (that many of us opposed) is what got us where we are today.

The rule in question exists to keep the majority from doing business when the minority isn’t even around to know that it’s happening. They can’t call a meeting in the middle of the night and not invite the minority. It was never something that could block action that the minority knew about and could have participated in.

[rzemanfl]

27. The pot was stirred and left on the stove. Watch for a PM. n/t

[FBaggins]

30. "Stirred and left on the stove"

Nice illustration.

Closer to "dropped in a pinless hand grenade and stirred"... but yep.

[cags]

7. Maybe once we take the Senate they can use the rule breaking to invalidate the confirmation

Wishful thinking?

[Iwasthere]

16. Why wishful

We should just do it. Nullify her.

[dware]

17. Really?

Where in the Constitution does it say that a Congress can nullify a sitting SCJ?

[Iwasthere]

19. Where does it say they can push through the nomination without the required two Dems

[dware]

20. Again, I ask,

where in the Constitution does it give the Congress the power to nullify a sitting SCJ?

[FBaggins]

21. There are no "required Dems" in the Constitution

There’s no requirement that the Judiciary Committee have a vote at all.

[dware]

23. Thank you for saying this.

I really wish people would understand this and not call for unrealistic solutions.

[rainin]

15. Could this be a justification for impeachment if a nominee is approved by an improper process? n/t

[dware]

18. Ok, she's impeached by the House, now what?

Where do you see 67 Senators voting to convict and remove her?

[rainin]

28. Is that a yes, if we gain control of the Senate?

[dware]

29. It takes 67 Senators to vote to convict and remove her,

even if we would win all Senate seats up for re-election this year, we would still be far short of the 67 votes needed.

[malaise]

25. It is not OK

M$Greedia is not making enough noise about this

[luv2fly]

31. But yet it happens

Sorry, wanted to get on earlier to see why others said but long day. Anyways it's not okay, like so many other things the Orange Anus' regime does, yet it is happening. Ought not the Dems be the ones screaming from the highest rooftops? Is there no one that can enforce these "rules?