Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

tritsofme

(19,934 posts)

10. Your criticism is absurd and ignorant.

Reply to The Magistrate (Reply #9)

Sun Sep 19, 2021, 10:50 PM

Sep 2021

Her job is to faithfully interpret the rules, not help advance Democratic priorities by lying about them.

Any parliamentarian hired who faithfully interprets the current rules as defined by senators would come to the same conclusion, it was not a tough call.

If senators don’t like the rules that the Senate operates under, members, not the parliamentarian, have full discretion to change them how they like, at any time.

Then they can ask the parliamentarian to interpret those rules without lying.

You just seem to be obliging the senators who would prefer to point to a scapegoat.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senate parliamentarian deals blow to Democrats' immigration plan [View all] tritsofme Sep 2021 OP

They Need To Find One Who'll Rule Right, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2021 #1

She is hired to faithfully interpret the rules. tritsofme Sep 2021 #2

Thanks elleng Sep 2021 #5

not the point. Don't obfuscate. triron Sep 2021 #6

It's the entire point. Demonizing the parliamentarian is the definition of obfuscation tritsofme Sep 2021 #8

That,'s precisely the point StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #15

Putting In A New One Is Changing The Rules, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2021 #9

Your criticism is absurd and ignorant. tritsofme Sep 2021 #10

Your View, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2021 #11

Again, your criticism should be aimed at senators tritsofme Sep 2021 #14

What's the point of having a parliamentarian StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #17

At The Risk Of Repeating Myself, Ma'am The Magistrate Sep 2021 #20

Yes, I read what you wrote previously. StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #22

We Are At A Point, Ma'am The Magistrate Sep 2021 #24

Right back atcha, my dear StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #26

No, she laid out facts, any ignorance on your part notwithstanding. tritsofme Sep 2021 #28

Re: that disastrous course FBaggins Sep 2021 #30

I don't believe it is correct that courts can strike down a law based on noncompliance with tritsofme Sep 2021 #33

I wish this post could be pinned to the top of the page Devil Child Sep 2021 #32

Putting in a new parliamentarian to interpret the rules the way you want StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #16

Absolutely correct - but it's also worth nothing that this isn't just "interpreting the rules" FBaggins Sep 2021 #21

Yes and no StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #25

All true FBaggins Sep 2021 #27

These arguments are ridiculous StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #29

You say "ridiculous" - I say "deadly" FBaggins Sep 2021 #31

Thank you StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #13

Thank your for the sane and logical take tritsofme Devil Child Sep 2021 #23

Absolutely agreed. ColinC Sep 2021 #4

Filibuster is now killabuster Walleye Sep 2021 #3

Completely expected. Did the Democrats have 50 votes for that proposal? n/t PoliticAverse Sep 2021 #7

That Is A Good Question, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2021 #12

Perhaps the leadership knows they don't have the 50 votes and were looking for the Parliamentarian PoliticAverse Sep 2021 #18

Sens. Durbin and Padilla say they have a plan B following the Senate parliamentarian's ruling LetMyPeopleVote Sep 2021 #19