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

kentuck

(115,408 posts)

15. You see, you take me literally.

Reply to longship (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 04:27 PM

Apr 2017

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Whose fault if the "nuclear option" is used to put Gorsuch on the Court?? [View all] kentuck Apr 2017 OP

Hint: Turtle McTurtleface! longship Apr 2017 #1

What about the sheep that follow the Turtle? kentuck Apr 2017 #3

McTurtleface is majority leader. The buck stops there. longship Apr 2017 #5

I would agree that it is his decision whether to put the vote to a simple majority... kentuck Apr 2017 #11

It was asked, "Who is responsible?" Not "Who all are responsible?" longship Apr 2017 #14

You see, you take me literally. kentuck Apr 2017 #15

Indeed, my good friend. :-) nt longship Apr 2017 #17

GOP senators only unilaterally vote because of fear of retalitation by their fuhrer and the Kochs Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #19

Yes, they are effectively gerry-mandered to keep their seats... kentuck Apr 2017 #20

Exactly, he's the one who has to propose the rule change Warpy Apr 2017 #26

D'ya know what? longship Apr 2017 #29

Bingo! kentuck Apr 2017 #30

Depends on how much they want this twisted excuse for a judge Warpy Apr 2017 #32

My hypothesis is that they might not have the votes to go nuclear. longship Apr 2017 #33

I see one, Susan Collins. Warpy Apr 2017 #34

Ried's outgoing speech said it all. Xolodno Apr 2017 #2

I heard something this morning I could hardly believe! kentuck Apr 2017 #8

Hence, why the filibuster for all intents and purposes...is dead. Xolodno Apr 2017 #21

Amen to that! kentuck Apr 2017 #22

Schumer tweeted something out synergie Apr 2017 #23

Yeap. Xolodno Apr 2017 #24

repubs Angry Dragon Apr 2017 #4

The current filibuster rule only dates back to 1975 when the "talking filibuster" was eliminated. PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #6

Yes, that is the argument. kentuck Apr 2017 #10

The people who vote for Gorsuch Retrograde Apr 2017 #7

The last senate - who refused to even give Garland a hearing. n/t Ms. Toad Apr 2017 #9

Every Republican. dchill Apr 2017 #12

The nuclear option was already done when they blocked Garland's appointment without a hearing. This still_one Apr 2017 #13

I saw a quote by Adam Schiff... kentuck Apr 2017 #18

That is exactly where I got it from kentuck. I couldn't remember who said it, and appreciate still_one Apr 2017 #25

GOP. In the past, if a candidate wasn't going to get sufficient votes they put up a new candidate. Vinca Apr 2017 #16

the GOP violated their oathes of office Thomas Hurt Apr 2017 #27

True Alice11111 Apr 2017 #31

Whomever set using it as precedent... jmg257 Apr 2017 #28

I think it is relevant to note that in 2013... kentuck Apr 2017 #35

Thanks, Kentuck for the info! nt jmg257 Apr 2017 #36

Harry Reid was told this would happen when he got rid of the filibuster former9thward Apr 2017 #37