Tweet: It makes no sense--Mitch McConnell can confirm 3 Supreme Court justices for Trump with 51

[tblue37]

votes, but. . . .

Link to tweet

Text

It makes absolutely no sense why Mitch McConnell can confirm 3 Supreme Court justices for Trump with 51 votes to take away voting rights but it requires 60 votes for US Senate to protect voting rights

[ck4829]

1. Yeah, what's up with that?

Last edited Sat Feb 12, 2022, 03:51 AM - Edit history (1)

https://deepblueleague.freeforums.net/board/109/sour-oil-project

[dem4decades]

2. Welcome to one fucked up country.

[ColinC]

3. I mean really it just requires 51 votes.

That we simply don't have.

[Chuuku Davis]

28. Prob only have 45

To be truthful.
Some are letting sinnerma and munchkin take the heat.

[ColinC]

31. The most likely candidates for that have already come out loudly in favor of carveouts

Red state Dems like Jon tester and more conservative leaning like King, are loudly in favor of a care out.

[Irish_Dem]

4. Makes perfect sense to power-obsessed, ruthless sociopaths.

When you are at war with democracy, everything is fair game.

[thatdemguy]

5. Will all honesty, I was

Against when the Democrats removed it for all the other judges except the supreme court, I knew it would back fire given time.

[ForgedCrank]

8. Be careful,

I get attacked when pointing out the risks involved in eliminating the filibuster rules. This right here is a prime example of why it's dangerous.

[Whiskeytide]

9. If we were dealing with a political party that ...

… observed tradition and sought to govern the country respectfully and with some recognition of the two party system, I would agree with you. But we’re not. McConnell showed who he is with the Scalia/Garland and Ginsberg/Barrett appointments. If he held 50 senators and the WH (along with the House), he would nuke the filibuster in a nano-second, and still find a way to blame the Democrats.

[ForgedCrank]

11. I have to disagree.

In my opinion, he's had opportunity to do that already and didn't.
Of course that isn't even an argument at this point, it's pure conjecture since none of us can really predict the future I suppose.
But I don't see them being that stupid if left unprovoked. They know the consequences just as well.
I really do hope I'm right.

[ymetca]

27. Yes, and the reason

Dems "nuked" the filibuster for lesser judges was because McConnell was blocking ALL of Obama's judges from even getting a vote.

So it's completely disingenuous for McConnell to claim somehow Dems are "responsible" for all this.

The whole Republican "just you wait if you kill the filibuster" threat is a horse that's already left the barn.

Even reading Manchin's "soliloquy" about the importance of the filibuster makes it clear its purpose is simply to protect the privileged from the so-called "whims" of the majority. So much for democracy, eh? We, the great unwashed, need to have our "passions cooled" in the saucer of our "superiors" in the Senate, the so-called "cooler heads" dedicated to preserving the wealth and power of those who's snouts are most deeply sunk into the public trough.

And they wonder why so many are "clinging to their god and their guns" out here in fly-over country, and how so many now simply want to burn the whole place down.

The filibuster needs to go, or we can expect a lot more unrest in the streets, as the status quo becomes more and more untenable, and the suffering expands.

[Tommymac]

35. Thank You for posting this. nt

[WarGamer]

29. TFG asked McConnell in 2017 to nuke the filibuster

MM said "No".

I don't think they'd nuke it with the trifecta in the future, it's too useful for them when in the minority and we all KNOW that in the future the GOP will OFTEN times be in the minority.

[moose65]

17. Not really

Republicans really don't care about legislation. During Trump's presidency, the only major thing that was passed was the massive tax-cut bill, and that one wasn't subject to the filibuster.

This is really a one-way street. The Dems don't "get" to use the filibuster that often.

And really, elections have consequences. Like it or not, the party in charge should get to enact their agenda, or at least debate it.

[Tommymac]

36. If there had been no filibuster the Democratic Party would have passed all it's bills and

would be in firm control of ALL branches of Government. Years ago.

The majority of peeps would be very very happy with the Democratic Party and they would vote us into office in droves.

But, enter The Obstructionists.

[uponit7771]

19. So you're of the opinion that GQP wouldn't have done such if dems wouldn't have done something

... similar first?

I don't see that, GQP doesn't care about democracy

[Whiskeytide]

6. Actually, the tweet is making Manchin and Sinema's argument ...

… for them. Democrats changed the filibuster rule when Obama was president to allow confirmation of Federal District Court and Appeals Court judges with only 51 votes - because Republicans were refusing to confirm EVERYONE Obama appointed.

McConnell said then that he would retaliate by doing the same one day, and he did just that under Тяцмp to confirm SCOTUS appointments. It’s that “payback” that Manchin and Sinema say makes them wary of changing the rules again.

For the record, I suspect McConnell would do it anyway given the chance, so I think we should do it now while we can.

[badhair77]

7. McConnell and company wouldn't think twice about doing it in the future.

[Rebl2]

15. EXACTLY!

[uponit7771]

20. So McConnel wouldn't have done made a senate rule change to screw with judges? tia

[Whiskeytide]

24. He might have. But the way it worked out, he ...

… was able to do it without much blowback from our side. We couldn’t say much because, well, we had done it first.

Don’t misread my take on it. I think McConnell is a piece of shit. I’m just reminding everyone of what happened, and pointing out that Manchin and Sinema point to that scenario as their reason for being unwilling to further change the rule. I don’t agree with them.

[spanone]

10. K&R

[PortTack]

12. Manchin and sinema..bought and paid for!!

[Demsrule86]

13. The GOP ended the filibuster for judicial appointments.

[moose65]

16. No, they didn't

They ended it for Supreme Court justices.

However, the Democrats ended it for all other judicial appointments precisely because of McConnell's obstructionism. He wasn't allowing ANY of Obama's judicial picks to be confirmed.

[WarGamer]

30. and THAT is the correct answer...

[Demsrule86]

34. What I mean to say they eliminated the filibuster for all appointments when the GOP eliminated

then SCOTUS exception that Pres. Obama left in place. I bet President Obama regretted that. I know I do.

[brooklynite]

14. 51 votes vs 48 votes

Think about it.

[jaxexpat]

18. And the SOB is trying to hold the Senate hostage by reminding Democrats that it looks like .....

the Senate will be a Republican club next year and that if the Democrats abandon the filibuster today, the Republicans will ignore it tomorrow. That threat is a fraud because McConnell will abandon the filibuster as soon as it suits him. He will, with turtleish glee, do so just to show the Democrats what saps they were to fall for his threat in 2022.

[AverageOldGuy]

22. It makes PERFECT SENSE . . .

. . . because McConnell is dealing with Republicans who obey orders from their leaders while Biden is dealing with the likes of Manchin and Sinema.

At age 77, I'm disappointed that I will not live long enough to see these two traitors get what they deserve.

[Moostache]

23. Once evolutionary change is impossible, revolutionary change is inevitable...

Seems to me that was the sentiment of a Democratic Party I miss greatly and that we need now more than ever.

[IronLionZion]

25. McConnell is for sure going to screw us anyway

so might as well get important stuff passed when we have the chance instead of fearing that he might screw us when he gains the majority.

[Mr. Ected]

26. Democrats don't vote in lockstep like the cretins on the other side of the aisle

But that's also the reason they get what they want and we seem to always self-destruct.

[Blue Owl]

32. FUBAR is the only word I can think of that adequately describes the scenario

F.U.B.A.R.

[PoliticAverse]

33. Sorry but this is BS, it would only take 51 votes to pass the voting rights bill, however...

the Democrats don't have the 51 votes.

[gulliver]

37. It's why we need to vote in more Dems and avoid/disassociate ourselves from things that cost votes

Not voting Dem is what makes the situation happen. Doing anything that causes others to not vote Dem (net) too.