For the fourth time: By what reasoning does mcconnel equal the senate in your assertion?
He does NOT “equate” the Senate. He does NOT “personify” the Senate either. He was merely giving voice to his (accurate) perception that there were not 51 senators that wanted to vote on Garland’s nomination. He was right: there were not 51 senators that wanted to vote on Garland’s nomination. If there had been, regardless of what McConnell said / equated / personified, 51 senators could have forced a vote on Garland.
My point is there are no winners. But this (SDMB, other internet activity) is an intellectual and moral exercise, and not a contest of strength. That’s what we are doing right now. So mccconel is not your friend. He’s leading you down the road. Good luck.
Not in his own caucus, no. How about in the full Senate? *You *don’t know that answer, but it’s clear McConnell did. that’s why he didn’t dare allow it.
Using what for a parliamentary process? You’ve already been informed that the Senate does not have a discharge petition procedure.
So you’ll drop this nonsense about the Republican caucus being “the Senate” now, will you? :dubious:
Then what were the Republicans scared of? :dubious:
What you “believe” doesn’t matter, does it? The fact could have been easily discerned. So why wasn’t it?
Yes, not in the full Senate. You’re the only one talking about the caucus here. McConnell doesn’t have the power to disallow a vote if there were 51 senators that wanted it.
I already answered this in post #197. You do realize there might be other reasons for a legislative body to avoid unpalatable votes, besides that they might lose, right?
It’s an intellectual exercise, perhaps, but you and I don’t share agreement on basic principles of morality, so I don’t agree it’s a moral exercise.
No, you just acknowledged that it would have put the Republicans in a difficult spot. Well, boo frickin’ hoo, that’s the job. Again, *what were they afraid of? *
Tell us what they were, then.
And if the senate elected Trump king for life, and the packed supreme court allowed it, that would be constitutional too.
How we actually treat people in this life is what we are actually judged on, and that is whether you are uncool or mean or whatever, not on whether you managed to twist 200 year old words on a paper to justify you being uncool or mean or whatever.
You may feel it a simple point, but as with most things simple, it is also wrong.
As I’ve said nothing about it being filibustered, I cannot understand what it is that you do not understand.
No, I am talking about what you pointed to, in stripping a bill of its contents to change it to one that confirms Garland. That would be breaking with tradition and precedent, and it would also be challenging the party leaders on a level that just voting for the nominee wouldn’t.
What else are you willing to lose in order to continue to laugh at liberals trying to save our country from your ilk?
Do you understand that that’s the only route available to overturn his (lack of) action? In his own caucus?
Do you need to be informed yet again that there is no mechanism to do that?
For example: They didn’t want their “no” vote to appear in their opponents campaign ads. They didn’t want their “no” vote used by their opponents for fundraising. They didn’t want moderate voters being turned off by their “no” vote, or their opponents’ base fired up by it.
There’s an example proposed by UltraVires that k9bfriender and I have been discussing. Is there some reason you’re aware of that that would not work?
- Again, boo frickin’ hoo. 2. Their dereliction of duty showed up in their ads anyway.
Is that all you got?
I’m not the one crying about the Senate’s choice on this matter.
“The Senate” and “Choice” are not relevant words to your claims. That’s been explained to you enough times.
The documents that represent his role as White House counsel, are hardly relevant to his potential role as a judge. When reviewing judiciary nominees historical qualifications, no one would review their practice as an attorney on behalf of a client. In those cases, they are rendering advice, in many situations advising their clients about many potential scenarios and strategies that could be taken from a legal perspective, NOT, making a judgement with regards to a specific case.
You’re wrong, as has been explained to you enough times.
The presiding officer simply need not recognize any member of the other caucus. And, if he does, the matter can be referred to the Pariiamentarian, who will rule the way the man who can fire him wants him to rule.
Deny is not a synonym for explain. :rolleyes: