|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, but, seriously, why? They're essentially allowed a single vote where they are allowed to gently caress with the rules that are supposed to restrain them?
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
1stGear posted:There was an assumption by the Founding Fathers and various statesmen throughout the years that members of state and local governments would maintain some degree of decorum and desire to govern in good faith. That system has utterly broken down. The government is now run by people who don't care about decorum, aren't governing in good faith, and are actively destroying parts of government that aren't personally enriching them. There's probably more decorum now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I thought supreme Court nominations were open to filibuster and required 60 votes?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:We're talking the hypothetical here. Like, there is no disadvantage to telling Trump to gently caress off for four years for dems as a whole, since right now, no nominee could be better than not filling that role. If you don't think the Dems will march women, minorities, and LGBT folks straight into the camps for sweet, sweet donor cash you haven't been paying attention.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Your cynicism is noted, and also, super tired by this point. None of the people Trump has on his nomination short list in any way comport with what "Democratic donors" want on the bench; if they did, they'd have donated to one of the billion Republicans who promised to appoint clones of Scalia grown by the Heritage foundation, because that's what Trump has promised us since well before the election.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 08:50
|
|