Posted on Jan 13, 2022
Why Senate Democrats who signed Susan Collins' pro-filibuster letter in 2017 want to get rid of...
802
4
7
3
3
0
5 years ago the Democrats were in favor of the Filibuster. 28 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted to keep the filibuster. Mitch McConnell and Schumer both voted to keep it. Over half of the Democrats who signed the letter are still in the Senate. Gee what changed? Republicans had 54 Seats in the Senate. The Republicans could have passed what every they wanted on a party line vote.
Why Senate Democrats who signed Susan Collins' pro-filibuster letter in 2017 want to get rid of...
Posted from foxnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Democrats
United States Senate
Democrats United States Senate
Edited 3 y ago
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
Ref: LaForest's post...there is no "steal" necessary...the American public is disgusted with Democrat policies that have punished them with rising inflation, out of control crime in cities, more than a year of lost learning for kids...and the list goes on.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
But those Republicans that defended the filibuster were glad to eliminate it for SCOTUS voting the same way those Democrats did it for regular federal judiciary voting.
So yeah both sides forever hypocritical. Every bill should be floor debated then voted on. No filibustering to prevent a bill from being debated.
So yeah both sides forever hypocritical. Every bill should be floor debated then voted on. No filibustering to prevent a bill from being debated.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
It was Dems who got rid of the filibuster for Senate approvals, not Republicans. Republicans warned Harry Reid he would regret removing that filibuster if he did it. Reid and the Dems of the day didn't listen and came to rue the day.
Now Republicans are warning Schumer and Dems they will come to rue the day the get rid of the filibuster altogether. Schumer would do well to listen.
Now Republicans are warning Schumer and Dems they will come to rue the day the get rid of the filibuster altogether. Schumer would do well to listen.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SFC Casey O'Mally FFS! Read. I said Dems under Reid used the nuclear option for federal judges but it was McConnell that used nuclear option for SCOTUS appointments.
If you're not going to acknowledge facts then don't comment. Both sides as i said are hypocritical when it comes to the filibuster or budget reconciliation.
If you're not going to acknowledge facts then don't comment. Both sides as i said are hypocritical when it comes to the filibuster or budget reconciliation.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MAJ James Woods I did read, did you?
Reid got rid of it for Senate confirmations. Not just judiciary. Cabinet positions, too. Technically the SCOTUS wasn't affected, but anyone who believes that Reid wouldn't have gone nuclear with SCOTUS had he been given the opportunity, given his willingness to go nuclear with EVERY OTHER Seantae confirmation is deluding themself. With that type of precedent, you can't blame McConnell for following the precedent and saying he got rid of it for SCOTUS, just because Reid never had the option after he had set the precedent.
Reid set the precedent, plain and simple. McConnell simply followed suit.
Reid got rid of it for Senate confirmations. Not just judiciary. Cabinet positions, too. Technically the SCOTUS wasn't affected, but anyone who believes that Reid wouldn't have gone nuclear with SCOTUS had he been given the opportunity, given his willingness to go nuclear with EVERY OTHER Seantae confirmation is deluding themself. With that type of precedent, you can't blame McConnell for following the precedent and saying he got rid of it for SCOTUS, just because Reid never had the option after he had set the precedent.
Reid set the precedent, plain and simple. McConnell simply followed suit.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SFC Casey O'Mally Do you think Reid was first one to use nuclear option? Or if Reid hadn't done it, McConnell wouldn't have done it to push all the Heritage Foundation picks for judges? We both can "What about" all we want; the filibuster isn't Constitutional guidance but Senate rules that change at the whim of leaders since since it's first introduction 150 plus years ago. Nothing has stopped either side from reimplementing the 60 vote requirement if they truly believe it's a matter of principle. No more either side is principled about whether a POTUS can appoint a Justice during an election year. Both sides are hypocrites and so are you.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google