Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

They can pass anything that requires a majority if they have a majority. If there is a filibuster then there is a different standard. I didn't bring that up because I thought that was common knowledge. It isn't lying. It's a lie to call it such.

But again that's changing the subject since Trump promised Mexico would pay for the wall. By the way, Trump talked about Mexico this year in February. I'm sorry that I'm not willing to change the topic like you wish to, but Trump started this and from the beginning all the way into this year he's talked about Mexico paying for the wall.

 

Due to the bastardization of the filibuster rules to where you don't even have to actually filibuster, just declare an intention to in order to stop everything, there's basically nothing that can happen with a simple majority in the Senate anymore.....except confirming SCOTUS nominations.

Anyway, the point was that you were being intentionally dishonest and you doubled down when called out, it's a bad look.

 

You threw in the filibuster and accused me of lying for not including that circumstance in my post to call me a liar. Note that I did not call you a liar when you referred to Trump's pledge to have Mexico pay for the wall as only a campaign promise (as if that would excuse it).

Forgive me if I don't take your judgment of what is a good look or bad look too seriously.

 

It's just a fact that you have to have a filibuster proof majority to truly have control over the senate. Either you knew that and you were being dishonest about it, or you didn't know it and you were just ignorant....which hopefully I have managed to fix. Either way, you don't have an excuse ever again to say that Republicans have control over congress when they don't have a filibuster proof majority in the senage....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time and just assume you were ignorant (when it comes to you I understand that's the case quite often) but if you do it again it'll be flat out lying. Sound good?

 

https://subpoenacolada.wordpress.com/2018/07/10/the-journey-begins/

 

I will not complain if the tables are turned but we will not have to worry about that for a long time. There is basically a zero chance the Dems retake the Senate in November.

 

So everything that passes has overcome a filibuster in the last 10 years?

 

Just about everything of substance yeah, between 2007 and 2016 there were 772 motions for cloture to overcome filibusters. there have been 149 from Jan 3 2017 to today.

Almost nothing gets done without overcoming a filibuster these days....hell there are numerous times that the vote for cloture is unanimous, they just filibuster out of habit these days.

 

This smacks of corruption

 

More than Smacks .. . . Add into his Trump's relationship with his son
I wonder what he got in return for his cooperation?
I know it is more than just the seat for his boy . . .

Rocket River

 

So cloture isn't always needed and my statement was not a lie.

In fact, it is a lie to say that it requires 60 votes to pass something. Here is something about when Biden made the claim that all legislation required 60 votes. They rated Biden's claim as false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-every-senate-decision-now-requires-60-v/

You were wrong in your claim. And you tried to act like I was caught lying when the only lie told was the one that said it requires 60 votes to pass anything.

It requires 60 votes to make sure everything passes, but not to pass some things.

 

SMH the lengths people will go to in order to not have to admit they were caught being intellectually dishonest....

I guess when you are dealing with fundamentally dishonest people that should be expected.

 

What comes around, goes around.

Both sides have decided to play dirty and what is a boon for one side now, will be a bust in the not too distant future.

No one really "wins".

 

Yeah, no one should fear an ACA repeal, it never should have gotten past the court the first time. That said, now that the individual mandate has been stripped out of it, there's less objectionable about it from a legal standpoint......but of course that means it'll die on it's own.

There's no question that those who wish to push unconstitutional legislation have a LOT to fear from the new SCOTUS justice. The Anti-1st and 2nd amendment people should be outright crying right now.

 

This is far from the most objectionable thing about Kavanaugh's tainted nomination but its really one if the most illustrative of how American society works for the Rich, White and privileged

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...03a221946a7_story.html?utm_term=.6a5088fc70d3

Kavanaugh, despite obviously being very intelligent, ignored every single astoundingly basic bit of free personal advice that is hucked out there and got himself into six figures of credit card debt based allegedly on his habit of buying Washington Nationals season tickets.

He got out of debt by being "reimbursed" by his private sector friends (and I'm sure none of them would ever be affected by a federal appellate ruling right?)

Remember this is a man who has and will continue to devote his entire professional life to shaping the legal system into something that punishes the powerless and entrenches the comfortable.

And he can't even balance his own checkbook and has to use his privilege card just to keep from going bankrupt.....the guardian of meritocracy who lectures the underclasses on their shiftlessness and gullibility by trying to abolish the CPFB. And he's basically a Nigerian Prince email away from being Chapter 11.

These guys are all henchmen and hacks. Doesn't matter how they pay lip service espect for the court or the constitution. they are bought and paid for, from John Roberts all the way on down to the lowliest magistrate.

They're there to do the bidding of merit men like Mike Bidwell who earned their money the old fashioned way - by being born into it.

Remember that.

 

LOL what an adorable hot take.

 

Kavanaugh is known as a suck ass, social climber that is personally disliked by a lot of conservatives in Washington because he isn’t above playing political games to get where he wants. He is a very uninspired pick for the high court.

Still, he should be confirmed. At least he has actually been a Judge for a period of reasonable time, is well educated and bright. He actually recognizes stare decisis and isn’t a mutant like some of the other names linked to Trump.

The democrats aren’t going to like any conservative that Trump appoints because he isn’t going to appoint a moderate with control of the house and senate. He is far better than the alternatives leaked.

 

I really can't believe that we are going to have a man sitting on the Supreme Court who was 65,000 dollars in credit card debt -- he was earning 185,000 a year. This amount of debt would disqualify a person from just about any job that ran a preemployment credit check. He wasn't just buying baseball tickets to run up that debt... Unreal.