Democrats once again call to DESTROY OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.......

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1
Interesting that destruction of the very same institution by Harry Reid is responsible for the current situation of Roe vs. Wade....

Democratic candidates call on Senate to nix filibuster for Roe​


https://www.axios.com/democrats-fil...ion-e90cba84-d1c5-4500-8ad9-bb5396660e89.html

Democrats across the board are calling for the Senate to eliminate its filibuster so it can codify abortion rights into federal law, following the leak of a draft ruling showing the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Why it matters: The drive to change the filibuster is a measure of Democratic concern about abortion being outlawed in many states. And highlighting that concern could drive up midterm voter turnout in swing contests, where state-by-state battles to keep abortion legal will be a key issue in state, gubernatorial and Senate races.

  • The reality is that in the current 50-50 Senate chamber, even Democrats such as Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have rejected calls to drop or alter the filibuster.
  • That opposition maintains the requirement to get at least 60 votes to cut off debate and pass major legislation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206 and jimarnp

SR108

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
16,040
5,489
1
There's no doubt that this leak came from a liberal inside SCOTUS who didn't care that they were destroying SCOTUS in order to protect the right to shove a vacuum up into the skull of a helpless human being and suck the brain matter out.
Yep renewed push to eliminate the filibuster and pack the court and pass their election law. Intentional leak to stir up the hornet nest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and gjbankos

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,606
5,677
1
Interesting that destruction of the very same institution by Harry Reid is responsible for the current situation of Roe vs. Wade....

Democratic candidates call on Senate to nix filibuster for Roe​


https://www.axios.com/democrats-fil...ion-e90cba84-d1c5-4500-8ad9-bb5396660e89.html

Democrats across the board are calling for the Senate to eliminate its filibuster so it can codify abortion rights into federal law, following the leak of a draft ruling showing the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Why it matters: The drive to change the filibuster is a measure of Democratic concern about abortion being outlawed in many states. And highlighting that concern could drive up midterm voter turnout in swing contests, where state-by-state battles to keep abortion legal will be a key issue in state, gubernatorial and Senate races.

  • The reality is that in the current 50-50 Senate chamber, even Democrats such as Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have rejected calls to drop or alter the filibuster.
  • That opposition maintains the requirement to get at least 60 votes to cut off debate and pass major legislation.
Didn't they learn from the last time they voided the filibuster? A federal judge in return for 3 supreme court justices when republicans decided to follow suit.
What could possibly go wrong if they were able to eliminate filibuster one more time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and m.knox

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Interesting that destruction of the very same institution by Harry Reid is responsible for the current situation of Roe vs. Wade....

Democratic candidates call on Senate to nix filibuster for Roe​


https://www.axios.com/democrats-fil...ion-e90cba84-d1c5-4500-8ad9-bb5396660e89.html

Democrats across the board are calling for the Senate to eliminate its filibuster so it can codify abortion rights into federal law, following the leak of a draft ruling showing the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Why it matters: The drive to change the filibuster is a measure of Democratic concern about abortion being outlawed in many states. And highlighting that concern could drive up midterm voter turnout in swing contests, where state-by-state battles to keep abortion legal will be a key issue in state, gubernatorial and Senate races.

  • The reality is that in the current 50-50 Senate chamber, even Democrats such as Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have rejected calls to drop or alter the filibuster.
  • That opposition maintains the requirement to get at least 60 votes to cut off debate and pass major legislation.
Both democrats and republicans have called for the end of the filibuster.
Years ago, I personally saw Rick Santorum say he was in favor of ending it.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1
Both democrats and republicans have called for the end of the filibuster.
Years ago, I personally saw Rick Santorum say he was in favor of ending it.

End the filibuster, pack the court, throw away the EC.......

Democrats are trying to DESTROY DEMOCRACY....

Don't you find it ironic that ending the filibuster is exactly why they are here in the first place? I mean, the solution is to end the filibuster SOME MORE...

Jesus, this really can't get any more convoluted and warped. And you support these people.... lol....
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1
Didn't they learn from the last time they voided the filibuster? A federal judge in return for 3 supreme court justices when republicans decided to follow suit.
What could possibly go wrong if they were able to eliminate filibuster one more time?

LOL..... Nothing at all... Just like when the GOP gets to pick their leader of the Ministry of Truth.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
End the filibuster, pack the court, throw away the EC.......

Democrats are trying to DESTROY DEMOCRACY....

Don't you find it ironic that ending the filibuster is exactly why they are here in the first place? I mean, the solution is to end the filibuster SOME MORE...

Jesus, this really can't get any more convoluted and warped. And you support these people.... lol....
Your post doesn't make sense.
As for the filibuster, it is not in the constitution and it clogs things up too much.
Which is the same argument that Sen. Santorum had.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1
Your post doesn't make sense.
As for the filibuster, it is not in the constitution and it clogs things up too much.
Which is the same argument that Sen. Santorum had.

It makes perfect sense if you are intelligent and rational. Get it Jeff??
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

gjbankos

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2006
58,845
36,882
1
End the filibuster, pack the court, throw away the EC.......

Democrats are trying to DESTROY DEMOCRACY....

Don't you find it ironic that ending the filibuster is exactly why they are here in the first place? I mean, the solution is to end the filibuster SOME MORE...

Jesus, this really can't get any more convoluted and warped. And you support these people.... lol....
Foggy can't think for himself, so he won't understand it EXACTLY what Dirty Harry did that lead to this day. He can't - CNN won't vomit that down his throat.
 

YorkCoLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 7, 2014
1,025
1,400
1
Your post doesn't make sense.
As for the filibuster, it is not in the constitution and it clogs things up too much.
Which is the same argument that Sen. Santorum had.

The purpose of the filibuster is to preserve the minority rights in the Senate and prevent wild, unfettered legislation swings every time Congressional control changes from one party to another. The Democrats can end it and pass everything they want, but as soon as the Republicans regain control, and they will at some point, it will all go away. The filibuster forces compromise and thoughtful legislation. To do away with it would cause irreparable harm and cause more tribalism in US politics.
 

gjbankos

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2006
58,845
36,882
1
The purpose of the filibuster is to preserve the minority rights in the Senate and prevent wild, unfettered legislation swings every time Congressional control changes from one party to another. The Democrats can end it and pass everything they want, but as soon as the Republicans regain control, and they will at some point, it will all go away. The filibuster forces compromise and thoughtful legislation. To do away with it would cause irreparable harm and cause more tribalism in US politics.
You are wasting your time with him. He's not here to engage.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1
The purpose of the filibuster is to preserve the minority rights in the Senate and prevent wild, unfettered legislation swings every time Congressional control changes from one party to another. The Democrats can end it and pass everything they want, but as soon as the Republicans regain control, and they will at some point, it will all go away. The filibuster forces compromise and thoughtful legislation. To do away with it would cause irreparable harm and cause more tribalism in US politics.

Thank you for your thoughtful and polite response. Well done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,404
11,026
1
Didn't they learn from the last time they voided the filibuster? A federal judge in return for 3 supreme court justices when republicans decided to follow suit.
What could possibly go wrong if they were able to eliminate filibuster one more time?

Democrats figure they have limited time to destroy the country. They have until the new Republican led Congress takes over in 2023 to get new laws passed to lead to the country's destruction, thus the urgency to kill the filibuster now. Joe Manchin would not break the filibuster over Roe v. Wade, but Sinema might for this one issue and the three female RINOs in the Senate; Murkowski, Collins, and Romney probably would vote with the Dems for this one issue also.

After January 2023 the Dems won't get any new radical laws passed, but Biden's and later after he kicks the bucket Harris' vetoes will keep the Republican Congress from overturning those laws until Jan 2025 at the earliest.

Then the Democrats will be crying over their once again stupid decision to eliminate the filibuster, but it will be too late to undo the damage they will have already done. The country will never be the same.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
The purpose of the filibuster is to preserve the minority rights in the Senate and prevent wild, unfettered legislation swings every time Congressional control changes from one party to another. The Democrats can end it and pass everything they want, but as soon as the Republicans regain control, and they will at some point, it will all go away. The filibuster forces compromise and thoughtful legislation. To do away with it would cause irreparable harm and cause more tribalism in US politics.
The filibuster makes for bad government. Not only does it prevent good legislation from passing, it prevents bad laws from being revoked.
For example, the filibuster was rarely used until the Civil Rights era when people like Storm Thurmond used it to filibuster civil rights legislation.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,404
11,026
1
The filibuster makes for bad government. Not only does it prevent good legislation from passing, it prevents bad laws from being revoked.
For example, the filibuster was rarely used until the Civil Rights era when people like Storm Thurmond used it to filibuster civil rights legislation.

Right. Strom Thurmond and his fellow Democrats used it heavily to stop Civil Rights legislation (Thurmond didn't switch parties until 1964.)

The history of the filibuster — and how it's been used over the years


.................
And former South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond used a sauna to dehydrate himself so he wouldn't have to use the bathroom, allowing him to speak for more than 24 hours straight during a filibuster intended to stop the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It remains the longest recorded filibuster in American history.

In the 1950s and 1960s, in particular, Thurmond and a group of senators used the filibuster frequently to block civil rights reform.

"It was southern Democrats who were filibustering against their own party and it was the Democrats and liberal Republicans who were voting to try to stop those filibusters," Don Ritchie, the Historian Emeritus of the Senate, told CBS News' Glor.
..................................
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1
The filibuster makes for bad government. Not only does it prevent good legislation from passing, it prevents bad laws from being revoked.
For example, the filibuster was rarely used until the Civil Rights era when people like Storm Thurmond used it to filibuster civil rights legislation.

It's not good legislation unless everyone agrees to it.... Are you really that conceited to believe only you can decide what is "good legislation?"

Conceit..... What does your Church say about that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
It's not good legislation unless everyone agrees to it.... Are you really that conceited to believe only you can decide what is "good legislation?"

Conceit..... What does your Church say about that?
Usually the majority is right, not always, but usually.
And often times the minority will use the filibuster to protect a special interest like blocking civil rights, protecting tariffs and subsidies etc.
So more often than not the filibuster is used for pernicious reasons.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1
Usually the majority is right, not always, but usually.
And often times the minority will use the filibuster to protect a special interest like blocking civil rights, protecting tariffs and subsidies etc.
So more often than not the filibuster is used for pernicious reasons.

It is used more so in the spirit if post #13.
 

Lion84

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2015
3,757
4,934
1
The filibuster makes for bad government. Not only does it prevent good legislation from passing, it prevents bad laws from being revoked.
For example, the filibuster was rarely used until the Civil Rights era when people like Storm Thurmond used it to filibuster civil rights legislation.
Then you won't mind next year if the R's control Congress that they ram through anything they want.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1
Then you won't mind next year if the R's control Congress that they ram through anything they want.

He can't see past his outstretched arm. That's what happens when emotions get the best of you.

Wait until the right takes control of the MINISTRY OF TRUTH... lol....
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1

Sen. Markey Is A Dangerous Insurrectionist — Says The Supreme Court Was ‘Stolen’!​


https://issuesinsights.com/2022/05/...canceled-for-his-attack-on-the-supreme-court/

The left’s freakout over a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is hardly surprising. It has a collective breakdown whenever it loses on an issue, even a trivial one. But what did surprise us was the radical, downright insurrectionist talk spewed by at least one Democrat.

The unprecedented leak of a draft of a Supreme Court opinion – apparently in hopes that it would somehow change the outcome – was a sign of the left’s unbalanced mental state. As soon as the leak hit the internet, protests erupted, calls for packing the court and ending the filibuster re-emerged, and the hyperbole gushed forth.

Case in point is the statement from the two Democratic congressional leaders. “The Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years – not just on women but on all Americans,” they screeched, adding that overturning Roe would be “an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”

What really caught our eye, however, was what Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey said:

“A stolen, illegitimate, and far-right Supreme Court majority appears set to destroy the right to abortion, an essential right which protects the health, safety, and freedom of millions of Americans. There is no other recourse. We must expand the court.”
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1

Democrats place American democracy in grave peril​


https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/democrats_place_american_democracy_in_grave_peril.html

The past few weeks have been extremely troubling for those who value democracy, freedom, human rights, and civil liberties within the United States of America.

Democrats have made unprecedented power-grabs. If left unchecked, democracy will wither away in favor of a sinister police state.

Recently, Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified that a Disinformation Governance Board has been set up to counter disinformation coming from Russia, China, Iran, the cartels, and other hostile actors, rebutting their misleading information. Critics have rightly slammed this as Biden's Ministry of Truth.

In recent days, Mayorkas didn't state the specific powers the board may have; he only said the board would "tackle the threat, not only to election security, but to our homeland security" and would work with platforms to stop it.

Will they be able to prosecute people for spreading "disinformation"? Will this board be restricted to focus on social media only as its tool, or will the powers also apply to "right-wing media" directly? We do not know.

That is not the only concern. There have been other assaults on democratic values.
 
  • Like
Reactions: royboy

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,412
23,489
1
It's not good legislation unless everyone agrees to it.... Are you really that conceited to believe only you can decide what is "good legislation?"

Conceit..... What does your Church say about that?
He's stupid and conceited.
 

Darth_VadEER

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2010
826
1,221
1
There's no doubt that this leak came from a liberal inside SCOTUS who didn't care that they were destroying SCOTUS in order to protect the right to shove a vacuum up into the skull of a helpless human being and suck the brain matter out.

Hopefully it was one of the liberal beauty queens on the bench and we can impeach her....
 

Darth_VadEER

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2010
826
1,221
1
Usually the majority is right, not always, but usually.
And often times the minority will use the filibuster to protect a special interest like blocking civil rights, protecting tariffs and subsidies etc.
So more often than not the filibuster is used for pernicious reasons.

So if GOP retakes the Senate by 4 seats and the White House in 2024 you would still favor eliminating the filibuster?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,001
20,857
1
So if GOP retakes the Senate by 4 seats and the White House in 2024 you would still favor eliminating the filibuster?
I can't speak for any other liberals on this Board, but I would. I have confidence that we will have the numbers to control the House of Representatives and the White House most election cycles. The Senate is a bit of a tougher nut, given the Great Compromise, and the fact that a shrinking minority of voters control a bunch of Senate seats in economically moribund and largely depopulated red states.
 

tIUguy2

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2016
3,651
3,780
1

Sen. Markey Is A Dangerous Insurrectionist — Says The Supreme Court Was ‘Stolen’!​


https://issuesinsights.com/2022/05/...canceled-for-his-attack-on-the-supreme-court/

The left’s freakout over a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is hardly surprising. It has a collective breakdown whenever it loses on an issue, even a trivial one. But what did surprise us was the radical, downright insurrectionist talk spewed by at least one Democrat.

The unprecedented leak of a draft of a Supreme Court opinion – apparently in hopes that it would somehow change the outcome – was a sign of the left’s unbalanced mental state. As soon as the leak hit the internet, protests erupted, calls for packing the court and ending the filibuster re-emerged, and the hyperbole gushed forth.

Case in point is the statement from the two Democratic congressional leaders. “The Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years – not just on women but on all Americans,” they screeched, adding that overturning Roe would be “an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”

What really caught our eye, however, was what Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey said:

“A stolen, illegitimate, and far-right Supreme Court majority appears set to destroy the right to abortion, an essential right which protects the health, safety, and freedom of millions of Americans. There is no other recourse. We must expand the court.”
Markey is an extremist conspiracy freak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,606
5,677
1
I can't speak for any other liberals on this Board, but I would. I have confidence that we will have the numbers to control the House of Representatives and the White House most election cycles. The Senate is a bit of a tougher nut, given the Great Compromise, and the fact that a shrinking minority of voters control a bunch of Senate seats in economically moribund and largely depopulated red states.
One thing t hat separates us from other governments is stability. How sane is a government that eliminates the filibuster passes legislation one year only to have that legislation reversed four years later, to be reversed yet again 4 years later and so forth.
It's kind of like estate tax legislation. Democrats set exemptions at $3.7 million, republicans change it to $11 milljon, democrats change back to $3.7 million and on and on. How does anybody plan?
And before you say that estate tax legislation doesn't impact everyone, neither does abortion legislation.
There needs to be some continuity in government legislation.
Doing away with filibuster got the dems at least two justices that would never had been confirmed. Now they complain that what they created is the other guys fault. Come on, man!!
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,001
20,857
1
One thing t hat separates us from other governments is stability. How sane is a government that eliminates the filibuster passes legislation one year only to have that legislation reversed four years later, to be reversed yet again 4 years later and so forth.
It's kind of like estate tax legislation. Democrats set exemptions at $3.7 million, republicans change it to $11 milljon, democrats change back to $3.7 million and on and on. How does anybody plan?
And before you say that estate tax legislation doesn't impact everyone, neither does abortion legislation.
There needs to be some continuity in government legislation.
Doing away with filibuster got the dems at least two justices that would never had been confirmed. Now they complain that what they created is the other guys fault. Come on, man!!
The filibuster has no basis in the Constitution. It is entirely a historical accident.

The best argument that can be made for the filibuster, and its requirement of 60 votes to pass a cloture motion, is that a piece of legislation should merit enough bipartisan support to garner at least some votes from members of the opposing party. The problem with that argument is that the Senate is and has been sufficiently polarized that it is difficult to get more than one or two votes from Senators of an opposing party for any legislation. The result is that the filibuster effectively prevents the Senate from doing anything.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,767
58,173
1
The filibuster has no basis in the Constitution. It is entirely a historical accident.

The best argument that can be made for the filibuster, and its requirement of 60 votes to pass a cloture motion, is that a piece of legislation should merit enough bipartisan support to garner at least some votes from members of the opposing party. The problem with that argument is that the Senate is and has been sufficiently polarized that it is difficult to get more than one or two votes from Senators of an opposing party for any legislation. The result is that the filibuster effectively prevents the Senate from doing anything.

Let's how much of an accident it is when you clowns become powerless in 2024.

Haven't you learned ANYTHING from Harry Reid's great mistake?
 

Latest posts