| Posted By |
Message |
ohbaby08
Winter is Coming
Member since 10/07 1718 total posts
Name:
|
GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Now we just change the rules when we want to so we get our way? WTF?
Link
|
Posted 2/1/17 10:17 AM  |
| |
|
LIRascal
drama. daily.
Member since 3/11 7287 total posts
Name:
Michelle
|
GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
I am literally ripping my hair out over this one. As the advisor and head of a group called Model Congress I teach my students to follow all of the rules set forth at all times. Now the best possible example our own Congress makes up their own rules as they go along. It is like a four-year-old who wants to win at Candyland and keeps changing the rules to benefit themselves.  I swear I am getting a tattoo that says #are you effing kidding me
|
| Posted 2/1/17 10:21 AM |
| |
|
mrsrainbow
LIF Adult
Member since 1/17 1465 total posts
Name:
|
GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Unbelievable
|
| Posted 2/1/17 10:27 AM |
| |
|
MC09
arrrghhh!!!!
Member since 2/09 5674 total posts
Name:
Me speaks pirate!
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
How can ANYBODY defend this? WTF is happening??? GOP is on board with destroying our country.
|
| Posted 2/1/17 10:32 AM |
| |
|
MrsT809
LIF Adult
Member since 9/09 12167 total posts
Name:
|
GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
The whole system is so broken. The Democrats shouldn't have to boycott meetings to get their concerns heard. The chair has dismissed every argument just bc they're democrats. I don't blame them for boycotting but I also don't blame the committee from moving forward when they refuse to attend. The Democrats should be able to ask more questions and seek more information if needed so they don't have to boycott to begin with. Uggh
|
| Posted 2/1/17 10:47 AM |
| |
|
RainyDay
LIF Adult
Member since 6/15 3989 total posts
Name:
|
GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
There are rules in place for a reason. How can it be possible for them to advance if not one Democrat was present?
|
| Posted 2/1/17 11:41 AM |
| |
|
LSP2005
Bunny kisses are so cute!
Member since 5/05 19457 total posts
Name:
L
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
On its epitaph, February 1, 2017 is the day the America that I know and love was distroyed. Not with fire, not by the President, not by war, but by the Senate. Our Senate is corrupted by a cancerous growth of greed, and failure to follow the rule of law.
|
| Posted 2/1/17 11:53 AM |
| |
|
ohbaby08
Winter is Coming
Member since 10/07 1718 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Posted by LSP2005
On its epitaph, February 1, 2017 is the day the America that I know and love was distroyed. Not with fire, not by the President, not by war, but by the Senate. Our Senate is corrupted by a cancerous growth of greed, and failure to follow the rule of law.
Why follow the rules when you can change them to suit your agenda? It makes me sick.
|
| Posted 2/1/17 11:59 AM |
| |
|
mnmsoinlove
Mommy to 2 sweet girls!
Member since 3/09 8585 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Democracy is dying before our eyes.
|
| Posted 2/1/17 12:27 PM |
| |
|
mommy2B3
2 boys 2 girls!!!!
Member since 7/08 3324 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
How is this stopped? Who do they answer to?? This is not how our government is supposed to work, I have always been taught that we have checks and balances for a reason, where the fluvk are they??!
|
| Posted 2/1/17 1:07 PM |
| |
|
Pumpkin1
LIF Adult
Member since 12/05 3715 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Posted by mommy2B3
How is this stopped? Who do they answer to?? This is not how our government is supposed to work, I have always been taught that we have checks and balances for a reason, where the fluvk are they??!
Unfortunately, by voting them out. In the meantime, we have to hold on to hope that our country survives the next few years mostly intact.
|
| Posted 2/1/17 2:13 PM |
| |
|
mrsrainbow
LIF Adult
Member since 1/17 1465 total posts
Name:
|
GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Checks and balances...checks and balances...
|
| Posted 2/1/17 2:15 PM |
| |
|
StaceyLu
LIF Adolescent
Member since 2/17 572 total posts
Name:
Stacey
|
GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
These are exactly the kinds of things happening that freak me out.
|
| Posted 2/1/17 2:21 PM |
| |
|
RainyDay
LIF Adult
Member since 6/15 3989 total posts
Name:
|
GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
I can't see the government ever going back to the way it was before.
|
| Posted 2/1/17 2:40 PM |
| |
|
mnmsoinlove
Mommy to 2 sweet girls!
Member since 3/09 8585 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Posted by RainyDay
I can't see the government ever going back to the way it was before.
I agree permanent damage has been done. We have been so blessed to live under a stable and pretty fair government. What has happened in a little more than a week has undone decades of hard work. It has shaken the faith in the Democratic system the entire world looks to.
I pray I'm wrong and in 2 years we can change a lot of this but I'm not hopeful!
|
| Posted 2/1/17 2:56 PM |
| |
|
LIRascal
drama. daily.
Member since 3/11 7287 total posts
Name:
Michelle
|
GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
To boot, this had to happen on the day of the anniversary of the 13th Amendment's passage. Why? Why?
I am actually distraught
|
| Posted 2/1/17 3:07 PM |
| |
|
MC09
arrrghhh!!!!
Member since 2/09 5674 total posts
Name:
Me speaks pirate!
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Posted by RainyDay
I can't see the government ever going back to the way it was before.
Agreed.
|
| Posted 2/1/17 3:12 PM |
| |
|
mommy2Alex
3 babies for me :)
Member since 5/05 6683 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
My question is this, why are the Democrats not showing up to do their jobs? I don't believe that elected officials should boycott in this way. The Democrats on the committee should have gone to the meeting. When the tables where turned and the Democrats controlled Congress and Obama was 1st elected we didn't see the Republicans boycotting and not showing up to vote on the nominees.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 8:39 AM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Posted by mommy2Alex
My question is this, why are the Democrats not showing up to do their jobs? I don't believe that elected officials should boycott in this way. The Democrats on the committee should have gone to the meeting. When the tables where turned and the Democrats controlled Congress and Obama was 1st elected we didn't see the Republicans boycotting and not showing up to vote on the nominees.
They did do that for over a year with SCOTUS nominee Garland.
Also, from what I was reading, if any of show up, even if they vote "no", the nominee can get pushed through with a Republican majority. If they don't show up, based on the old rules, the nominee can't go forward. It's their only viable tool at the moment, or it was....
Message edited 2/2/2017 8:46:26 AM.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 8:44 AM |
| |
|
mommy2Alex
3 babies for me :)
Member since 5/05 6683 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by mommy2Alex
My question is this, why are the Democrats not showing up to do their jobs? I don't believe that elected officials should boycott in this way. The Democrats on the committee should have gone to the meeting. When the tables where turned and the Democrats controlled Congress and Obama was 1st elected we didn't see the Republicans boycotting and not showing up to vote on the nominees.
They did do that for over a year with SCOTUS nominee Garland.
I was under the impression that during an election year it has been a tradition that the current POTUS doesn't nominate a SCJ.
ETA - Scalia hasn't even been dead a year.
Message edited 2/2/2017 8:47:18 AM.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 8:45 AM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Posted by mommy2Alex
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by mommy2Alex
My question is this, why are the Democrats not showing up to do their jobs? I don't believe that elected officials should boycott in this way. The Democrats on the committee should have gone to the meeting. When the tables where turned and the Democrats controlled Congress and Obama was 1st elected we didn't see the Republicans boycotting and not showing up to vote on the nominees.
They did do that for over a year with SCOTUS nominee Garland.
I was under the impression that during an election year it has been a tradition that the current POTUS doesn't nominate a SCJ.
Nope.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.
The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911.
President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916.
On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932.
On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939;
On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell.
...
All of the above nominees were confirmed.
Sorry.... it wasn't over a year. 293 days. Twice as long as any other nominee ever.
Message edited 2/2/2017 8:51:47 AM.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 8:50 AM |
| |
|
mommy2Alex
3 babies for me :)
Member since 5/05 6683 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by mommy2Alex
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by mommy2Alex
My question is this, why are the Democrats not showing up to do their jobs? I don't believe that elected officials should boycott in this way. The Democrats on the committee should have gone to the meeting. When the tables where turned and the Democrats controlled Congress and Obama was 1st elected we didn't see the Republicans boycotting and not showing up to vote on the nominees.
They did do that for over a year with SCOTUS nominee Garland.
I was under the impression that during an election year it has been a tradition that the current POTUS doesn't nominate a SCJ.
Nope.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.
The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911.
President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916.
On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932.
On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939;
On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell.
...
All of the above nominees were confirmed.
Sorry.... it wasn't over a year. 293 days. Twice as long as any other nominee ever.
I stand corrected.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/senate-obama-merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/
|
| Posted 2/2/17 8:58 AM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Posted by mommy2Alex
...
I stand corrected.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/senate-obama-merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/
 I think we're all learning a lot more about government this last year or so than we've ever learned before, so there's a lot of data to know, and it's nearly impossible to keep up with everything.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 9:11 AM |
| |
|
mommy2Alex
3 babies for me :)
Member since 5/05 6683 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP changed rules to vote on Price and Mnuchin without Dems present
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by mommy2Alex
...
I stand corrected.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/senate-obama-merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/
I think we're all learning a lot more about government this last year or so than we've ever learned before, so there's a lot of data to know, and it's nearly impossible to keep up with everything.
According the article I linked, the Senate is not mandated to vote on the SCJ nominee.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 9:18 AM |
| |
|
