Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People might have expected Romney to take a more principled stand or at least recognize the outrageous hypocrisy in this. But, he and every other Republican leader know that this is the end of the line for their control of the government. If they let this one slip away it could be a long, long time before there is another.
He is definitely voting along his party line and his religious belief. I don't know why anyone would be surprised.
Because his party line would have been to vote to acquit President Trump on both charges in the impeachment case. His party line wouldn't be to criticize the president as much as he does. He's disappointed conservatives numerous times. That's why people are surprised and that's why he was considered as a potential "no" vote for the GOP before he came out and said what he did today.
People might have expected Romney to take a more principled stand or at least recognize the outrageous hypocrisy in this. But, he and every other Republican leader know that this is the end of the line for their control of the government. If they let this one slip away it could be a long, long time before there is another.
Because his party line would have been to vote to acquit President Trump on both charges in the impeachment case. His party line wouldn't be to criticize the president as much as he does. He's disappointed conservatives numerous times. That's why people are surprised and that's why he was considered as a potential "no" vote for the GOP before he came out and said what he did today.
I wouldn't think they would be surprised about his vote on the justice though. Roe v. Wade is in the balance and I'm sure no one is wondering where he stands with that.
I wouldn't think they would be surprised about his vote on the justice though. Roe v. Wade is in the balance and I'm sure no one is wondering where he stands with that.
Sure, folks wondered. Some wondered when he ran for the nomination in 2012 and some wonder today. Let's remember that Romney was rabidly pro-choice when serving as Governor of Massachusetts . . . it's not like we are talking about some lifelong conservative here. Glad to see that he's made the right decision as far as I'm concerned, though.
Sure, folks wondered. Some wondered when he ran for the nomination in 2012 and some wonder today. Let's remember that Romney was rabidly pro-choice when serving as Governor of Massachusetts . . . it's not like we are talking about some lifelong conservative here. Glad to see that he's made the right decision as far as I'm concerned, though.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. My guess is on something as serious as a Supreme Court nominee, he would be sure to fall in lock step with his party.
The democrats didn’t suddenly panic and change the rules that was the republicans on Feb 2016 and it caused us to go without a justice for a year. McConnell should have just been honest rather than making up some fairy tale. What McConnell did has not one thing to do with the filibuster. Complaining about packing when the republicans put in SC 3 justices in one term, come on.
Please specify what rule they changed.
The only rule I'm aware of that was changed was the rule on cloture (AKA closing the debate on a nominee.) It used to take 60 votes for cloture for any federal judge. The rule was changed by a Harry Reid led Democrat controlled Senate in 2013 to allow for a simple 50 vote majority for cloture. At the time, McConnell said, "You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." He wasn't wrong. The Republicans won out, retaking the Senate the following year and the GOP have used that very political f-ckery by the Democrats against them.
The 60 vote cloture rule was the most effective tool in existence to avoid the over-politicization of the courts. Unless one party had a 60 vote super-majority while all voting in lockstep (almost never happens), then no federal or Supreme Court judge/justice could be confirmed without some modicum of good will from the minority party. I would be 100% in favor of restoring that rule, but I really don't know how you put that genie back in the bottle when it makes it so easy for the majority to effortlessly slam through federal judges.
If you are saying that some rule exists that any nominee the President sends to the Senate must be voted on, no such rule exists -- which is underscored by the fact that more than 10 SCOTUS vacancies have lasted 300+ days and more than 5 SCOTUS vacancies have lasted more than 500 days. There is absolutely no rule saying that the Senate can't simply ignore every nominee the President sends them. It has happened many many times and it will no doubt happen again many times.
The guys a Benedict Arnold and very compromised, just like McCain was. I don't trust that snake.
He didn't win his Presidential race.
Benedict Arnold is a very good analogy. After a stellar job as a Revolutionary general, he switched sides. The British did not reward him. He died deeply in debt in Britain. His devoted second wife (first one died) dutifully paid off his multiple debts. Disloyalty earns its just reward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmccormick71
Mitt isn’t up for re-election this year so he doesn’t have to waffle in hopes of picking up a few moderate votes.
I suspect he thinks Trump won’t be re-elected and maybe even that they lose the Senate. Ensuring a hard-right court will stifle anything a Dem President and Congress want to do for decades to come. Even if Republicans never control the other two branches again it won’t matter. He’s playing the long game.
If he guesses wrong he'll be a man without any friends. Even if he's right one would be a fool to rely upon him unless they have eyes in the back of their head.
exactly right....democrats did not control the senate at the time....
They are all ignoring....or scamming ....the fact democrats did not control the senate and could not have gotten enough votes....it was not going to happen in the first place
...going through with it would have been a total waste of time
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Please specify what rule they changed.
The only rule I'm aware of that was changed was the rule on cloture (AKA closing the debate on a nominee.) It used to take 60 votes for cloture for any federal judge. The rule was changed by a Harry Reid led Democrat controlled Senate in 2013 to allow for a simple 50 vote majority for cloture. At the time, McConnell said, "You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." He wasn't wrong. The Republicans won out, retaking the Senate the following year and the GOP have used that very political f-ckery by the Democrats against them.
The 60 vote cloture rule was the most effective tool in existence to avoid the over-politicization of the courts. Unless one party had a 60 vote super-majority while all voting in lockstep (almost never happens), then no federal or Supreme Court judge/justice could be confirmed without some modicum of good will from the minority party. I would be 100% in favor of restoring that rule, but I really don't know how you put that genie back in the bottle when it makes it so easy for the majority to effortlessly slam through federal judges.
If you are saying that some rule exists that any nominee the President sends to the Senate must be voted on, no such rule exists -- which is underscored by the fact that more than 10 SCOTUS vacancies have lasted 300+ days and more than 5 SCOTUS vacancies have lasted more than 500 days. There is absolutely no rule saying that the Senate can't simply ignore every nominee the President sends them. It has happened many many times and it will no doubt happen again many times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
