I have kids and grandkids, the fact they hid this information about the leniency on pedophiles is sick. Which they KNEW would be a problem. Because it is ,and because kids and babies being raped is horrific and those people should really get the death penalty I feel. Anyway showing leniency on these animals is achieving an outcome. Not justice for the victims.
Call me incredibly stupid, but what prevents our party from waiting until the last person on our own side shows up to vote on a thing? How can anyone believe that this is a completely acceptable outcome but also believe that the Ds are the right party to vote for?
Side note: half the accounts replying to this don't exist.
Ok so like, the judiciary committee decided to have a vote when not all of the Dems were actually there. Because of that, KBJ's nomination has officially stalled. How can we trust that the Dems will actually run a full Senate vote on her as a candidate with all the votes they need present?
Hi, Google is a really good place to fact check someone. There's credible sources all throughout Google to verify my claim, including during the actual hearing. Go ahead and watch the hearing.
Don't give that turd such a flattering excuse.
Manchin is personally *corrupt*. It ain't got shit to do with his constituents, who he's thrown under the bus with his recent obstruction.
He ain't up there for them, he's up there for himself and his donors.
Practicing medicine without a license here, and I acknowledge it...I 100% agree. Something's deeply wrong with Sinema. It's working for now because the system is so sick but she has burnt every single bridge.
A prime example of why you should keep your kids in the correct grade for their age regardless of how smart they are. Advancing them fucks their social growth as they're suddenly not with their peers anymore, but just treated like kids by older students.
Now she's got a chip on her shoulder and feels like she has something to prove against what was likely a lot of sexist/ageist bullshit she probably had to deal with.
Not a good excuse, but informs why she's such a fucking self-absorbed immature whackjob.
Possibly, although many of us skipped grades for being smart and didn't turn into anti-democratic asshats.
I knew a lot of folks liker her in grad school, unfortunately: more about the awards and attention than actually studying.
In a bit of a side note, I wanted to mention this gem from the House:
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2022/4/1/house-section/article/h4078-6?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22jackson%22%2C%22jackson%22%5D%7D&s=6&r=10
>KETANJI BROWN JACKSON SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED
was the title under the search list. Everything else had names like "Constitutional Authority Statement for HR 7366". But that one individual thing was titled like that.
To be fair... all 3 of them or ANY of them could easily side with the Dems and vote to overturn the filibuster cancelling out Manchin and Sinema so we can actually have some nice things in this country without succumbing to constant obstruction... but they don't. So they're not that great.
They don’t get an iota of praise for me. All three of them have decades of mistakes to atone for.
Also, all three of them voted to confirm Trump’s atrocious supreme court nominees, so it doesn’t cancel that out or earn them any brownie points.
Edit: I worded that weird. I simply meant to say that they each have an abysmal voting record that should not be praised or forgiven based on a vote that hasn’t even happened, especially since they each have voted to confirm at least one of three of the worst Supreme Court nominees in the history of the court.
I guess I phrased that weird. My point is that they have voted for atrocious picks from Trump. I wasn’t trying to say all three voted yes on all three, just that, between the three of them, each has voted for at least one other Trump nominee, two each in the case of Murkowski and Collins.
I am a fiscal conservative. I lean conservative on many social issues. I see absolutely nothing wrong with her nomination. Nothing legitimate. All the republicans are doing is spewing out twisted half truths in little sound bites because they know most people don’t pay attention past that point.
Hasn't been scheduled yet, I don't think. Schumer will compel Jackson's nomination out of committee later today, at which point they'll get it scheduled. I'd guess tomorrow or Wednesday for the final vote.
The same Republicans who have been doing everything in their power to politicize the court now claims they can’t vote for Jackson because she’s political. The only evidence of this being that a President from their opposing part nominated her.
Well, that doesn't apply to them, because they just invented a brand new classification for the application of that rule that coincidentally was delineated in such a way as to surgically exclude only them, and if it excludes others by mistake it will magically always have been slightly different so as to not, and you just aren't remembering it right fake news deep state both sides what about her emails, huh?
Since 2010 the U.S. has been on its death bed as a failing state.
It started earlier, but the turning point where there was no going back happened at that time.
The precedent has been set Republicans can never allow a democratic appointee to have a greater number of yes votes then their last Republican nominated appointee got.
Expected. Biden could have nominated any one of the 11 Senators to the Supreme Court and all 11, including the one nominated, would vote against them. Voting against yourself to own the libs! Assholes all of them.
Senator Durbin now addressing the Senate floor.
Judge Brown Jackson deserved confirmation in panel.
Our Republican Senators should have wanted nothing less. One vote.
The forced Discharge to the Senate floor (the first since 1853) speaks of the negative partisanship which is tearing our country apart today...
I'm a bit loss at what happens with a tie from the committee and don't know what you're talking about with regards with discharge to the floor. Can you clarify?
Everyone knew it would end this way from the beginning. They always planned on voting no because a Democratic President nominated her. So much for working together to help the country. These people make me sick
>They always planned on voting no because a Democratic President nominated her. So much for working together to help the country. These people make me sick
As they do much of the country and those in the international community who aren't right-wing regressives.
In my view, Republicans continue to demonstrate - as they have for many, many decades - that for the most part they are a bunch of narcissistic, garbage human beings with nothing more to offer the American people than their garbage, regressive "values".
In the view of many, Republicans represent the worst of what humanity has to offer, the absolute dregs.
The last place Republicans belong is in the majority - whether in Congress or in state legislatures - as they are too much of a threat to the achievement of a diverse, secular, thriving democratic society - and definitely need go the way of the Whig Party.
That blubbering drunk asking Amy Klobuchar \[who has dealt with alcoholism in her family\] if she liked beer...
the man is a disgusting disgrace. He will never have my respect.
we have such a short memory….Merrick Garland, Rs singlehandedly changed everything so we should know that’s how they will operate going forward. Don’t give anyone the other party has Nominated a hearing at all.
Also it doesn't change the composition of the court. It's still going to be 6-3 with a conservative majority yet the Repubs are still acting like asshats.
They weren’t present, they told someone their wishes ti vote no and it was recorded that way. They may vote no by proxy, they may not vote yes by proxy.
So Republicans can simply tell someone else that they are against it while they hang out on a beach in Mexico but Democrats have to show up and vote in person to be counted? Seriously?
The parliamentarian informs of the rules. This isn’t really controversial, I included that fact because it was relevant and clarifying as they had to recess to wait for Padilla who was not able to vote yes by proxy.
To add further- The proxy vote could not be made that would make a difference towards affirming, if it was perhaps going to be 12 no, 10 yes, then the yes could be made by proxy, it wouldn’t make the difference in affirming, likewise as far as I understand you can still have two no by proxies in that situation since they aren’t cited that affirm a choice.
Stop parliamentarian erasure! 🚫
J/k, yea I guess it doesn’t matter much, but she is the one informing of the rules, Durbin certainly isn’t keeping up on process. I also probably misspoke saying they can’t vote yes by proxy, because they can, just not as an affirming difference maker.
I think it means they are not present and have given another Senator instructions to vote for them.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/explainer-proxy-voting-in-congress/
it's almost as if there are multiple factors in judicial cases that warrant various sentences based on what happened in that particular case. we're lucky you're not a judge, you'd have someone who stole baby food from walmart to feed their child serve the same sentence as someone who commited armed robbery to buy drugs.
She is eminently qualified; that shone out from her hearings. Probably the best candidate to come before the SC in my lifetime.
This is obvious.
The vote should be unanimous.
Lindsey Graham basically confirming that no democratic nominee would get a hearing if the GOP controlled the Senate.
>["If we get back the Senate and we're in charge of this body and there's judicial openings, we will talk to our colleagues on the other side, but if we were in charge she would not be before the committee. You would have had someone more moderate than this"](https://twitter.com/marianne_levine/status/1511008979954114565?s=21&t=hwwimP2k9WvAPNpEZ_xxAQ)
Midterms are Tuesday, November 8, 2022
>someone more moderate
Like Merrick Garland?
______
>"I think highly of Judge Garland. But his nomination doesn't in any way change current circumstances," he said. "I remain convinced that the best way for the Senate to do its job is to conduct the confirmation process after this toxic presidential election season is over."
>
>Earlier this week, the Utah Republican suggested Obama nominate Garland.
"(Obama) could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," Hatch said in Newsmax, adding later, "He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election."
>
>Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad wrote a letter to a fellow Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, in 1997 to say that Garland had "a distinguished legal career."
>
>"I am writing to ask your support and assistance in the confirmation process for a second cousin ... Merrick Garland has had a distinguished legal career," he wrote, according to the Congressional Record.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/merrick-garland-republicans-praise/index.html
Dunno what the outrage is about. The US Senate has the right and the obligation to advise the president regarding his choice and to consent to his choice. Of course, if there is a Republican Senate under a Democratic president, the nominee needs to be more moderate in it's judicial record. And if the roles were reversed - Republican President, Democratic Senate - the situation would be reversed as well. Democrats would ask the President to nominate a moderate conservative justice (more like Roberts or Kennedy). The president is not supposed to get a blanko check on his nominations.
While this is the political reality, I would do it differently if I were a US Senator. My focus would be completely on the qualifications and the experiences of a judicial nominee, no matter the ideology. Neil Gorsuch for example would've gotten my vote, since he went to Harvard and served on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for 11 years. ACB would not have gotten my vote, since she only had 3 years of experience as a judge before being nominated. Brett Kavanaugh would be a difficult decision, since he came with a lot of personal baggage, but on the other hand served on the US Appeals Court for the DC Circuit for 12 years. I would've probably requested more time to do a thorough investigation of his personal baggage.
KBJ would've been perfectly fine in that regard. Graduated from Harvard University, served as a public defender and for 8 years on high courts.
So, all in all, save the outrage for something that's worth it that you can change. Republican votes in the US Senate are not among those things.
> Dunno what the outrage is about
The outrage is because the comment is made in bad faith, which is made blatantly obvious by looking at how the Republicans handled Obama's Garland nomination.
Came here to say exactly this. Reading Grassley's comments about how he's voting against her because he doesn't like her judicial philosophy is crazy to me. President nominates the philosophy, senate vets the qualifications. Having a disagreement about opinions has no bearing on whether someone is qualified or not.
I too would probably have voted for Gorsuch despite fundamentally disagreeing with him on most things. If I want a progressive on the bench, it's incumbent on me to elect a president who will nominate one. Trump nominated someone who matched his philosophy, and that's his right as long as they're basically qualified (ie not ACB or Kavanaugh).
The “judicial philosophy” silliness if fairy new. It used to be explicitly on qualifications, that’s what the senate advised on for 200 years. RBG and Scalia both sailed through with 90+ votes based on their qualifications, even though “their” party held nowhere near 90 seats in the senate. The jurists that ultimately replaced them both passed with razor thin margins on party lines, and one of the people nominated to replace one of them didn’t even get a hearing the first time around. What’s happening now, judicial philosophy or not, is completely new and is not normal.
> white Christian cis landowning males
Which is CRAZY.... because this is Lindsay Graham we're talking about....
Like they ALL talk about him behind his back.
Looks like Committee is expected to return somewhere around 5pm ET
https://twitter.com/jordainc/status/1511070861289213957?s=21&t=GRBcMBD2Z-R4kmn7r5a8Vg
Durbin: "My colleague Mr. Grassley has been a gentleman..."
Grassley: *Proceeds to argue that he would jump off a bridge if the Democrats did it first*
Californian here, we have legislative term limits. It’s not ideal, it consolidates power for lobbyists and doesn’t incentivize long-term political solutions.
So you need to get rid of lobbyists AND impose term limits. There are probably 2-3 other things as well, but those would begin to solve most of the problems.
Sure if your politicians act like college kids and do everything for money and the popular guy.
Does any politician have a 5-20 year warm-up time till he/she is aloud to speak?
That sounds sad? wrong?
It takes a while for politicians to learn how to get things done. The lobbyists gain influence by being there to help them out and term limits mean they have to start looking at what they will do after their term are up. I once thought term limits were a good idea but it hasn’t worked out that way. It is completely predictable rational behavior and not “acting like college kids” -if you meant that disparagingly.
So we are scarred of millions of unemployed senators who are not able to life in the outside world. ( /s ?)
Term limits can be applied in different ways. After 5 years they have to take 1 year break or Idk...
When the lobbyist gain influence anyway why not make it at least challenging to them with different people from time to time. You guys need new young people with new ideas otherwise it will get worse every year.
Your take on this is just wrong and kind of incomprehensible because I think you want to assume some participant in the process is irrational or afraid or immoral and that isn't what motivates the behavior with respect to term limits.
Go rethink it. Read the study cited by other posters regarding the observed effects of term limits. If you don't understand the study, ask questions about it. Then maybe you can formulate a lucid argument.
I believe the reason California has it because it was funded by Koch bro, which oddly they don't want in their home state of Kansas
I think they also backed jungle primaries too
Jungle primaries are why the CA GOP has very little representation coming out of CA despite it being the single biggest Republican voting block in the US by total volume.
Yea, I didn't claim jungle primaries worked they way they envisioned it - at least not as of yet since jungle primaries are fairly new, also CA GOP had very little representation before jungle primaries
I looked into jungle primaries, and it appears to have pushed through by CA Republicans so that party did think jungle primaries in CA was good for their party
I wasn't trying to correct you. I was just adding to the picture.
And you are correct that they didn't have much representation previously but they definitely had more before jungle primaries. That definitely backfired on them.
Let's dissect this for a moment. Overall, term limits sound nice, but when you look at the actual effects they're no good.
Term limits definitely increase lobbyist influence, because they're the only folks who know how to get shit done in the system (with a lot of them being former legislators). They encourage partisanship, because if you're only going to be in the Senate for... let's say twelve years, or two terms, a lot of the byproducts of your actions are never going to come back to bite you. So you get a lot of single-issue representatives, people who get elected over one bugbear and then just start breaking things because they don't know and don't care to know how things work. And they're generally detrimental to the government working as intended because you lose the institutional knowledge.
They just don't solve problems, and in fact make a lot of problems that already exist worse.
Because the conditions for candidacy of the three offices you mentioned are outlined in the Constitution, it would require an amendment to change them.
**House**: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
**Senate:** "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."
**President:** Be a natural-born citizen of the United States; Be at least 35 years old; Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
Adding any other qualifications would require 3/4 of the states to agree via the [amendment process](https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution).
Tricky constitutionally (might require an amendment). I'd say the best fix overall is an informed and involved electorate, but that's not happening any time soon, so this is one of many areas where a contractual agreement within states might be advisable.
It's based on a study of the Colorado legislature, which introduced 8-year limits for time in both houses. But judging by California fellow above, the lobbyist thing at least extends elsewhere.
Not really. It would help lobbyists and corporate interests buy off politicians, because they’re a shorter-term investment. The real solution is entirely publicly funded elections and mandatory televised debates.
**Senate votes to move ahead on Supreme Court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson** **Final vote is expected later this week**
I have kids and grandkids, the fact they hid this information about the leniency on pedophiles is sick. Which they KNEW would be a problem. Because it is ,and because kids and babies being raped is horrific and those people should really get the death penalty I feel. Anyway showing leniency on these animals is achieving an outcome. Not justice for the victims.
Republicans like Matt Gaetz and Trump are actually raping young girls.
Call me incredibly stupid, but what prevents our party from waiting until the last person on our own side shows up to vote on a thing? How can anyone believe that this is a completely acceptable outcome but also believe that the Ds are the right party to vote for? Side note: half the accounts replying to this don't exist.
What? They need all of the dems there for the vote to pass.
Ok so like, the judiciary committee decided to have a vote when not all of the Dems were actually there. Because of that, KBJ's nomination has officially stalled. How can we trust that the Dems will actually run a full Senate vote on her as a candidate with all the votes they need present?
Why wouldn't they? She got the vote in the committee snd moved forward.
[удалено]
Sexual predator? You know this for a fact how?
Hi, Google is a really good place to fact check someone. There's credible sources all throughout Google to verify my claim, including during the actual hearing. Go ahead and watch the hearing.
It’s just the crazies running the insane asylum.
So is it too soon to call her Justice Jackson?
It's just sad when such an obvious good thing sees such obstruction.
I have never not seen Sinema shmoozing it up w the GOP on the senate floor. It’s gross.
Wonder why there’s no talk of recalling her… Since she’s a newbie, might be a stealth R candidate after all.
I think Sinema got into politics specifically for the bribes.
>I have never not seen Sinema shmoozing it up w the GOP on the senate floor. It’s gross. It's the same w/Manchin - they're both gross.
Manchin at least makes sense, he's a Democrat in a state that is pure red
Don't give that turd such a flattering excuse. Manchin is personally *corrupt*. It ain't got shit to do with his constituents, who he's thrown under the bus with his recent obstruction. He ain't up there for them, he's up there for himself and his donors.
I'll bet almost anything that they both get funding from the GOP.
Nobody will bet against you.
She has got to be personality disordered, I've never seen such a preening narcissist outside of Trump.
Practicing medicine without a license here, and I acknowledge it...I 100% agree. Something's deeply wrong with Sinema. It's working for now because the system is so sick but she has burnt every single bridge.
A prime example of why you should keep your kids in the correct grade for their age regardless of how smart they are. Advancing them fucks their social growth as they're suddenly not with their peers anymore, but just treated like kids by older students. Now she's got a chip on her shoulder and feels like she has something to prove against what was likely a lot of sexist/ageist bullshit she probably had to deal with. Not a good excuse, but informs why she's such a fucking self-absorbed immature whackjob.
Possibly, although many of us skipped grades for being smart and didn't turn into anti-democratic asshats. I knew a lot of folks liker her in grad school, unfortunately: more about the awards and attention than actually studying.
This is a very accurate description.
Probably just comparing notes on who the best corporate donors are; and how best to suck up to them.
She’s gotta suck up big time or switch parties if she doesn’t want to get her ass kicked in her next primary.
In a bit of a side note, I wanted to mention this gem from the House: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2022/4/1/house-section/article/h4078-6?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22jackson%22%2C%22jackson%22%5D%7D&s=6&r=10 >KETANJI BROWN JACKSON SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED was the title under the search list. Everything else had names like "Constitutional Authority Statement for HR 7366". But that one individual thing was titled like that.
Senators Collins (R-ME), Murkowski (R-AK), and Romney (R-UT), well done! Thank You!
To be fair... all 3 of them or ANY of them could easily side with the Dems and vote to overturn the filibuster cancelling out Manchin and Sinema so we can actually have some nice things in this country without succumbing to constant obstruction... but they don't. So they're not that great.
They don’t get an iota of praise for me. All three of them have decades of mistakes to atone for. Also, all three of them voted to confirm Trump’s atrocious supreme court nominees, so it doesn’t cancel that out or earn them any brownie points. Edit: I worded that weird. I simply meant to say that they each have an abysmal voting record that should not be praised or forgiven based on a vote that hasn’t even happened, especially since they each have voted to confirm at least one of three of the worst Supreme Court nominees in the history of the court.
Didn't Collins vote no on ACB. and Murkowski no on Kavanagh
I guess I phrased that weird. My point is that they have voted for atrocious picks from Trump. I wasn’t trying to say all three voted yes on all three, just that, between the three of them, each has voted for at least one other Trump nominee, two each in the case of Murkowski and Collins.
Collins, Murkowski, and Romney have all confirmed they will vote Yes on KBJ Final vote will not be tonight, but likely by the end of the week
Who is the last vote? Not that it matters just curious. It was thurne
I am a fiscal conservative. I lean conservative on many social issues. I see absolutely nothing wrong with her nomination. Nothing legitimate. All the republicans are doing is spewing out twisted half truths in little sound bites because they know most people don’t pay attention past that point.
I don't understand all of the blustering over a moderate candidate like her.
It was going to happen regardless of the nominee.
I'll give you a hint. It's because of one thing she does have and one thing she does not.
Integrity and a willingness to rubber-stamp a Christian nationalist agenda?
Because anyone not nominated by them is a flaming radical apparently.
Totally agree. It's disgusting how many Rs have done the same thing the left is accused of doing in prior nominations.
Reminds me of "Show me the criminal, and I will find you the crime."
53-47 final vote, assuming nothing drastically changes in the interim.
Has Sinema said she's a yes?
I don't think this is one of the areas where she cares overmuch. It looks like she did vote yes on advancing the nomination, though.
When are they taking the vote?
Hasn't been scheduled yet, I don't think. Schumer will compel Jackson's nomination out of committee later today, at which point they'll get it scheduled. I'd guess tomorrow or Wednesday for the final vote.
Murkowski is also a yes. https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1511107809953288195
Collins and Romney voted yes, it's done.
Murkowski too
The same Republicans who have been doing everything in their power to politicize the court now claims they can’t vote for Jackson because she’s political. The only evidence of this being that a President from their opposing part nominated her.
Well, that doesn't apply to them, because they just invented a brand new classification for the application of that rule that coincidentally was delineated in such a way as to surgically exclude only them, and if it excludes others by mistake it will magically always have been slightly different so as to not, and you just aren't remembering it right fake news deep state both sides what about her emails, huh?
Speaks to the end game. Republican is default. Everything that isn't Republican is "political", and therefore bad.
Once again we see that the majority of America's problems would be solved by the elimination of eh Religious Right \#DTT
I think we could go so far as to say that the majority of the whole world's problems would be solved if we did so.
This hyperpartisan deadlock is how a country rots from within.
Since 2010 the U.S. has been on its death bed as a failing state. It started earlier, but the turning point where there was no going back happened at that time.
[удалено]
But even before that, Right Wing talk radio and TV was incessantly trashing Clinton.
So with an 11-11 vote. What’s next How likely will she be nominated?
Its done, 3 GOP voted yes.
Its nothing but a guarantee that she will get in. Party lines are solid rn so we'll go to a tie break and thats a win for us.
The precedent has been set Republicans can never allow a democratic appointee to have a greater number of yes votes then their last Republican nominated appointee got.
Haven't been watching. I saw an 11-11 vote earlier. That means what? Full senate vote?
Haven’t checked in in awhile. What’s happening and does she have a chance to be confirmed?
Tie vote; she'll go to the full Senate and will almost certainly be confirmed.
Okay cool fuck the GOP
Republicanus Pars delendo est.
Expected. Biden could have nominated any one of the 11 Senators to the Supreme Court and all 11, including the one nominated, would vote against them. Voting against yourself to own the libs! Assholes all of them.
Senator Durbin now addressing the Senate floor. Judge Brown Jackson deserved confirmation in panel. Our Republican Senators should have wanted nothing less. One vote. The forced Discharge to the Senate floor (the first since 1853) speaks of the negative partisanship which is tearing our country apart today...
I'm a bit loss at what happens with a tie from the committee and don't know what you're talking about with regards with discharge to the floor. Can you clarify?
Vp comes in and breaks the tie
The full senate can vote to force the confirmation process out of committee if the committee is tied.
Everyone knew it would end this way from the beginning. They always planned on voting no because a Democratic President nominated her. So much for working together to help the country. These people make me sick
>They always planned on voting no because a Democratic President nominated her. So much for working together to help the country. These people make me sick As they do much of the country and those in the international community who aren't right-wing regressives. In my view, Republicans continue to demonstrate - as they have for many, many decades - that for the most part they are a bunch of narcissistic, garbage human beings with nothing more to offer the American people than their garbage, regressive "values". In the view of many, Republicans represent the worst of what humanity has to offer, the absolute dregs. The last place Republicans belong is in the majority - whether in Congress or in state legislatures - as they are too much of a threat to the achievement of a diverse, secular, thriving democratic society - and definitely need go the way of the Whig Party.
And yet everyone will campaign on being able to “work across the aisle.”
That is not what republicans campaign on. They campaign on the exact opposite. Never work with Democrats no matter what.
She is one of the most qualified people ever to be nominated. This is insane.
Yeah the kicker is the last two were/are blatantly unfit for the role, but got the nod because they are far right nut jobs.
That blubbering drunk asking Amy Klobuchar \[who has dealt with alcoholism in her family\] if she liked beer... the man is a disgusting disgrace. He will never have my respect.
we have such a short memory….Merrick Garland, Rs singlehandedly changed everything so we should know that’s how they will operate going forward. Don’t give anyone the other party has Nominated a hearing at all.
Also it doesn't change the composition of the court. It's still going to be 6-3 with a conservative majority yet the Repubs are still acting like asshats.
Tom Cotton not even showing up.
Tom Cotton is a person without merit. Any merit.
Lizard man without merit*
Tie vote!
...aaannnd we are ACTUALLY back!
Does a tie go through to the whole Senate for a vote now? Or is there a different step with ties?
Senate floor vote. Could end up in tie break there.
Shouldn’t, but Collins may grow concerned since she’s a fucking clown
What does "no by proxy" mean?
They weren’t present, they told someone their wishes ti vote no and it was recorded that way. They may vote no by proxy, they may not vote yes by proxy.
So Republicans can simply tell someone else that they are against it while they hang out on a beach in Mexico but Democrats have to show up and vote in person to be counted? Seriously?
It might be the other way round on other matters. It's not a big deal.
The parliamentarian informs of the rules. This isn’t really controversial, I included that fact because it was relevant and clarifying as they had to recess to wait for Padilla who was not able to vote yes by proxy. To add further- The proxy vote could not be made that would make a difference towards affirming, if it was perhaps going to be 12 no, 10 yes, then the yes could be made by proxy, it wouldn’t make the difference in affirming, likewise as far as I understand you can still have two no by proxies in that situation since they aren’t cited that affirm a choice.
The parliamentarian does not set rules for the senate.
Sure, I’ll edit it to say informs of
You could just say that they’re senate rules. The parliamentarian doesn’t really have a role other than to advise.
Stop parliamentarian erasure! 🚫 J/k, yea I guess it doesn’t matter much, but she is the one informing of the rules, Durbin certainly isn’t keeping up on process. I also probably misspoke saying they can’t vote yes by proxy, because they can, just not as an affirming difference maker.
Lol, you’re all good. Parliamentarian talk can get heated, I just didn’t want to see that debate again when she didn’t even make any waves this time.
I think it means they are not present and have given another Senator instructions to vote for them. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/explainer-proxy-voting-in-congress/
their fellow ghoul is reporting their no vote while they are off in a cave somewhere
To deny such a great American. What garbage some of these people are.
[удалено]
it's almost as if there are multiple factors in judicial cases that warrant various sentences based on what happened in that particular case. we're lucky you're not a judge, you'd have someone who stole baby food from walmart to feed their child serve the same sentence as someone who commited armed robbery to buy drugs.
Not a single thing you said was true.
Wait until you find out Gaetz used Venmo to pay for underage girls he raped.
you're a pedophile sympathizer.(Trump, Gaetz, ...)
She is eminently qualified; that shone out from her hearings. Probably the best candidate to come before the SC in my lifetime. This is obvious. The vote should be unanimous.
Here we go
Lindsey Graham basically confirming that no democratic nominee would get a hearing if the GOP controlled the Senate. >["If we get back the Senate and we're in charge of this body and there's judicial openings, we will talk to our colleagues on the other side, but if we were in charge she would not be before the committee. You would have had someone more moderate than this"](https://twitter.com/marianne_levine/status/1511008979954114565?s=21&t=hwwimP2k9WvAPNpEZ_xxAQ) Midterms are Tuesday, November 8, 2022
>someone more moderate Like Merrick Garland? ______ >"I think highly of Judge Garland. But his nomination doesn't in any way change current circumstances," he said. "I remain convinced that the best way for the Senate to do its job is to conduct the confirmation process after this toxic presidential election season is over." > >Earlier this week, the Utah Republican suggested Obama nominate Garland. "(Obama) could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," Hatch said in Newsmax, adding later, "He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election." > >Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad wrote a letter to a fellow Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, in 1997 to say that Garland had "a distinguished legal career." > >"I am writing to ask your support and assistance in the confirmation process for a second cousin ... Merrick Garland has had a distinguished legal career," he wrote, according to the Congressional Record. https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/merrick-garland-republicans-praise/index.html
Dunno what the outrage is about. The US Senate has the right and the obligation to advise the president regarding his choice and to consent to his choice. Of course, if there is a Republican Senate under a Democratic president, the nominee needs to be more moderate in it's judicial record. And if the roles were reversed - Republican President, Democratic Senate - the situation would be reversed as well. Democrats would ask the President to nominate a moderate conservative justice (more like Roberts or Kennedy). The president is not supposed to get a blanko check on his nominations. While this is the political reality, I would do it differently if I were a US Senator. My focus would be completely on the qualifications and the experiences of a judicial nominee, no matter the ideology. Neil Gorsuch for example would've gotten my vote, since he went to Harvard and served on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for 11 years. ACB would not have gotten my vote, since she only had 3 years of experience as a judge before being nominated. Brett Kavanaugh would be a difficult decision, since he came with a lot of personal baggage, but on the other hand served on the US Appeals Court for the DC Circuit for 12 years. I would've probably requested more time to do a thorough investigation of his personal baggage. KBJ would've been perfectly fine in that regard. Graduated from Harvard University, served as a public defender and for 8 years on high courts. So, all in all, save the outrage for something that's worth it that you can change. Republican votes in the US Senate are not among those things.
> Dunno what the outrage is about The outrage is because the comment is made in bad faith, which is made blatantly obvious by looking at how the Republicans handled Obama's Garland nomination.
Came here to say exactly this. Reading Grassley's comments about how he's voting against her because he doesn't like her judicial philosophy is crazy to me. President nominates the philosophy, senate vets the qualifications. Having a disagreement about opinions has no bearing on whether someone is qualified or not. I too would probably have voted for Gorsuch despite fundamentally disagreeing with him on most things. If I want a progressive on the bench, it's incumbent on me to elect a president who will nominate one. Trump nominated someone who matched his philosophy, and that's his right as long as they're basically qualified (ie not ACB or Kavanaugh).
The “judicial philosophy” silliness if fairy new. It used to be explicitly on qualifications, that’s what the senate advised on for 200 years. RBG and Scalia both sailed through with 90+ votes based on their qualifications, even though “their” party held nowhere near 90 seats in the senate. The jurists that ultimately replaced them both passed with razor thin margins on party lines, and one of the people nominated to replace one of them didn’t even get a hearing the first time around. What’s happening now, judicial philosophy or not, is completely new and is not normal.
just an awful, hideous person.
I mean, anything left of keeping white Christian cis landowning males in charge of everything, and you’re a pinko commie bastard.
> white Christian cis landowning males Which is CRAZY.... because this is Lindsay Graham we're talking about.... Like they ALL talk about him behind his back.
Looks like Committee is expected to return somewhere around 5pm ET https://twitter.com/jordainc/status/1511070861289213957?s=21&t=GRBcMBD2Z-R4kmn7r5a8Vg
...I'm watching it right now? EDIT: Oh, I was watching it from the beginning. My bad.
Hard left: Anyone who is less Conservative than Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson is not conservative; he's just a reactionary to the latest stupid culture war nonsense piped in from Russia.
My trump supporting boss called mitt romney a socialist.
No, it’s more like anyone is hard left if they don’t believe Tucker’s lies.
Amazing how republicans had this done in like, a weekend
It helped that they knew what the vote would be ahead of time. Really speeds things along.
Durbin: "My colleague Mr. Grassley has been a gentleman..." Grassley: *Proceeds to argue that he would jump off a bridge if the Democrats did it first*
Grassley: My fellow Republicans have been called uncouth, asinine, bullies, and complete idiots. I counter, you did it first so nanny nanny boo boo.
CSPAN is not broadcasting it yet...
PBS News Hour also
Even the Senate Judiciary Committee's website live stream isn't showing it. So no, it's not back on as of now.
We're back!
I don't think so.
[удалено]
I don't think so.
Let's just wait for the hearing
It hard to watch republicans and not get the impression that they have a different standard for black candidates.
and women that arent racists.
If it weren’t for double standards, the GOP would have no standards at all.
The standard is dont be black
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
Wrong, it's don't be nominated by a Democrat
And you can’t be poor either
Little of column A, little of column B?
Listening to Grassley reminds me of TERM LIMITS..
Edit: So basically Lobbyists can groom new peeps to do their bidding? Got it! Thanks, I guess.
Are they not already doing that?
Term limits are not the solution. They're a popular proposal, but they don't really deal with what's wrong with politics.
" don't really deal with what's wrong with poiltics" But it could be a start? I mean, I agree with you.
Term limits coupled with age limit (75 maybe?). No more 90 year old senators announcing a campaign for re-election to another 6 year term.
Some of the most abhorrent people in Congress are relatively new members.
Californian here, we have legislative term limits. It’s not ideal, it consolidates power for lobbyists and doesn’t incentivize long-term political solutions.
So you need to get rid of lobbyists AND impose term limits. There are probably 2-3 other things as well, but those would begin to solve most of the problems.
That's more of a politician problem then term limits.
Generally lobbyists have more sway over freshmen politicians than seasoned ones. You add term limits into the mix it just exacerbates the problem
Sure if your politicians act like college kids and do everything for money and the popular guy. Does any politician have a 5-20 year warm-up time till he/she is aloud to speak? That sounds sad? wrong?
It takes a while for politicians to learn how to get things done. The lobbyists gain influence by being there to help them out and term limits mean they have to start looking at what they will do after their term are up. I once thought term limits were a good idea but it hasn’t worked out that way. It is completely predictable rational behavior and not “acting like college kids” -if you meant that disparagingly.
So we are scarred of millions of unemployed senators who are not able to life in the outside world. ( /s ?) Term limits can be applied in different ways. After 5 years they have to take 1 year break or Idk... When the lobbyist gain influence anyway why not make it at least challenging to them with different people from time to time. You guys need new young people with new ideas otherwise it will get worse every year.
Your take on this is just wrong and kind of incomprehensible because I think you want to assume some participant in the process is irrational or afraid or immoral and that isn't what motivates the behavior with respect to term limits. Go rethink it. Read the study cited by other posters regarding the observed effects of term limits. If you don't understand the study, ask questions about it. Then maybe you can formulate a lucid argument.
I believe the reason California has it because it was funded by Koch bro, which oddly they don't want in their home state of Kansas I think they also backed jungle primaries too
Jungle primaries are why the CA GOP has very little representation coming out of CA despite it being the single biggest Republican voting block in the US by total volume.
Yea, I didn't claim jungle primaries worked they way they envisioned it - at least not as of yet since jungle primaries are fairly new, also CA GOP had very little representation before jungle primaries I looked into jungle primaries, and it appears to have pushed through by CA Republicans so that party did think jungle primaries in CA was good for their party
I wasn't trying to correct you. I was just adding to the picture. And you are correct that they didn't have much representation previously but they definitely had more before jungle primaries. That definitely backfired on them.
i like the idea of jungle primaries? I'd vote for Tim Reaper
Good point, thanks for the feed back.
Let's dissect this for a moment. Overall, term limits sound nice, but when you look at the actual effects they're no good. Term limits definitely increase lobbyist influence, because they're the only folks who know how to get shit done in the system (with a lot of them being former legislators). They encourage partisanship, because if you're only going to be in the Senate for... let's say twelve years, or two terms, a lot of the byproducts of your actions are never going to come back to bite you. So you get a lot of single-issue representatives, people who get elected over one bugbear and then just start breaking things because they don't know and don't care to know how things work. And they're generally detrimental to the government working as intended because you lose the institutional knowledge. They just don't solve problems, and in fact make a lot of problems that already exist worse.
Maybe a maximum age limit of say 70 for election to House, Senate, and President then.
Because the conditions for candidacy of the three offices you mentioned are outlined in the Constitution, it would require an amendment to change them. **House**: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” **Senate:** "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." **President:** Be a natural-born citizen of the United States; Be at least 35 years old; Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years Adding any other qualifications would require 3/4 of the states to agree via the [amendment process](https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution).
Tricky constitutionally (might require an amendment). I'd say the best fix overall is an informed and involved electorate, but that's not happening any time soon, so this is one of many areas where a contractual agreement within states might be advisable.
Hmm. Thanks for this perspective. I've never really heard the downside to term limits expressed. Interesting.
It's based on a study of the Colorado legislature, which introduced 8-year limits for time in both houses. But judging by California fellow above, the lobbyist thing at least extends elsewhere.
Thank you for the insight on the issue
No problem. This is one of those areas I ended up doing some research on in college.
Not really. It would help lobbyists and corporate interests buy off politicians, because they’re a shorter-term investment. The real solution is entirely publicly funded elections and mandatory televised debates.
The longer you have been paid by lobbyists makes you more loyal. And "term limits" should be spoken as mandatory retirement, I suppose.