Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed 52-48

a reply to: xuenchen

Well no the election is Nov 3rd and ACA case is Nov 10th.

a reply to: Pyle
Thanks for the summary Pyle. What should we do about it?

originally posted by: carewemust
What IDIOT got rid of the 60 vote majority requirement?

Boy they must of been some really stupid people...I bet the other side said something like..."You will regret this"

And the swearing in ceremony has begun!
45
The lady nominee
The african american justice

What a picture
One would think EVERYBODY would celebrate this.

a reply to: carewemust

And see the reaction of Sen Mitch McConnell regarding the change to the voting rules (from the same source article):

A furious Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who tried to recess the Senate for the day before the rules change could get a vote, said after the minority’s power was limited by Democrats: “I don’t think this is a time to be talking about reprisal. I think it’s a time to be sad about what has been done to the United States Senate.”

He was furious, but did he call for confronting Democrat voters in the streets? Where they eat? Wherever they are in public?

No. He did this !!!

But McConnell quickly noted that Republicans could fix the problem in the upcoming midterm elections if they regain the majority: “The solution to this problem is an election. The solution to this problem is at the ballot box. We look forward to having a great election on 2014.”

In other words, do not call for violent confrontation from the political opposition, but use the system to rectify it peacefully at the ballot box next time.

a reply to: carewemust

Stop supporting Mitch McConnell and those that enable him to break the government. How was that a question you could have?

originally posted by: mtnshredder

Kamal Harris sure isn't though and I have doubts Joe would make it through a full term, food for thought.

Well they need to keep the House and take the Senate...And then they better take out Joe in the first two years until the next election.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Except he didnt get rid of the rule and he doubled down and added the Supreme Court to the 50+1 requirement.

originally posted by: Pyle

Except he didnt get rid of the rule and he doubled down and added the Supreme Court to the 50+1 requirement.

Yep he did...But he didn't make the rule in the first place the Democrats did....They tend to screw everything up in the end. If they try expanding the SC or Senate/House it will bite them in the ass once again like always.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well under Obama, he stopped allowing judges to be confirmed full stop causing massive shortages in available judges which has had ripple effects of delayed judicial proceedings for years. Now under Trump has been forcing through judges at the expense of other needed Senate work.

And that's just about the topic of the thread.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: xuenchen

Well no the election is Nov 3rd and ACA case is Nov 10th.

Look up when new elected people take office.

Until then it's the last election that still has the power.

😎

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: xuenchen

Well no the election is Nov 3rd and ACA case is Nov 10th.

The ACA case on November 10th is on a technicality in the law. It's not about Repealing it, as the low IQ liberal media kept using as another tool against ACB's confirmation.

Four potential outcomes:

The Supreme Court has the following options when it decides the case, The Washington Post and other sources have reported:

To dismiss the case on technical grounds, leaving the statute in place. The court could decide, for instance, that Texas and the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.

To affirmatively uphold the ACA.

To uphold the statute while finding the individual mandate to be void without its penalty, essentially maintaining the status quo.

To uphold the statute but void both the individual mandate and other provisions closely linked to the mandate.

To strike down the law in full, although that option has been viewed as unlikely by legal analysts. Should it happen, however, the effect of the ruling would likely be delayed, giving Congress the opportunity to correct the statute's constitutional defects or to pass a replacement health care law.

Source: www.shrm.org...

a reply to: Xtrozero

So because the GOP broke the systems and democrats did what they had to get it functional again, it will be the DEMs fault when they do it agian?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
And the swearing in ceremony has begun!
45
The lady nominee
The african american justice

What a picture
One would think EVERYBODY would celebrate this.

Was Senator Joe Biden against the African American Justice nominee Clarence Thomas?

a reply to: xuenchen

But ACB could not hear those cases if they waited... they had to rush her through in order for that to happen.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Xtrozero

Well under Obama, he stopped allowing judges to be confirmed full stop causing massive shortages in available judges which has had ripple effects of delayed judicial proceedings for years. Now under Trump has been forcing through judges at the expense of other needed Senate work.

And that's just about the topic of the thread.

So you are telling me that the Senate and President were not of the same party? Hmmm isn't that how it works? When both President and Senate are the same 90%+ judges are selected and 90%+ are not selected when they are different parties... How is that breaking anything as it is the norm.

BTW Obama appointed 312 judges, double Bush...Clinton only had 87 and Reagan had 18. We saw Obama stacking the fed courts with activist judges never seen before with more judges confirmed in his 8 years than the previous 50 years... Give me a break.

I just saw the end of Amy Coney-Barrett's speech after being sworn in. Was that REALLY President Trump standing there?

He held 3 rallies in Pennsylvania today. Holy smokes.