Posted on 08/27/2015 8:49:00 AM PDT by C19fan
President Barack Obama’s almost certain to get the Iran nuclear deal — but whether he gets there by filibuster or sustained veto could make all the difference. A Democratic filibuster in the Senate would be a clear victory for the president, allowing Obama to say that for all the political noise there wasn’t enough actual opposition to the nuclear agreement with the Islamic republic to even get to a final vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
What?? I thought the deal was that there would be an up-down vote.
We know who are his true buddies.
Any Republican Party which could engineer this outcome does not deserve to survive.
Go, Trump!
I guess not. The GOPe made to look like fools again.
GOPe never fails to disappoint.
I’m so over these sh**bags.
Trump should say that this deal will be modified or null and void once he is in office. He has a phone and pen too.
And they wonder what Trump's appeal is.
Actually, we are the ones who look like fools for electing them.
I liken it to Churchill fighting Parliament for avoiding giving subsidies to Hitler to build more Buzz-Bombs to destroy London.
Americans are the dumbest people on the face of the earth, and the rest of the world should put us in the corner until we can think about what we are doing.
They only have to filibuster until the deadline to oppose, then it makes no difference. Without a vote, Congress approves thanks to Corker (Traitor-Tennessee) and the GOP-E
Make them talk till they fall over. Sounds good to me.
What does the deadline to oppose mean? How is that set?
See post 13 and 15.
Corker’s bill basically says it is approved unless Congress opposes it before a set time passes. If it does not come up for a vote, the deal is approved. A thorough betrayal indeed.
Yep, SOP anymore. Makes one wonder if it's on purpose.
Someone please explain something to me (and I have long considered myself to have a grasp of the Constitution):
How can this Iran “deal” not fall under the auspices of a “treaty” under US Law and the Constitution, thus requiring the ratification of it by the Senate? There is nothing in US Law that I am aware of allowing the President to ink a deal of this nature and have it binding, unilaterally...
OH - wait - this is the Obama Administration - no rule of law, no Constitution need apply...
“Epidemic mass hysteria.” — Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
