Skip to comments.As Kavanaugh Hearings Loom, One Senate Democrat Regrets Abolishing Filibuster
Posted on 09/03/2018 2:21:38 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
I wouldve liked to see 60 votes, no matter what the judge is, Klobuchar told NBC. I dont think we shouldve made that change, when we look back at it. But it happened because we were so frustrated, because President Obama wasnt able to get his nominees.
But Klobuchar added that neither party is likely to reimpose the filibuster over judicial nominations, since doing so would cede a huge tactical advantage.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
We warned them. Now they can suck it.
To honor the memory of John McCain and his spirit of bi-partisanship which they so recently lauded.....the Democrats should be happy to vote for unanimous confirmation.
Klobuchar the clown can suck it. Why is it that all female RAT senators are ugly—and dumber than rocks?
Sounds like an ITYS moment. The Democrats, I guess thought they could end the two party system once they got Congress this last time. It shows why each election now is The Most Important. If and when the Democrats take the Presidency again and have the Congress, either with D majorities or with D and R(d) majorities they will take full power and do away with the Constitution as anything but an essay on the thoughts of those reprehensible (deplorable) white slaveholders back in the 1700s.
It’s the Harry Reid Rule.
I don’t care if it gets moved to Extended News. It has a free link for those who don’t want to pay wapo.
They thought theyd never lose.
Too bad for them.
The WaPo link is free too...
Wonder if, in a few years, Dems will regret having a special council dog president Trump. Hey Dems, we do not live in a bubble and expect the same thing to happen when your guy is in office. A new low standard has been established.
They are really going to plotz when RBG goes toes up.
Strange, they usually make me pay. Does that count against my one free view per month?
One Dem told me that Mueller is revenge for the Ken Starr investigation. Will we see a new special counsel every time a POTUS from a different party gets elected?
Yup. And sexual harrassment was important to Dems when Thomas was being confirmed yet okay when their guy Bill Clinton did it. And even with the metoo movement, it still isn’t important to them. Otherwise, Bill would have been out of the party and not campaigning for Hillary. They only pretend that it is.
I’d like to have had Obama scrutinized the same way. And then there is Hillary.
Only one? :)
The Democrats were "all in on defeating any Republican challenge to their permanent rein; as far as they were concerned 2009 was the birth date of a new America in which there would only be token opposition to their rule, permanently.
So what if the Reid Rule meant that a Republican POTUS and Senate would be able to install a Gorsuch and a Kavenaugh?? There wasnt ever gonna be another Republican POTUS. To that end, FBI surveillance of Republican presidential candidates. I even wonder how legit the 2012 election actually was.
And people wonder why the Democrats are off the reservation over the Trump victory. It would be like a gambler who had paid off basketball players to point shave and assure himself a huge payday. All of a sudden the guaranteed victory doesnt happen - and WHOOEE! The Devil to pay!
Naturally they went ballistic when they did lose, in the very next presidential election.
Which is why leftist voters, the deep state, the sockpuppet media, etc. have gone ape-sh**.
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.