I approve of this confirmation. The fact that it makes you cry just makes it all the better.
Another victory for everyone...... except the tantrum throwing crybabies.
Instead of throwing a hissy-fit over every single nominee, the lefties should have focused on one (or maybe two) that they considered the worst. When you throw a hissy fit over everything, nobody cares anymore when you throw a hissy fit. If that means every nominee has to be confirmed strictly along party lines (or, as in this case, close to it), so be it. You can't compromise with a a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum, and that's what the lefties are right now. So you basically ignore them and do what needs to be done.
Except it was a bipartisan vote, unlike the ACA.And that's exactly what Democrats did with the ACA.
don't worry little troll, drumpfy will have a new plan ready to roll out... some day....Except it was a bipartisan vote, unlike the ACA.
I love how Warren triggered all these republican pussies. How dare that woman bring history in the discussion and read a letter! Engage Safe Space mode!
Mitch McConnell is almost as much a sensitive little bitch as Donald Dump. Sad!
Let's hope this kind of ridiculous shit doesn't last long.
I thought there was a some uncertainty with the history of the "letter".
Any concerns around that dissolved by the following morning when four white men read the same letter.
And they didn't keep adding personal attacks not contained in the letter.
And they didn't keep adding personal attacks not contained in the letter.
And they didn't keep adding personal attacks not contained in the letter.
And they didn't keep adding personal attacks not contained in the letter.
Except it was a bipartisan vote, unlike the ACA.
And they didn't keep adding personal attacks not contained in the letter.
Technically she was saying he was unworthy of being the Attorney General not a Senator.motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator
streisand effect. they have to know about it.Warren, as you probably know, was delivering a floor statement against Sessions and had just finished quoting from a 1986 letter by Coretta Scott King. In opposing his unsuccessful nomination to a federal judgeship, the civil rights leader’s widow wrote that Sessions, as a prosecutor, had tried “to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters.”
McConnell invoked a rule that prevents senators from disparaging their fellow lawmakers. When Warren persisted, the majority leader engineered a party-line vote that stripped her of the right to speak on the Sessions nomination.
The tactic was a bit puzzling, since there was no question that Sessions would be easily confirmed, as he was last night. As a shrewd tactician, McConnell had to know that his move would mushroom into a huge story. And Warren had to know that if she kept reading the letter, she would lose the parliamentary battle.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-boost-as-dems-seize-on-silencing-theme.html
So why were 4 white male senators allowed to read the same letter the next day? What changed?
You know what? Don't answer that.
Sounds like a good motto for the GOP.
Ah yes that explains why the exact same conduct by her male peers was allowed to happen.
So if you believe the nominee, who happens to be a senator, is unqualified, how on earth do you voice your opposition?
Or are you just supposed to stfu?
Silencing Warren was bullshit and everyone knows it. Just like all the other crap Republicans pull off, it's just a thinly veiled excuse to silence or disenfranchise someone.
You read the rule. It applies to both parties. She was warned and ignored the warning.
The best part is that right now she's the front runner for the Democrats in the next Presidential cycle!You read the rule. It applies to both parties. She was warned and ignored the warning.
and what of the spirit of the rule? it's to preserve the polite/gentlemanly nature of the senate - to debate ideas, not attack your opponent. invoking the rule in this case is inappropriate, because the subject of the debate IS a person. that's why it's bullshit. you cannot debate a person if no one can speak ill of them or otherwise bring up unflattering information. that is inherently contradictory to the idea of a debate,
by invoking the rules, the republicans have clearly signaled (not that there was much if any doubt in the first place) that they are not interested in actual debate of any kind. they simply want to railroad anything and everything on the agenda that is labeled with an R, and deny everything labeled with a D.
and this is largely a symptom of two-party politics. rather than actually trying to work towards the good of the country, they work towards the party ideology, consequences be damned.
it is truly hard for me to believe that everyone who voted for sessions or devos genuinely believes that they are appropriate candidates for their positions (or most of trump's picks, for that matter). how could one honestly and objectively confirm a person to head the department of education who has no experience in the education system, in any capacity, whatsoever?
and what of the spirit of the rule? it's to preserve the polite/gentlemanly nature of the senate - to debate ideas, not attack your opponent. invoking the rule in this case is inappropriate, because the subject of the debate IS a person. that's why it's bullshit. you cannot debate a person if no one can speak ill of them or otherwise bring up unflattering information. that is inherently contradictory to the idea of a debate,
by invoking the rules, the republicans have clearly signaled (not that there was much if any doubt in the first place) that they are not interested in actual debate of any kind. they simply want to railroad anything and everything on the agenda that is labeled with an R, and deny everything labeled with a D.
and this is largely a symptom of two-party politics. rather than actually trying to work towards the good of the country, they work towards the party ideology, consequences be damned.
it is truly hard for me to believe that everyone who voted for sessions or devos genuinely believes that they are appropriate candidates for their positions (or most of trump's picks, for that matter). how could one honestly and objectively confirm a person to head the department of education who has no experience in the education system, in any capacity, whatsoever?
The best part is that right now she's the front runner for the Democrats in the next Presidential cycle!
She was warned and continued breaking the rules. She was asking for it.
She was warned and ignored the warning.
She was warned and ignored the warning and then told to sit down.
Your sexism is showing.LOL. After all "the future is female". Just ask Hillary.
What exactly did everyone win? Hating the left might keep you warm at night, but it's not really a positive agenda for the rest of us. What is Sessions going to do as AG besides pissing off Democrats?Another victory for everyone...... except the tantrum throwing crybabies.
Instead of throwing a hissy-fit over every single nominee, the lefties should have focused on one (or maybe two) that they considered the worst. When you throw a hissy fit over everything, nobody cares anymore when you throw a hissy fit. If that means every nominee has to be confirmed strictly along party lines (or, as in this case, close to it), so be it. You can't compromise with a a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum, and that's what the lefties are right now. So you basically ignore them and do what needs to be done.
He's going to do what conservatives all want him to do, obliterate the rights of minorities while wiping his ass with the Constitution.What exactly did everyone win? Hating the left might keep you warm at night, but it's not really a positive agenda for the rest of us. What is Sessions going to do as AG besides pissing off Democrats?