Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

whttevrr

(2,345 posts) Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:46 AM Nov 2013

Is Harry going to do it?

Anyone know?

I hope they change the filibuster rules. Please do not let the Democrats back down, again.

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is Harry going to do it? (Original Post) whttevrr Nov 2013 OP

Sadly only partial change. Not to apply to legislation or Supreme Court. HERVEPA Nov 2013 #1

Did he just say its a go? whttevrr Nov 2013 #2

Kinda surreal... whttevrr Nov 2013 #3

Ha ha ha, the turtle just called a time-out? whttevrr Nov 2013 #4

HERVEPA

(6,107 posts)

1. Sadly only partial change. Not to apply to legislation or Supreme Court.

Reply to whttevrr (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:48 AM

Nov 2013

Actually, might be good that it doesn't apply to Supreme Court.

whttevrr

(2,345 posts)

2. Did he just say its a go?

Reply to whttevrr (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:51 AM

Nov 2013

Regular nominations would be a good start.

The President should be able to pick his own team.

whttevrr

(2,345 posts)

3. Kinda surreal...

Reply to whttevrr (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:57 AM

Nov 2013

I'm watching, listening, and thinking: What the fuck is he saying?"

Then the blah, blah, lady comes on and says it is procedural that the motion needs to go forward and receive a majority no vote to change the Filibuster rule...

Can someone versed in legalese translate this for me?

whttevrr

(2,345 posts)

4. Ha ha ha, the turtle just called a time-out?

Reply to whttevrr (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 12:06 PM

Nov 2013

These people are worse than preschoolers.

Reply to this discussion