Democrats Say No Election Year Appointments

Either the Litlibs are too embarrassed to post this morning or they haven't awakened yet.

I'm guessing #2.
 
Either the Litlibs are too embarrassed to post this morning or they haven't awakened yet.

I'm guessing #2.

No Throb has already apparently taken a shot at my daughter...

:shrug:

If you're a Democrat, it's what you do.
 
And for those of you who think it's significant:
Simple Resolution: Designated "S. Res.," simple resolutions are used to express nonbinding positions of the Senate or to deal with the Senate's internal affairs, such as the creation of a special committee. They do not require action by the House of Representatives.
How many senators who were in the 86th are still in the senate today?
 
About recess appointments, no less.


Probably because William Brennan was originally a recess appointment in 1956 -- one of those election year court appointments (in this case, three weeks before an election!) that the GOP has spent the last two days telling us never, ever happens.
 
And the Schumer clip from 2007...

;) ;)

Too old to be relevant?

(R) owned the Senate at the time, with William H. First (R-TN) at the majority helm, replaced by Reid at the end of the year. Soooo just not relevant enough.

Sorry!! Try again some other time! :D
 
So he was in the minority then and he's in the minority now but the party of the President is the thing that has changed, just like his opinion.

Fucking idiot. All you can ever think of is how to defend the Democrats by yelling REPUBLICAN in a crowded PBS meeting...
 
So he was in the minority then and he's in the minority now but the party of the President is the thing that has changed, just like his opinion.

So? 1 (D)ickheads opinion isn't the same as McConnelll actively trying to prevent congress from fulfilling it's obligations.

You do understand one (D)'s opinion that never amounted to anymore than an opinion is different than the actions currently being taken by the GOP and it's leadership right?

NVM you're too fucking stupid to understand it's not the same thing.

Carry on with your rant about the irrelevant (D) that never did anything like what (R) is doing now, at least you tried right!?!?!

Someone get 4est a gold star for trying! LOL

Fucking idiot. All you can ever think of is how to defend the Democrats by yelling REPUBLICAN in a crowded PBS meeting...

I'm not defending Democrats I'm pointing out how lame the defense of Republicans shirking their responsibilities is. There is an obvious difference, if your not a hysterically partisan nut job like yourself. ;)
 
No, you protest too much.

You summed it up with pretty much it when I described how your ilk view Republicans.
 
No, you protest too much.

Ascription once again, I'm not protesting, I'm not saying Schumer didn't say what you have him quoted saying.

I'm pointing out how lame a defense pointing at (D) for mentioning it is for (R) actually doing it.

You're still too dumb to understand that aren't you? LOL.....let's see what kind of ascription you come up with this time!

You summed it up with pretty much it when I described how your ilk view Republicans.

No that's your hysterical partisanship messing your reading comprehension up.

I can dislike, disagree with and argue against Republicans and their hypocritical bullshit talking about freedumb and fiscal responsibility ALL DAY LONG, and never once defend Democrats in the process.

Go get your GED and maybe they will teach you the basics in the prep course at the local CC. LOL Careful though you might learn something at a public school and catch the socialism disease!!
 
Are we really bringing up 56 year old evidence of the shoe is on the other foot? The overwhelming majority of us weren't even ALIVE for that and those of us who were most likely were not voting. I mean how many 74+ year olds are on lit? Hell given the average age of death (despite people living longer) there are only so many people alive period who were in anyway relevant to that scenario.

This however is relevant. So the question here becomes what DID happen to the Bush appointees in his election year?

Now this would be legit shoe is on the other foot.
 
Are we really bringing up 56 year old evidence of the shoe is on the other foot? The overwhelming majority of us weren't even ALIVE for that and those of us who were most likely were not voting. I mean how many 74+ year olds are on lit? Hell given the average age of death (despite people living longer) there are only so many people alive period who were in anyway relevant to that scenario.

This however is relevant. So the question here becomes what DID happen to the Bush appointees in his election year?

Now this would be legit shoe is on the other foot.

Possibly even 77-year-olds. 18-year-olds couldn't vote nationwide until 1971, and this is older than that. We're really going off a non-binding article from before 18-year-olds could vote?
 
Possibly even 77-year-olds. 18-year-olds couldn't vote nationwide until 1971, and this is older than that. We're really going off a non-binding article from before 18-year-olds could vote?

Thank you for that bit of trivia.
 
Back
Top