Schumer At It Again...

Because it is not the actual "rule" as was pointed out to you earlier by other people.
If you are going to quote the rule and demand its use, then do it in context or it is no rule at all...

Sirprise, sirprise, sirprise!
It wasn't the actual rule, but McConnell tagged it as a rule and invoked it any way? So it's Ok to call it a rule, use it as a rule when you want to, but it's also ok to say it isn't a rule and ignore when you don't? And what about that isn't a two faced position? FFS.

Comshaw
 
Is English your primary language? Can you not read and comprehend? It has nothing to do with a presidential election. It has to do with the people having a voice in such a decision, just as McConnell said.

Perhaps you should go back, read my post again (slowly and more then once if it's necessary for you to understand it).

No clown, I didn't read it wrong. Maybe you should GOOGLE Senate Resolution 334. :rolleyes::D
 
No clown, I didn't read it wrong. Maybe you should GOOGLE Senate Resolution 334. :rolleyes::D

Aw so taking a picture in the Senate or a recess appointment to the Supreme Court has what to do with the Biden rule ( conveniently manufactured and used by McConnell to halt any confirmation hearings during an election year)? While Resolution 334 in 1960 was passed in an election year it SPECIFICALLY targeted Ike's power to make a recess appointment. It had nothing to do with, nor did it contain any prohibition on confirmation hearings for the Supreme court in an election year.

Perhaps you do need some remedial english classes to understand the language after all.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s416

Comshaw
 
Back
Top