No more judicial appointments... they don't need more... they have plenty of corrupt judges willing to do their bidding...
No more money for the government... You mean, as Speaker Johnson and others in the GOP have promised for decades?... Go, blow smoke in someone else's face. I've heard those promises for decades... Don't you have some ORIGINAL LIES... Probably not, as they have all been used before. Liars are not to be trusted.
How about trying this:
1. Term limits Amendment... one term, 6 years., with 1/3rd of Congress standing for election every 2yest.
2. A Recall Amendment... RECALL... every sitting elected and appointed government official, subject to new elections and appointments.
Both of the above should serve the nation well... Getting rid of both the corrupt and inept who brought us to the precipice of destruction. That sounds like a deal to me.
The well of liberty has been poisoned... The Nation must now open a new well, with clean and fresh water if we are to revive liberty and provide for our future heirs. Purge out the lump before it removes any last vestiges of honorable government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
I am not certain how the Republicans can block the Judicial Appointments as it only requires a simple majority to accomplish this. But the no more money should be accomplishable. Are you listening House Republicans. It is the House the controls the purse strings.
"The President nominates federal judges, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution does not define advice, though consent means a favorable vote in the chamber. Since it takes a majority to approve a judge, one vote is typically not enough to stop a nomination.
However, the Senate does have some customs and rules that allow one Senator to play a more pronounced role. Historically, Senators have given deference to a Senator when the nominee is from that Senator’s home state. This practice, called Senatorial Courtesy, has existed since the early years of our republic and is often attributed to the norm of collegiality in the chamber. It is also a recognition that a Senator from the same state as a nominee might have greater insight into the character and accomplishments of the individual in question."
Quote: Kevin Wagner, Greg Lovet of the Palm Beach Post
Replies
Really, Scott?
No more judicial appointments... they don't need more... they have plenty of corrupt judges willing to do their bidding...
No more money for the government... You mean, as Speaker Johnson and others in the GOP have promised for decades?... Go, blow smoke in someone else's face. I've heard those promises for decades... Don't you have some ORIGINAL LIES... Probably not, as they have all been used before. Liars are not to be trusted.
How about trying this:
1. Term limits Amendment... one term, 6 years., with 1/3rd of Congress standing for election every 2yest.
2. A Recall Amendment... RECALL... every sitting elected and appointed government official, subject to new elections and appointments.
Both of the above should serve the nation well... Getting rid of both the corrupt and inept who brought us to the precipice of destruction. That sounds like a deal to me.
The well of liberty has been poisoned... The Nation must now open a new well, with clean and fresh water if we are to revive liberty and provide for our future heirs. Purge out the lump before it removes any last vestiges of honorable government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Oops, Congress can't do that it may work.
I am not certain how the Republicans can block the Judicial Appointments as it only requires a simple majority to accomplish this. But the no more money should be accomplishable. Are you listening House Republicans. It is the House the controls the purse strings.
"The President nominates federal judges, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution does not define advice, though consent means a favorable vote in the chamber. Since it takes a majority to approve a judge, one vote is typically not enough to stop a nomination.
However, the Senate does have some customs and rules that allow one Senator to play a more pronounced role. Historically, Senators have given deference to a Senator when the nominee is from that Senator’s home state. This practice, called Senatorial Courtesy, has existed since the early years of our republic and is often attributed to the norm of collegiality in the chamber. It is also a recognition that a Senator from the same state as a nominee might have greater insight into the character and accomplishments of the individual in question."
Quote: Kevin Wagner, Greg Lovet of the Palm Beach Post
Link to article: Do Senate rules allow a single Senator to block a judge's appointme...:
We can only hope