Parliamentary Delays and a...MANDATE??

Re: As the worm turns.... -- Loquitur
Posted by CPMariner , Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 11:31:30 Post ReplyTop of ThreadReviews by CPMarinerFirst Amendment Message BoardMain BigDoggie.net site

I'll admit it. I was astonished that McConnell & cohorts were able to get away with the Garland gambit. Among other things, it trashed the line-drawing game, opening the door to the party in power to delay hearings on a predecessor's nominee for at least four years.

Now this. Does anyone think McConnell would hesitate to pull anything out of his hat to delay seating Jones for as long as it takes to (presumably) pass "Tax Reform"?

(When do at least one or two GOPhers finally start puking in the aisles about their leader's unabashed disregard for the dignity of the "Upper House"? Is it really necessary to announce one's resignation before puking?)

But the one that really got me was "Redstate"s casual dismissal of Jones's "mandate".

For one thing, I've always thought of a mandate as being the product of an overwhelming, landslide victory. FDR and LBJ could legitimately claim a mandate, as could Reagan. But has Jones or anyone associated with him claimed to have earned a mandate? No. That's a "Redstate" straw man.

For another, is there some rule that precludes a freshman Senator from voting on any bill that comes before him, even on Day #1? I know of no such rule, but evidently "Redstate" thinks a freshman should at least abstain from voting on "Tax Reform" because he doesn't have a "mandate".

What a flimsy house of cards.

CP


| Edit | Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Support Original Message Top of Thread Current page
Replies to this message