回复 192楼whwanthony的帖子 The solution seemed simple: Democrats had to abolish the very nomination filibusters they had used so aggressively just a decade earlier. But it would take 67 votes to directly amend Rule 22 so it no longer required “three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn” to invoke cloture. On Nov. 21, 2013, Senate Democrats deployed the “nuclear option,” so named because of its explosive impact on Senate rules and traditions. They voted 52-48 to reinterpret the words “three-fifths” in Rule 22 to mean “simple majority.” As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would later explain, 52 senators made 60 equal 51. 52个人可以决定把3/5解释为51票， 1.够无耻 2.这个系统是不是有点joke
回复 192楼whwanthony的帖子 The solution seemed simple: Democrats had to abolish the very nomination filibusters they had used so aggressively just a decade earlier. But it would take 67 votes to directly amend Rule 22 so it no longer required “three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn” to invoke cloture. On Nov. 21, 2013, Senate Democrats deployed the “nuclear option,” so named because of its explosive impact on Senate rules and traditions. They voted 52-48 to reinterpret the words “three-fifths” in Rule 22 to mean “simple majority.” As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would later explain, 52 senators made 60 equal 51. 52个人可以决定把3/5解释为51票， 1.够无耻 2.这个系统是不是有点joke
"这样参众两院和总统全部民主党"。。。In your dreams。。。
The solution seemed simple: Democrats had to abolish the very nomination filibusters they had used so aggressively just a decade earlier. But it would take 67 votes to directly amend Rule 22 so it no longer required “three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn” to invoke cloture.
On Nov. 21, 2013, Senate Democrats deployed the “nuclear option,” so named because of its explosive impact on Senate rules and traditions. They voted 52-48 to reinterpret the words “three-fifths” in Rule 22 to mean “simple majority.” As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would later explain, 52 senators made 60 equal 51.
52个人可以决定把3/5解释为51票， 1.够无耻 2.这个系统是不是有点joke
进步党一向如此， 现有规则稍不如意就改规则，是不是没学过统计中的假设检验H0 , Ha ？ 保守主义在大多数时候都更靠谱
现在美国自由派已经走向极端，连华盛顿和杰斐逊，丘吉尔都被打倒了，共产主义和种族主义都成了理想了，就不要利用法官金博格的一时一事来做政治文章了。美国的堕落，这些政客都有份。大爱圣母往往害人不浅。
民主党自尝51票，nuclear Option, 的苦果。。
值得尊敬的女人！她很幸运有一个全力支持她事业的好丈夫。
对老川最好的结果就是这个任命卡在中间，这样可以催出最多的和党支持者。本来想要投拜登的那些有钱有闲白人也很可能会犹豫。
当然，也会催出主党支持者。所以，最后可以拼，中间选民喜欢谁。
奥巴当时让她退，可以在自己任内递补。可是她坚决要求在希拉里任内退。然而，人算不如天算啊。
是的，所以说2020总统很重要啊。
那就要看参议院的GOP议员了。我个人觉得rand paul，romney，不一定会同意啊。
总统和参院都是民选的，选民选共和党很大一个理由就是为了推保守派大法官，谁不要脸代表大多数。
很多伟人老了都犯糊涂，老年痴呆。美国这个法官终身制不够科学，应该有最高年龄限制。
提名和确认大法官是总统和参议院的权利和职责，只要能通过, 就该做，为啥说不要脸。说这话的估计是基本的常识都没有。