“It’s called precedent,” the Senate Judiciary Committee chair said of violating the same rule that Republicans ignored to move forward with judicial nominees.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Nobody’s shooting them for allowing debate. It’s not a binary where they have to either allow Republicans to obstruct endlessly or eliminate debate completely.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            after Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) held votes on two of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees without allowing debate on them

            Were these two opportunities for other nominees? You know that different people aren’t interchangeable, right? 🤦

            • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              That is an impressive selective reading of the article. One could be left to wonder how, in good faith, you could have possibly missed all of this:

              Durbin went straight to their votes, saying senators already had two chances to debate their nominations.

              “I understand what you’d like to do, but I’m saying, in fairness, we’ve debated these nominees twice,” Durbin said. “I ask the clerk to call the roll.”

              Through all this, Durbin sat expressionless, waiting for breaks in the attacks to quietly direct the clerk to continue the roll call. He periodically reminded Republicans that they’d already had two chances to debate both nominees in two separate hearings.

              This is the third time they were brought up,” he added of the two nominees at the center of Thursday’s hearing. “That’s the reason the ruling was made by the chair.”

              A committee spokesperson noted that Kennedy spoke on Kasubhai in a Nov. 2 hearing and again in a Nov. 19 hearing, for a total of 12 minutes.

              Graham spoke on both nominees in the Nov. 2 hearing, for about two minutes, too. And Cotton spoke on Kasubhai in the Nov. 9 hearing for about six minutes.

    • Trev625@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Why should Dems follow all the rules when repubs don’t? If anyone cares about the rule, they should have punished the previous committee leaders even though they have an R by their name.

      • IzzyScissor@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because rules are how society works. If both parties agree to throw out the rules… we don’t have a democracy anymore.

        • Confused_Emus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          So it’s turn the other cheek bullshit? They’ve had my left, right, and both ass cheeks. There are no cheeks left to turn.

          • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Love when people have that argument. I always politely remind them that we didn’t just turn all of our cheeks to Hitler and hope he stopped. At a certain point you gotta go all in.

        • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          If one party ignores the rules, while the other party follows them, the party with no regard for the rules will take all the power, and we definitely won’t have a democracy anymore.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        The same reason Dems should do a SHITLOAD of things differently than the Republicans: because they’re better and more honest or at least pretending to be.

            • Jax@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I want Dems to stop being taken advantage of. Inaction has gotten us where we are.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                They’re not being taken advantage of. They’re CHOOSING to not use powers they legitimately have in order to protect their owner donors from what they, the Dem leadership, say in public that they want to do.

                Like back when they “had to” take the minimum wage increase that the vast majority of the population wants out of the infrastructure bill because one unelected bureaucrat didn’t think it was a budget item 🙄

                • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Ok fair, that was a misnomer. They are definitely not being taken advantage of.

                  That being said, what exactly do you think should be happening? Because I think things are escalating because of decisions made by reps, and dems have to do something in response no?

    • Pot8o@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Well…a wrong is a negative thing. Two wrongs would be a double negative. A double negative is a positive and a positive thing is a right. Therefore two wrongs do in fact make a right. (Please note: I don’t believe this and an just using words recreationally)

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Careful about using words recreationally, that shit can be habit-forming!

        Sincerely, wordplay addict and loving it 😁

      • hglman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Its not the multiplicative of wrongs its just the summation. If you rob a bank and also commit wire fraud that person isn’t responsible for a wire fraud worth of bank robberies. In fact, that statement is nonsense. Two wrongs add up having done more wrong.