The Democrats have had an entire decade to offer some kind of meaningful opposition and didn’t bother. Why would they start now?
That’s incorrect. There’s a lot of obstruction from Republicans to allow Democrats to do anything since most decisions required 2/3rds vote to pass. Democrats could not convict Trump of impeachment with 57% of the vote since they needed more Republicans to push it over 2/3rds.
That’s just the excuse Democrapitalists have always used to maintain the status quo, even when they had a majority some years back, they still then claimed repubs held them back. It has always been their tactic to win votes, get into power, do nothing. (There are a few exceptions like Sanders, Warren, AOC, Michael Bennett, but few and far between.)
I don’t think you understand American politics. If Democrats control 60% of the Senate, they still do not have the majority needed to pass laws. They need to control at least 67% of the Senate to pass laws. Otherwise Republicans can block their vote. That’s why the Democrats could not convict Trump on impeachment even though they controlled more than 50% of the Senate at the time.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869
Mitt Romney’s at it again – shading the truth on CBS News’. He’s perpetuating the false Republican narrative that President Obama should have gotten more done during his first two years in office because he had a supermajority in the Senate.
Likely? Try definitely. Or did PolitiFact forget who controls the House?
Of course they won’t, but damn they should.
Because of Congress’ current political makeup (Republicans control the House) — that almost certainly won’t happen by Jan. 20, when Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president.
We actually don’t know who controls the house, yet. Republicans need 7 more representatives, Democrats need 17, votes are still being counted.
Didn’t the supreme court say they didn’t give a fuck about the constitution?
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-the-supreme-court-got-wrong-in-the-trump-section-3-case
Under the Court’s approach, only Congress has the power to determine which people are to be disqualified and under what procedures—at least when it comes to candidates for federal office and officials holding those offices. The majority claims that Congress’s Section 5 power to enact “appropriate” legislation enforcing the 14th Amendment is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3.
There are several flaws in the Court’s analysis. The most basic is that there is no good reason to believe that Section 5 is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3. As the Colorado Supreme Court emphasized in its ruling, Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce not just Section 3 but also every other part of the 14th Amendment, including its protections against racial and ethnic discrimination, the Due Process Clause, and more. These other provisions are considered to be self-executing, under long-standing federal Supreme Court precedent. Section 5 legislation is not the exclusive mode of enforcement for these other parts of the amendment.
Thus, state governments and federal courts can enforce these provisions even in the absence of congressional Section 5 enforcement legislation. Otherwise, as the Colorado Supreme Court notes, “Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting legislation.” Why should Section 3 be any different? Monday’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t give us any good answer to that question.
As the Supreme Court ruling notes, following its landmark precedent in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress’s Section 5 power is “remedial” in nature: It must be “congruent and proportional” to violations of the amendment it is intended to remedy. If Section 5 legislation is remedial in nature, including when it comes to enforcing Section 3, that implies some other entity—state governments and federal courts—has the initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 3. The role of Section 5 is to remedy violations of that duty, not to be the exclusive enforcement mechanism.
Lol, as if there aren’t a million other things the fucker could be processed for. We got a…
-
Convicted rapist (oh sorry… “responsible for” rape, not a conviction, MY BAD!?!), someone who can’t stop making sexual remarks when his daughter is next to him and was close to Epstein back in 2002, saying he was a terrific guy and even knew about his interest in women “on the young side”.
-
Someone that has committed more acts of treason than we could know, including: giving Putin classified documents, like lists of SS agents that are now dead. The SS has tracked down a murdered people for FAR less, the fact that he isn’t on a hit list is beyond damming for the US as a “world power”.
-
I feel like I barely even have to mention is all of his fraudulent “businesses”. I mean that’s the only thing he actually got convicted of, because it’s so blatant and easy to do.
The fact this guy not only isn’t behind bars, but isn’t on a international wanted DEAD list, tells ya everything you need to know.
How do you know he isn’t on the intel communities hitlist. They still have time. Vance for pres in 2025.
What makes you think Vance wouldn’t be worse? He’s knee deep in Project 2025 and seems more than willing to see that through to the end.
Vance doesnt have Trumps cult of personality for one, for two once the orange fuckwit dies there will almost certainly be a feeding frenzy to fill the power void. Its entirely possible he could be a lame duck by default simply because the other Republicans are stabbing each other and wont listen.
And then we get Vance. Joy.
