SO NOW WE KNOW: SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE TRUMP ALLIES.

 

I WONDER WHAT THEY'RE GETTING IN RETURN.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Senate Democrat: We can 'slow' Barrett's confirmation but 'can't stop' it.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday that Democrats will be able to “slow” Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation process but “can’t stop” it.

During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Durbin confirmed an ABC News report that Democrats are without a “silver bullet” for stopping Barrett’s confirmation before the Nov. 3 election.

“That’s true,” Durbin told host George Stephanopoulos.

President Donald Trump formally nominated Barrett on Saturday to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, moving one step closer to establishing a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Durbin said the timing and even the outcome of the confirmation process could change if at least four GOP senators speak out against holding it ahead of Election Day. So far, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine are the only Republicans who have done so.

Democratic strategists ― including, Adam Jentleson, who served as deputy chief of staff for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ― have outlined ways they believe Democrats could derail Barrett’s confirmation. 

But Durbin said Sunday that such plans could only temporarily stall the process.*

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

*THAT IS UNTRUE, AND HE KNOWS IT, AS DOES ANYONE ELSE WHO BOTHERS TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION WITH THE IDEA OF NOT BETRAYING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

TO GIVE A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE, THE FOLLOWING WILL GIVE YOU A LIST OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS CHALLENGED IN COURT AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AS YOU CAN SEE, IF YOU CHECK THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE, REPUBLICANS, AND THEIR ALLIES FILED NUMEROUS LAWSUITS CLAIMING THAT THE ACA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY LOST TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

HOW MANY LAWSUITS DID THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FILE CLAIMING THAT SENATOR MCCONNELLS REFUSAL TO GIVE MERRICK GARLAND, PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT, A MANDATED PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? 

ZERO.

IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO STOP AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERY AMERICAN,THAN IT WAS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE HAS TO BE GIVEN A HEARING AND A VOTE BEFORE THE SENATE.

A PRESIDENT FROM THEIR OWN PARTY.

 

TO BE CONTINUED...