Senate Democrats boycotting HHS, Treasury nominees


#1

cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/senate-dems-boycotting-hhs-treasury-nominees/index.html

In a surprise turn of events, Senate Democrats announced Tuesday morning that they are boycotting a committee vote on two of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees, drawing fury from Republicans across the aisle.

The Senate Finance Committee was set to vote on the nominations of Rep. Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and Steve Mnuchin for Treasury Secretary.
But minutes after the vote was scheduled to take place, Democrats on the panel convened an impromptu news conference to announce that they refused to participate in the proceeding, all as their Republican colleagues were waiting in a hearing room down the hallway.
Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, pointed to what he called “truly alarming news” that surfaced on Monday, referring to a Wall Street Journal Report that said Price had received a special discounted rate of stocks at an Australian pharmaceutical company called Innate Immunotherapeutics.
“This is contrary to congressional testimony he gave. Congressman insisted he didn’t get special access to a special deal,” Wyden said. “He misled the congress and he misled the American people.”

But the timing remains unclear. The Senate Finance Committee’s rules state that at least one Democrat must be present in order for the panel to take a vote on nominees. That means Democrats can continue to refuse to show up to future committee votes, making it impossible for the panel to consider a nominee.

This seems kind of childish. Not sure how I feel about it.


#2

Reminiscence of Republicans boycotting Obama nominee Merrick Garland for almost a year.


#3

That’s true.


#4

They are sowing seeds, the harvest of which they may not like at all.


#5

Very ominous and melodramatic, I like it.


#6

The more of this kind of thing the Dems do, it would seem to me the less believable and the less attractive they would become to the American public. But I guess time will tell.

Maybe the American people like anarchy, but I doubt it.


#7

Seemed to work for the Republicans.


#8

Republicans did this for the past 8 years and tried to steal a governors race in NC, and it didn’t hurt them.


#9

Not even close. The republicans wanted the voters to decide after the sudden death of Antonin Scalia. We just had an election are not even a week into the new administration.

The Democrats are holding up business out of sheer bitter partisan politics and bending to the will of a few protesters, many of whom have been financed by radical billionaire George Soros.

It’s clear from these maneuvers that the Democratic Party has abandoned hard-working, every-day Americans still struggling while President Trump tries to make things better for them.


#10

Lol ridiculous.


#11

The republicans didn’t try to steal anything. That was a close race and subject to scrutiny. And Pat McCrory was a hero for he in that state. :yup:

The republicans had ZERO power in the first two years of the Obama presidency.

Also, republicans funding nearly everything President Obama asked and confirmed 7 cabinet members on his first day of work.

So no, the republicans did not “do that” for the past 8 years. :nope:


#12

Don’t even think Republicans would agree with this
politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498

Also, I can guarantee that Mcrory is not a hero to many people in NC, what shameful person. People hated him, and for good reason:
publicpolicypolling.com/main/pat-mccrory/


#13

The last election indicates otherwise and confirms what the American people suspect about the Democratic Party. :thumbsup:


#14

Right out of the playbook.

Michael McFaul Retweeted Julia Ioffe @juliaioffe
Classic tactic: anyone who disagrees with you is not real. twitter.com/seanhannity/status/826270280297242624

Michael McFaul added, And there has to be a “hidden hand” bankrolling the protesters (what Putin accused me doing when Russians protested against him).


#15

You mean the one where the Democratic party got 3 million more votes?


#16

The Democratic candidate got more votes.


#17

I honestly wouldn’t know. All I know is that I’ve been quite alienated from Democrats. I lean a little left on some things, but I’m pretty put off by all this. They’ve pretty much had their way for eight years, and got comfortable. It makes me feel like all this time I was more willing to listen to them than they were to me, and now they’re just showing their true colors. I actually am willing to talk on some things, like immigration, but I don’t feel like it’s a two-way street anymore. However, I’ll try not to give in to that.

I’m not happy with everything about Trump, but it seems that’s not enough. I didn’t like Obama, but I don’t feel like I had the same feelings of venom. Actually, with Obama I just felt like a noose was slowly tightening, and I just wanted to be left alone and not pay for other people’s abortions or bedroom behavior. Maybe Dems are just reacting to the noose. I’m quite sure they would fight the HHS nominee, for fear of their value system being undermined. (Contraception and abortion are healthcare, being a big part of that vision. Sexual liberation and all that.)


#18

Not in places that ultimately mattered. Darn.


#19

Thats fine, I totally agree it was a true and legitimate election. But don’t tell me he has this clear mandate when he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and his approval rating is historically low.


#20

People are going to call me out on this, but I wonder how the unborn over the past eight years would have voted. Or not even the past eight years, but the past 44 years. Let’s get some of voting age actually included. Of course, it’s a hypothetical. Point being, we’re missing a giant portion of our voting population. Of course, I maintain that if Catholics had been voting like Catholics all along, we wouldn’t have had this choice to begin with.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.