When in doubt, just block the vote you’re afraid of losing.
Is used by both parties all the time, instead of getting it to the floor and getting it passed or rejected. So you can’t accuse one party of doing it for the bill you want to be passed without acknowledging the same is being done by the other party for the bill you don’t like.
@retrieval4558@mander.xyz tried to dismiss the argument by showcasing all the bad things that were done prior to this bill to justify not bringing the bill to the floor vote by one party, by condemning the identical act by a different party.
What was the Democrats’ bad action in this example?
Is used by both parties all the time, instead of getting it to the floor and getting it passed or rejected. So you can’t accuse one party of doing it for the bill you want to be passed without acknowledging the same is being done by the other party for the bill you don’t like.
@retrieval4558@mander.xyz tried to dismiss the argument by showcasing all the bad things that were done prior to this bill to justify not bringing the bill to the floor vote by one party, by condemning the identical act by a different party.
What bill are the Dems blocking?
Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/573976-pelosi-on-infrastructure-bill-im-never-bringing-a-bill-to-the/
That’s the opposite. Not bringing a bill that won’t pass has the same basic outcome without wasting everyone’s time.
Even if your example applied, which it doesn’t, it’s from three years ago.
In order to be “both sides” the Dems would need to constantly block bills out of spite.
He’s asking for an example where the Dems blocked a vote on a topic at or around as significant as a supreme court nominee.
Specifically the scenario should be that there are votes ready and leadership “hides” from that by avoiding the vote entirely.