Liberals, dont blame Trump for SCOTUS...BLAME HARRY REID

OP
ColonelAngus

ColonelAngus

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
28,532
Reaction score
15,665
Points
1,415
We all remember this. He rolled the dice and crapped out. If it was still 60 votes to confirm a judge, none of Trump’s judges would have been confirmed. THAT SHIT IS ON THE DEMS. THOSE ASSHOLES CHANGED THE RULES.

Untrue. Democrats did not get rid of the 60 vote requirement for Supreme Court justices. Republicans did that. The change was for lower cfourt justices and other federal appointments which was being blocked by Republicans.

Fact check: GOP ended Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees (usatoday.com)
Yeah, you're right, but Harry Reid did open the door for the change.
It wouldn't have happened without his boneheaded decision.
Sullshit. McConnell would have done it anyway. He is corrupt to the core.
Whate ever, dude. You're assumption is also duly noted, and you're avoiding Reid. got it
It was McConnell, not Reid...NO MATTER WHAT REID SAYS! :auiqs.jpg:

 

Billiejeens

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
7,450
Points
995
We all remember this. He rolled the dice and crapped out. If it was still 60 votes to confirm a judge, none of Trump’s judges would have been confirmed. THAT SHIT IS ON THE DEMS. THOSE ASSHOLES CHANGED THE RULES.

Untrue. Democrats did not get rid of the 60 vote requirement for Supreme Court justices. Republicans did that. The change was for lower cfourt justices and other federal appointments which was being blocked by Republicans.

Fact check: GOP ended Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees (usatoday.com)
Yeah, you're right, but Harry Reid did open the door for the change.
It wouldn't have happened without his boneheaded decision.
Sullshit. McConnell would have done it anyway. He is corrupt to the core.
He plays by the rules -
I get that it's a foreign idea to you, because the rules don't favor you.
 

Billiejeens

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
7,450
Points
995
We all remember this. He rolled the dice and crapped out. If it was still 60 votes to confirm a judge, none of Trump’s judges would have been confirmed. THAT SHIT IS ON THE DEMS. THOSE ASSHOLES CHANGED THE RULES.

That was a stupid move by Reid. If you think it was wrong for him to do it then the Republicans should have rectified it once they got the majority. Instead they used it and then expanded it from federal judges to SCOTUS. This makes the Republicans just as guilty as Reid and the Dems. I’d argue more guilty because they expanded it to the highest court in the land that historically was at least attempted to be protected from politicalization.
attempted to be protected from politicalization.

By seating the former head of the ACLU
(can't make this stuff up)
 

Billiejeens

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
7,450
Points
995
The ACA was deemed Unconstitutional as written.
That's why Roberts changed it to fit his needs.
Not really the job of a justice and he was rightly criticized for it.

The SCOTUS does not generally like to make rulings that cause huge changes.
Roberts is even more adverse than other Chief Justices were.
The ACA was not unconstitutional. Governments have a right to regulate private insurance. All they had to prove was that a requirement to buy insurance served a public good as the requirement to buy car insurance and the government takings have. The Heritage Foundation laid out the reason why requiring people to buy insurance has a public good. Republicans controlled everything for 2 years and couldn't get rid of it. Now they want the Supreme Court to get rid of it.
You are very uninformed.
You are the one who is uninformed. There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA.
It was when it got to the SCOTUS
Roberts had to change it for enough Justices to have the opinion that it was Constitutional.
Do BubbleCultists not know that?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
37,045
Reaction score
5,224
Points
1,140
We all remember this. He rolled the dice and crapped out. If it was still 60 votes to confirm a judge, none of Trump’s judges would have been confirmed. THAT SHIT IS ON THE DEMS. THOSE ASSHOLES CHANGED THE RULES.

That was a stupid move by Reid. If you think it was wrong for him to do it then the Republicans should have rectified it once they got the majority. Instead they used it and then expanded it from federal judges to SCOTUS. This makes the Republicans just as guilty as Reid and the Dems. I’d argue more guilty because they expanded it to the highest court in the land that historically was at least attempted to be protected from politicalization.
attempted to be protected from politicalization.

By seating the former head of the ACLU
(can't make this stuff up)
By needing bipartisan votes to appoint you get more centrist candidates. When all you need is a simple majority then ideological hardliners can more easily get through. Do you not understand that concept?
 
OP
ColonelAngus

ColonelAngus

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
28,532
Reaction score
15,665
Points
1,415
We all remember this. He rolled the dice and crapped out. If it was still 60 votes to confirm a judge, none of Trump’s judges would have been confirmed. THAT SHIT IS ON THE DEMS. THOSE ASSHOLES CHANGED THE RULES.

That was a stupid move by Reid. If you think it was wrong for him to do it then the Republicans should have rectified it once they got the majority. Instead they used it and then expanded it from federal judges to SCOTUS. This makes the Republicans just as guilty as Reid and the Dems. I’d argue more guilty because they expanded it to the highest court in the land that historically was at least attempted to be protected from politicalization.
attempted to be protected from politicalization.

By seating the former head of the ACLU
(can't make this stuff up)
The ACLU loves us all. They care about my civil rights...
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20,784
Reaction score
6,485
Points
265
The ACA was deemed Unconstitutional as written.
That's why Roberts changed it to fit his needs.
Not really the job of a justice and he was rightly criticized for it.

The SCOTUS does not generally like to make rulings that cause huge changes.
Roberts is even more adverse than other Chief Justices were.
The ACA was not unconstitutional. Governments have a right to regulate private insurance. All they had to prove was that a requirement to buy insurance served a public good as the requirement to buy car insurance and the government takings have. The Heritage Foundation laid out the reason why requiring people to buy insurance has a public good. Republicans controlled everything for 2 years and couldn't get rid of it. Now they want the Supreme Court to get rid of it.
You are very uninformed.
You are the one who is uninformed. There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA.
It was when it got to the SCOTUS
Roberts had to change it for enough Justices to have the opinion that it was Constitutional.
Do BubbleCultists not know that?
Literally nothing changed.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
35,342
Reaction score
5,094
Points
1,130
Republicans are legislating from the bench.
Banana Republicans allowed the Trumpybear to legislate and appropriate funds by decree via the Emergency Powers Act.
 

Billiejeens

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
7,450
Points
995
We all remember this. He rolled the dice and crapped out. If it was still 60 votes to confirm a judge, none of Trump’s judges would have been confirmed. THAT SHIT IS ON THE DEMS. THOSE ASSHOLES CHANGED THE RULES.

That was a stupid move by Reid. If you think it was wrong for him to do it then the Republicans should have rectified it once they got the majority. Instead they used it and then expanded it from federal judges to SCOTUS. This makes the Republicans just as guilty as Reid and the Dems. I’d argue more guilty because they expanded it to the highest court in the land that historically was at least attempted to be protected from politicalization.
attempted to be protected from politicalization.

By seating the former head of the ACLU
(can't make this stuff up)
By needing bipartisan votes to appoint you get more centrist candidates. When all you need is a simple majority then ideological hardliners can more easily get through. Do you not understand that concept?
I understand the Concept - it has not worked historically
 

Billiejeens

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
7,450
Points
995
The ACA was deemed Unconstitutional as written.
That's why Roberts changed it to fit his needs.
Not really the job of a justice and he was rightly criticized for it.

The SCOTUS does not generally like to make rulings that cause huge changes.
Roberts is even more adverse than other Chief Justices were.
The ACA was not unconstitutional. Governments have a right to regulate private insurance. All they had to prove was that a requirement to buy insurance served a public good as the requirement to buy car insurance and the government takings have. The Heritage Foundation laid out the reason why requiring people to buy insurance has a public good. Republicans controlled everything for 2 years and couldn't get rid of it. Now they want the Supreme Court to get rid of it.
You are very uninformed.
You are the one who is uninformed. There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA.
It was when it got to the SCOTUS
Roberts had to change it for enough Justices to have the opinion that it was Constitutional.
Do BubbleCultists not know that?
Literally nothing changed.
Dear God -
So, BubbleCultists do not know.
The power of the Bubble Keeping Cultists ignorant.
Amazing.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20,784
Reaction score
6,485
Points
265
The ACA was deemed Unconstitutional as written.
That's why Roberts changed it to fit his needs.
Not really the job of a justice and he was rightly criticized for it.

The SCOTUS does not generally like to make rulings that cause huge changes.
Roberts is even more adverse than other Chief Justices were.
The ACA was not unconstitutional. Governments have a right to regulate private insurance. All they had to prove was that a requirement to buy insurance served a public good as the requirement to buy car insurance and the government takings have. The Heritage Foundation laid out the reason why requiring people to buy insurance has a public good. Republicans controlled everything for 2 years and couldn't get rid of it. Now they want the Supreme Court to get rid of it.
You are very uninformed.
You are the one who is uninformed. There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA.
It was when it got to the SCOTUS
Roberts had to change it for enough Justices to have the opinion that it was Constitutional.
Do BubbleCultists not know that?
Literally nothing changed.
Dear God -
So, BubbleCultists do not know.
The power of the Bubble Keeping Cultists ignorant.
Amazing.
I know so much more about this than you. Like, so much more. You have no idea.
 

Billiejeens

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
7,450
Points
995
The ACA was deemed Unconstitutional as written.
That's why Roberts changed it to fit his needs.
Not really the job of a justice and he was rightly criticized for it.

The SCOTUS does not generally like to make rulings that cause huge changes.
Roberts is even more adverse than other Chief Justices were.
The ACA was not unconstitutional. Governments have a right to regulate private insurance. All they had to prove was that a requirement to buy insurance served a public good as the requirement to buy car insurance and the government takings have. The Heritage Foundation laid out the reason why requiring people to buy insurance has a public good. Republicans controlled everything for 2 years and couldn't get rid of it. Now they want the Supreme Court to get rid of it.
You are very uninformed.
You are the one who is uninformed. There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA.
It was when it got to the SCOTUS
Roberts had to change it for enough Justices to have the opinion that it was Constitutional.
Do BubbleCultists not know that?
Literally nothing changed.
Dear God -
So, BubbleCultists do not know.
The power of the Bubble Keeping Cultists ignorant.
Amazing.
I know so much more about this than you. Like, so much more. You have no idea.
I dismiss you.

Hey wait - did you ever say if you knew what point shaving was?
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20,784
Reaction score
6,485
Points
265
The ACA was deemed Unconstitutional as written.
That's why Roberts changed it to fit his needs.
Not really the job of a justice and he was rightly criticized for it.

The SCOTUS does not generally like to make rulings that cause huge changes.
Roberts is even more adverse than other Chief Justices were.
The ACA was not unconstitutional. Governments have a right to regulate private insurance. All they had to prove was that a requirement to buy insurance served a public good as the requirement to buy car insurance and the government takings have. The Heritage Foundation laid out the reason why requiring people to buy insurance has a public good. Republicans controlled everything for 2 years and couldn't get rid of it. Now they want the Supreme Court to get rid of it.
You are very uninformed.
You are the one who is uninformed. There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA.
It was when it got to the SCOTUS
Roberts had to change it for enough Justices to have the opinion that it was Constitutional.
Do BubbleCultists not know that?
Literally nothing changed.
Dear God -
So, BubbleCultists do not know.
The power of the Bubble Keeping Cultists ignorant.
Amazing.
I know so much more about this than you. Like, so much more. You have no idea.
I dismiss you.

Hey wait - did you ever say if you knew what point shaving was?
Too bad. You could use an education from someone other than your abusers in conservative media. They have you so mixed up, it’s sad.
 

Billiejeens

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
7,450
Points
995
Roberts Invented out of thin air a new definition of Taxation that contravened long standing precedent

It was unconstitutional to force someone to buy a product for simply being alive - Roberts Knew That
For political reasons the Dems. did not want it to be a tax, they wanted to force us to buy a product.

Roberts switched the mandate from purchasing a product to paying a tax.
He literally rewrote the statute.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
37,045
Reaction score
5,224
Points
1,140
We all remember this. He rolled the dice and crapped out. If it was still 60 votes to confirm a judge, none of Trump’s judges would have been confirmed. THAT SHIT IS ON THE DEMS. THOSE ASSHOLES CHANGED THE RULES.

That was a stupid move by Reid. If you think it was wrong for him to do it then the Republicans should have rectified it once they got the majority. Instead they used it and then expanded it from federal judges to SCOTUS. This makes the Republicans just as guilty as Reid and the Dems. I’d argue more guilty because they expanded it to the highest court in the land that historically was at least attempted to be protected from politicalization.
attempted to be protected from politicalization.

By seating the former head of the ACLU
(can't make this stuff up)
By needing bipartisan votes to appoint you get more centrist candidates. When all you need is a simple majority then ideological hardliners can more easily get through. Do you not understand that concept?
I understand the Concept - it has not worked historically
Really? Do you think the changes that McConnell made so that SCOTUS noms are majority rule helps or hurts the politicalization of the courts?

How about the recent precedent that we now have thanks to Republicans that a nom can only be appointed if the senate and executive are lead by the same party?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
88,906
Reaction score
21,434
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Blame Mitch McConnell

Our judicial system appointments were working just fine with most judges getting bipartisan confirmation.

Mitch invoked a filibuster on every appointment and blocked Democrats from filling court seats.

Dems threatened to end the practice of filibuster on lower seats if he did not stop abusing it.

Mitch forced their hand

Yup. This one is on the Republicans. No question. The Dems weren't the one's who denied a hearing to a nominee or denied a president his right to fill a vacancy for purely political reasons. All this other crap they're throwing in? It's just flailing for the moral highroad, washed away in their power grab flood.
Bork
Nope.

Who filled that vacancy?

Refusing to vote to confirm is different (Harriet Myers was another who didn't make the cut, and that from both parties) - from refusing to even hold a hearing on a bogus claim 9 months was too close to an election...
9 months is too close to an election?

preference. not the constitution. constitution says nothing to support this.
No, it doesn't. That's why we've always relied on agreed upon norms and conventions, not legislation, for many of these things. Once those are destroyed...? :dunno:
 

iceberg

Platinum Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
29,894
Reaction score
8,748
Points
490
Blame Mitch McConnell

Our judicial system appointments were working just fine with most judges getting bipartisan confirmation.

Mitch invoked a filibuster on every appointment and blocked Democrats from filling court seats.

Dems threatened to end the practice of filibuster on lower seats if he did not stop abusing it.

Mitch forced their hand

Yup. This one is on the Republicans. No question. The Dems weren't the one's who denied a hearing to a nominee or denied a president his right to fill a vacancy for purely political reasons. All this other crap they're throwing in? It's just flailing for the moral highroad, washed away in their power grab flood.
Bork
Nope.

Who filled that vacancy?

Refusing to vote to confirm is different (Harriet Myers was another who didn't make the cut, and that from both parties) - from refusing to even hold a hearing on a bogus claim 9 months was too close to an election...
9 months is too close to an election?

preference. not the constitution. constitution says nothing to support this.
No, it doesn't. That's why we've always relied on agreed upon norms and conventions, not legislation, for many of these things. Once those are destroyed...? :dunno:
well the problem is from what i understand, how we did mail in was *not* the same as absentee. can you please clarify the differences between the 2 methods for me and how the states who just started doing it *this* year sent ballots out and who did they send them to?

just what was the process to send out ballots anyway?

as for "agreed upon" - this wasn't the case this year. it was demanded and done by the left without much process or vote to see if we CAN agree to go about it this way.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
88,906
Reaction score
21,434
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Blame Mitch McConnell

Our judicial system appointments were working just fine with most judges getting bipartisan confirmation.

Mitch invoked a filibuster on every appointment and blocked Democrats from filling court seats.

Dems threatened to end the practice of filibuster on lower seats if he did not stop abusing it.

Mitch forced their hand

Yup. This one is on the Republicans. No question. The Dems weren't the one's who denied a hearing to a nominee or denied a president his right to fill a vacancy for purely political reasons. All this other crap they're throwing in? It's just flailing for the moral highroad, washed away in their power grab flood.
Bork
Nope.

Who filled that vacancy?

Refusing to vote to confirm is different (Harriet Myers was another who didn't make the cut, and that from both parties) - from refusing to even hold a hearing on a bogus claim 9 months was too close to an election...
9 months is too close to an election?

preference. not the constitution. constitution says nothing to support this.
No, it doesn't. That's why we've always relied on agreed upon norms and conventions, not legislation, for many of these things. Once those are destroyed...? :dunno:
well the problem is from what i understand, how we did mail in was *not* the same as absentee. can you please clarify the differences between the 2 methods for me and how the states who just started doing it *this* year sent ballots out and who did they send them to?

just what was the process to send out ballots anyway?

as for "agreed upon" - this wasn't the case this year. it was demanded and done by the left without much process or vote to see if we CAN agree to go about it this way.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding the question correctly. How it was done depends on the state. As I understand it, some states mailed ballots (Colorado, DC, Hawaii, Montana & New Mexico -county's choice; and California, Nevada, New Jersey for 2020 only). The former had been doing it prior to 2020 I think. A handful of states mailed ballot applications automatically to all registered voters and the rest had absentee ballots that could be requested according to various rules by the state.

The source I found is here: Absentee and Mail Voting Policies in Effect for the 2020 Election

I don't think there is a substantive difference between mail in and absentee, both are processed the same way (though others here will disagree with me).

I'm confused though why we are discussing this in this thread? The 9 months was in reference to filling a SCOTUS vacancy....
 

iceberg

Platinum Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
29,894
Reaction score
8,748
Points
490
Blame Mitch McConnell

Our judicial system appointments were working just fine with most judges getting bipartisan confirmation.

Mitch invoked a filibuster on every appointment and blocked Democrats from filling court seats.

Dems threatened to end the practice of filibuster on lower seats if he did not stop abusing it.

Mitch forced their hand

Yup. This one is on the Republicans. No question. The Dems weren't the one's who denied a hearing to a nominee or denied a president his right to fill a vacancy for purely political reasons. All this other crap they're throwing in? It's just flailing for the moral highroad, washed away in their power grab flood.
Bork
Nope.

Who filled that vacancy?

Refusing to vote to confirm is different (Harriet Myers was another who didn't make the cut, and that from both parties) - from refusing to even hold a hearing on a bogus claim 9 months was too close to an election...
9 months is too close to an election?

preference. not the constitution. constitution says nothing to support this.
No, it doesn't. That's why we've always relied on agreed upon norms and conventions, not legislation, for many of these things. Once those are destroyed...? :dunno:
well the problem is from what i understand, how we did mail in was *not* the same as absentee. can you please clarify the differences between the 2 methods for me and how the states who just started doing it *this* year sent ballots out and who did they send them to?

just what was the process to send out ballots anyway?

as for "agreed upon" - this wasn't the case this year. it was demanded and done by the left without much process or vote to see if we CAN agree to go about it this way.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding the question correctly. How it was done depends on the state. As I understand it, some states mailed ballots (Colorado, DC, Hawaii, Montana & New Mexico -county's choice; and California, Nevada, New Jersey for 2020 only). The former had been doing it prior to 2020 I think. A handful of states mailed ballot applications automatically to all registered voters and the rest had absentee ballots that could be requested according to various rules by the state.

The source I found is here: Absentee and Mail Voting Policies in Effect for the 2020 Election

I don't think there is a substantive difference between mail in and absentee, both are processed the same way (though others here will disagree with me).

I'm confused though why we are discussing this in this thread? The 9 months was in reference to filling a SCOTUS vacancy....
dunno. where we went yesterday with the convo certainly drifted from the norms. but fine, i'll stop.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top