Sen. Blumenthal makes threats on Senate floor if ACB is confirmed to SC.

[Faun]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

Because the Dems legislation was stupid and bad for America.

LOL

Yeah, Bush's Great Recession was so much better for America.

 

[Nostra]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

Because the Dems legislation was stupid and bad for America.

LOL

Yeah, Bush's Great Recession was so much better for America.

That was the Reid/Pelousy recession.

 

[kaz]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

Yet another leftist lie. You were already going to do this. My God, you people can't stop lying

 

[kaz]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

First, be honest enough that ACB had nothing to do with it. This was already going to happen.

And second, yes, they will even more now that every time a party wins control they will stack the court. Democrats don't think ahead or you wouldn't be Democrats. But Democrats clearly don't grasp this

 

[kaz]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.

When Coyote said elections have consequences, she only meant the ones she wins

 

[BULLDOG]

Elections have consequences.

If Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the Senate we can pack the court and Dems won't oppose it?

They will need the House also

If Dems take all three, why should they not use their power?

Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.

You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

So if Trump wins again, then it's his right to do the same, correct? bump it up to 101 and add away? you cool with that?

You be sure to hold your breath for that.

 

[mudwhistle]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

If that POS Saigon Dick doesn't STFU his ass is gonna be SOL.

 

[Faun]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

Because the Dems legislation was stupid and bad for America.

LOL

Yeah, Bush's Great Recession was so much better for America.

That was the Reid/Pelousy recession.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the recession was caused by toxic loans doled out years before, while Reid & Pelosi were in the minority party and wielded no power in their respective chambers.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever??

 

[Nostra]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

Because the Dems legislation was stupid and bad for America.

LOL

Yeah, Bush's Great Recession was so much better for America.

That was the Reid/Pelousy recession.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the recession was caused by toxic loans doled out years before, while Reid & Pelosi were in the minority party and wielded no power in their respective chambers.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever??

The loans GWB was warning about going back to 2003, and Dimwingers like lil Chucky Schumer and Bawney Fwank were saying weren't a problem?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

You dumbasses had a super majority in the first two years, and you squandered it with a do nothing President that was happy to tell us to get in the back of the bus....now you don’t like it...tough shit.

^^^ another idiot.

G'head, see if you could do what other rightards could not... quote Obama telling you to get in back of the bus...

User Clip: Obama tells Republicans: "You gotta get in the back seat."

Obama speech "Moving Forward Campaign" - Oct. 22, 2010, in Las Vegas on behalf of Sen. Harry Reid's re-election campaign.

www.c-span.org

LOL

So did you not bother to read your own source or did you not understand it? Where do you see anything about a bus in there...?

"And suddenly, as we’re about to get in the car, we feel this tap on our shoulder, and we look back, and who is it? It’s the Republicans. (Laughter.) And they say, “Excuse me, we’d like the keys back.” (Laughter.)​

​

And we got to tell them, “I’m sorry, you can’t have the keys back. You don’t know how to drive.” (Applause.) You don’t know how to drive. If you want, you can ride with us, but you’ve got to ride in the backseat. (Laughter and applause.) We’re putting middle-class families in the front seat where they belong. (Applause.)​

​

You ever notice when you want to go forward in your car, what do you do? You put it in “D.” If you want to go backwards, you put it in “R.” I don’t want to go backwards. Let’s go forward. (Applause.) Let’s go forward. I want to go forward."​

... now the forum sees why Toddsterpatriot was too cowardly to quote Obama or to man up and just admit he was wrong.

Clearly, Obama was talking about the backseat of a car, not the back of a bus.

Which also leaves one wondering why eagle1462010 would thank your post when you were so glaringly wrong?

Car, bus, tomato, the sentiment is the same.

No, the sentiment is entirely different. "Back of the bus" refers to segregation; which is why black conservatives, making the same idiotic mistake you made, attacked Obama for saying Republicans would have to ride in the back of the bus, when he didn't.

I see like Toddsterpatriot, you're just not man enough to admit you’re wrong.

Oh, back of the car.......how'd that work out for Obama?

 

[JusticeHammer]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

Because the Dems legislation was stupid and bad for America.

LOL

Yeah, Bush's Great Recession was so much better for America.

Reid and pissoli's recession.

 

[Faun]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

Because the Dems legislation was stupid and bad for America.

LOL

Yeah, Bush's Great Recession was so much better for America.

That was the Reid/Pelousy recession.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the recession was caused by toxic loans doled out years before, while Reid & Pelosi were in the minority party and wielded no power in their respective chambers.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever??

The loans GWB was warning about going back to 2003, and Dimwingers like lil Chucky Schumer and Bawney Fwank were saying weren't a problem?

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, which party controlled both chambers of Congress in 2003? Which controlling party failed to get a GSE reform bill on President Bush's desk to sign into law?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2004 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2005 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2006 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party controlled Congress in 2008 and did pass GSE reform and got that bill to Bush's desk to sign into law?

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever???

 

[Faun]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

You dumbasses had a super majority in the first two years, and you squandered it with a do nothing President that was happy to tell us to get in the back of the bus....now you don’t like it...tough shit.

^^^ another idiot.

G'head, see if you could do what other rightards could not... quote Obama telling you to get in back of the bus...

User Clip: Obama tells Republicans: "You gotta get in the back seat."

Obama speech "Moving Forward Campaign" - Oct. 22, 2010, in Las Vegas on behalf of Sen. Harry Reid's re-election campaign.

www.c-span.org

LOL

So did you not bother to read your own source or did you not understand it? Where do you see anything about a bus in there...?

"And suddenly, as we’re about to get in the car, we feel this tap on our shoulder, and we look back, and who is it? It’s the Republicans. (Laughter.) And they say, “Excuse me, we’d like the keys back.” (Laughter.)​

​

And we got to tell them, “I’m sorry, you can’t have the keys back. You don’t know how to drive.” (Applause.) You don’t know how to drive. If you want, you can ride with us, but you’ve got to ride in the backseat. (Laughter and applause.) We’re putting middle-class families in the front seat where they belong. (Applause.)​

​

You ever notice when you want to go forward in your car, what do you do? You put it in “D.” If you want to go backwards, you put it in “R.” I don’t want to go backwards. Let’s go forward. (Applause.) Let’s go forward. I want to go forward."​

... now the forum sees why Toddsterpatriot was too cowardly to quote Obama or to man up and just admit he was wrong.

Clearly, Obama was talking about the backseat of a car, not the back of a bus.

Which also leaves one wondering why eagle1462010 would thank your post when you were so glaringly wrong?

Car, bus, tomato, the sentiment is the same.

No, the sentiment is entirely different. "Back of the bus" refers to segregation; which is why black conservatives, making the same idiotic mistake you made, attacked Obama for saying Republicans would have to ride in the back of the bus, when he didn't.

I see like Toddsterpatriot, you're just not man enough to admit you’re wrong.

Oh, back of the car.......how'd that work out for Obama?

Worked out pretty good. Obama was re-elected and by the time he left office, the economy was booming with a record setting 76 consecutive months of job growth and 83 months in the private sector; and a record high stock market.

 

[Faun]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

Because the Dems legislation was stupid and bad for America.

LOL

Yeah, Bush's Great Recession was so much better for America.

Reid and pissoli's recession.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Worked out pretty good.

Yeah, losing 63 House seats (holy shit!) in 2010 shows you're right. DURR.

 

[Nostra]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

Because the Dems legislation was stupid and bad for America.

LOL

Yeah, Bush's Great Recession was so much better for America.

That was the Reid/Pelousy recession.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the recession was caused by toxic loans doled out years before, while Reid & Pelosi were in the minority party and wielded no power in their respective chambers.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever??

The loans GWB was warning about going back to 2003, and Dimwingers like lil Chucky Schumer and Bawney Fwank were saying weren't a problem?

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, which party controlled both chambers of Congress in 2003? Which controlling party failed to get a GSE reform bill on President Bush's desk to sign into law?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2004 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2005 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2006 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party controlled Congress in 2008 and did pass GSE reform and got that bill to Bush's desk to sign into law?

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever???

 

[Faun]

Worked out pretty good.

Yeah, losing 63 House seats (holy shit!) in 2010 shows you're right. DURR.

By that measure, you didn't do well with Impeached Trump since Republicans lost 42 House seats in 2018.

 

[Faun]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.

Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

Because the Dems legislation was stupid and bad for America.

LOL

Yeah, Bush's Great Recession was so much better for America.

That was the Reid/Pelousy recession.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the recession was caused by toxic loans doled out years before, while Reid & Pelosi were in the minority party and wielded no power in their respective chambers.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever??

The loans GWB was warning about going back to 2003, and Dimwingers like lil Chucky Schumer and Bawney Fwank were saying weren't a problem?

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, which party controlled both chambers of Congress in 2003? Which controlling party failed to get a GSE reform bill on President Bush's desk to sign into law?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2004 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2005 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2006 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party controlled Congress in 2008 and did pass GSE reform and got that bill to Bush's desk to sign into law?

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever???

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, you didn't answer any of my questions...

Dumbfuck, which party controlled both chambers of Congress in 2003? Which controlling party failed to get a GSE reform bill on President Bush's desk to sign into law?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2004 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2005 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party still controlled Congress in 2006 and failed to pass GSE reform?

Which party controlled Congress in 2008 and did pass GSE reform and got that bill to Bush's desk to sign into law?

Since you prove to be too big of a ***** to answer, I'll answer for you...

2003: Republican

2004: Republican

2005: Republican

2006: Republican

2008: Democrat

So how unhinged must you be to blame a couple of members of the minority party for not passing GSE reform while they had no control in Congress during 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006; but then passed 2 GSE reform bills in the Democrat-led House in 2007 with one of them passing in the Democrat-led Senate in 2008?

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever???

 

[BlindBoo]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.

Well...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.

If the Dems get the Senate and Executive, why shouldn't they take a page from your playbook and add justices? Any good reason not to now that you've set precedents?

No rule was changed, Dummy

The Republican “playbook” doesnt include “adding justices”, Stupid.

They are filling a vacancy as spelled out in the Constitution, Hack.

The Senate rules were changed. The Senate rules will be changed again too.

Source the rule that was changed.

The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to reduce the vote threshold for confirming nominees to the Supreme Court from 60 to 51, per The New York Times.

(The need for a 60-vote supermajority still exists for legislation.)

Again, both sides played the blame game.

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a new precedent in the Senate to advance Supreme Court nominations with a simple majority. The GOP change ended a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch.

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

CORNISH: You've said that you do not regret changing the rules to eliminate the need for 60 votes to end debate over judicial nominations. But since it's paved the way for how Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority are basically steamrolling Democrats in the Senate now, what's your response to Democrats who say you should?

REID: Well, let's look at what happened. Obama was president. He'd been elected by a large majority, but Republicans were filibustering everything. He couldn't get his cabinet officers confirmed, subcabinet. We had the D.C. Circuit, the second most important court in the country - had many vacancies. What were we to do? So that's the reason that I moved to change the rules.

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

REID: No, I think I went far enough. As a result of changing the rules, we were able to do things that made Obama's presidency one that history books will look back on and say, gee, he got a lot done. So it was something we needed for the country, and it was the right thing to do.

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the idea of scrapping the filibuster and how the Senate might move forward.

www.npr.org

That was not for SC nominations. McConnell had to change that rule or he would never have gotten over the 60 vote threshold.

 

[Coyote]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.

Well...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.

If the Dems get the Senate and Executive, why shouldn't they take a page from your playbook and add justices? Any good reason not to now that you've set precedents?

No rule was changed, Dummy

The Republican “playbook” doesnt include “adding justices”, Stupid.

They are filling a vacancy as spelled out in the Constitution, Hack.

The Senate rules were changed. The Senate rules will be changed again too.

Source the rule that was changed.

The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to reduce the vote threshold for confirming nominees to the Supreme Court from 60 to 51, per The New York Times.

(The need for a 60-vote supermajority still exists for legislation.)

Again, both sides played the blame game.

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a new precedent in the Senate to advance Supreme Court nominations with a simple majority. The GOP change ended a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch.

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

CORNISH: You've said that you do not regret changing the rules to eliminate the need for 60 votes to end debate over judicial nominations. But since it's paved the way for how Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority are basically steamrolling Democrats in the Senate now, what's your response to Democrats who say you should?

REID: Well, let's look at what happened. Obama was president. He'd been elected by a large majority, but Republicans were filibustering everything. He couldn't get his cabinet officers confirmed, subcabinet. We had the D.C. Circuit, the second most important court in the country - had many vacancies. What were we to do? So that's the reason that I moved to change the rules.

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

REID: No, I think I went far enough. As a result of changing the rules, we were able to do things that made Obama's presidency one that history books will look back on and say, gee, he got a lot done. So it was something we needed for the country, and it was the right thing to do.

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the idea of scrapping the filibuster and how the Senate might move forward.

www.npr.org

That was not for SC nominations. McConnell had to change that rule or he would never have gotten over the 60 vote threshold.

They keep trying to pretend it's the same. They won't "man up" even though McConnell has outright stated his intent to block Obama judicial nominations because he wanted a Republican president to fill them. So why do they keep pretending that wasn't the agenda?