- Dec 1, 2010
- Reaction score
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...That was not for SC nominations. McConnell had to change that rule or he would never have gotten over the 60 vote threshold.Nope, sorry. Harry did it.Source the rule that was changed.The Senate rules were changed. The Senate rules will be changed again too.No rule was changed, DummyWell...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.Elections have consequences.STFU you stolen valor POS.
How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?
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
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.
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?
The Republican “playbook” doesnt include “adding justices”, Stupid.
They are filling a vacancy as spelled out in the Constitution, Hack.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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?
They keep trying to pretend it's the same. They won't "man up" even though
McConnell Biden has outright stated his intent to block Obama HW judicial nominations because he wanted a Republican Democrat president to fill them. So why do they keep pretending that wasn't the agenda?
What's that noise? Oh, your standard flipping ... again ...