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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Viktor

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
1,878
Points
1,930
Location
Southern California
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Every time Blumenthal speaks in the Senate, he sounds like an idiot. The Dumbocrats are so fixated on certain things that they forget what is practical and wise.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,992
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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.


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.
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?
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...

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 ...
"So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ..."

You're kazzing again. Biden never said that.
You're splitting hairs.
Yes, Biden was perfectly clear.

With Democrats, the lamest word parse means they didn't say what they said.

With Trump they just lie and make up shit he didn't say and misquote him. Democrats are liars. They lie about everything all the time.

Democrats like Faun are just selfish, America hating jackasses
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
34,305
Reaction score
4,496
Points
1,130
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
LIsten, genius. Just increasing the number of justices on the Supreme CT won't do the Democrats any good. If the additional judges are Conservative Republicans, the demos will be worse off than they are now. To get what they want, the Dumbocrats have to get a majority in the Senate so they can control what kind of judges are confirmed. That's why they talk about statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. They assume the additional 4 Senators will be Democrats.
The problem is some states don't want any more states in the union, so the statehood thing might just fail. The Demo plan is a difficult complex thing that has no guarrantee of success. It's success depends on numerous factors which might never happen. The last attempt to pack the court was in 1937 and it failed because Congress would not approve it.
They have to gain control of all branches to pass the legislation to expand the courts.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,992
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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.


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.
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?
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...

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 ...
There wasn't an open seat at that time he offered his thoughts on the matter.

This was a raw political power move based on Constitutional authority and not the norms and rules developed over decades or even centuries of interaction between the parties. So I'm guessing that's all out the window during the next session.
So just to be clear. If Republicans said what they would do and it didn't happen, then Democrats did it. You'd say wow, Democrats doing it had zero to do with what Republicans said, it's all on the Democrats.

That's what you're claiming, that's what you'd say?

You're such ridiculous people, of course you don't. Democrats are never responsible for your own actions. It's pathetic
Clear as mud.

Democrats will be using Moscow Mitch's words in the future.

OK, lying piece of shit. Democrats were already going to stack the court. Just stop the stupid, lame lying. My God you idiots just lie and lie and lie and lie
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,179
Reaction score
20,216
Points
2,180
Location
in between
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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 Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices. That was determined by an act of Congress. An act of Congress can change it.
Thank you for telling us something we already know, Richard-head.
Care to take a moment and think why packing the court is a bad idea no matter who does it, and ponder the possible ramifications of doing such?
It is a bad idea.

But so was removing the filibuster for SCOTUS.

And so was blocking a president from filling a SCOTUS vacancy for political purposes in 2016 and then reversing it 2020..

It's all bad precedent and it leaves the opposing side with very weak footing to complain.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,022
Reaction score
12,138
Points
2,210
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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.


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.
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?
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...

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 ...
"So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ..."

You're kazzing again. Biden never said that.
You're splitting hairs.
No, I'm being factual. After 6 months into 1992, Biden said wait 4 months until after the election. That left the door open to hold confirmation hearings during 8 of 12 months of 1992. So no, Biden did not say no SCOTUS hearings in 1992. That was a kaz.

Now contrast that to the McConnell rule, who said no confirmation hearings as early as mid February, 2016. That left 1½ of 12 months available for hearings. Plus most of the following January.

Not the same. And you should know it's not the same since in this election year, McConnell broke his own rule and said anytime this year would be open to confirmation hearings.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,179
Reaction score
20,216
Points
2,180
Location
in between
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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.


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.
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?
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...

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 ...
There wasn't an open seat at that time he offered his thoughts on the matter.

This was a raw political power move based on Constitutional authority and not the norms and rules developed over decades or even centuries of interaction between the parties. So I'm guessing that's all out the window during the next session.
So just to be clear. If Republicans said what they would do and it didn't happen, then Democrats did it. You'd say wow, Democrats doing it had zero to do with what Republicans said, it's all on the Democrats.

That's what you're claiming, that's what you'd say?

You're such ridiculous people, of course you don't. Democrats are never responsible for your own actions. It's pathetic
Clear as mud.

Democrats will be using Moscow Mitch's words in the future.

OK, lying piece of shit. Democrats were already going to stack the court. Just stop the stupid, lame lying. My God you idiots just lie and lie and lie and lie
They wouldn't have if McConnell hadn't lain the footing for this. That's assuming they do and it's no certainty - it's another game changer, like McConnell's decision to block Obama.
 

SassyIrishLass

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
66,736
Reaction score
24,347
Points
2,250
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.
Yo mean like the Republicans did?
The repubs outplayed you.... didn't you say elections have consequences?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,022
Reaction score
12,138
Points
2,210
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
After libs pack the courts, RS will remove them after four years, or pack another 50 in their favor. This is the idiotic thinking of the left. You will reap your rancid fruits.
Oh? By what process will they remove them?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,122
Reaction score
11,160
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
And so was blocking a president from filling a SCOTUS vacancy for political purposes in 2016
When was the last time a Senate of the opposite party of the president appointed a SCJ in the year of a presidential election?
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,992
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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 Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices. That was determined by an act of Congress. An act of Congress can change it.
Thank you for telling us something we already know, Richard-head.
Care to take a moment and think why packing the court is a bad idea no matter who does it, and ponder the possible ramifications of doing such?
It is a bad idea.

But so was removing the filibuster for SCOTUS.

And so was blocking a president from filling a SCOTUS vacancy for political purposes in 2016 and then reversing it 2020..

It's all bad precedent and it leaves the opposing side with very weak footing to complain.
Democrats removed the filibuster (they created) for all other judicial nominations and they'd have removed the SCOTUS filibuster the second Republicans tried one.

Factually in history, three SCOTUS filibusters were attempted, all by Democrats. Rehnquist (for chief), Alito and Gorsuch. Republicans confirmed Sotomayor and Kagan. It was a mistake. Democrats tried to filibuster 100% of Republican nominations after that anyway
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,992
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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.


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.
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?
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...

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 ...
There wasn't an open seat at that time he offered his thoughts on the matter.

This was a raw political power move based on Constitutional authority and not the norms and rules developed over decades or even centuries of interaction between the parties. So I'm guessing that's all out the window during the next session.
So just to be clear. If Republicans said what they would do and it didn't happen, then Democrats did it. You'd say wow, Democrats doing it had zero to do with what Republicans said, it's all on the Democrats.

That's what you're claiming, that's what you'd say?

You're such ridiculous people, of course you don't. Democrats are never responsible for your own actions. It's pathetic
Clear as mud.

Democrats will be using Moscow Mitch's words in the future.

OK, lying piece of shit. Democrats were already going to stack the court. Just stop the stupid, lame lying. My God you idiots just lie and lie and lie and lie
They wouldn't have if McConnell hadn't lain the footing for this. That's assuming they do and it's no certainty - it's another game changer, like McConnell's decision to block Obama.
Biden laid the footing for this by saying he wouldn't hold hearings on a Republican nomination in 1992.

You can keep lying, but that doesn't make the truth go away.

And again, you're LYING about ACB. Democrats were already going to stack the court. If Biden wins and sweeps congress you can do that, but Democrats don't seem to be processing it's just going to start an endless process where Republicans do it back, then Democrats ... When there are a thousand people on the SCOTUS, then you'll deserve full credit for that
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
17,603
Reaction score
11,778
Points
1,215
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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 Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices. That was determined by an act of Congress. An act of Congress can change it.
Thank you for telling us something we already know, Richard-head.
Care to take a moment and think why packing the court is a bad idea no matter who does it, and ponder the possible ramifications of doing such?
It is a bad idea.

But so was removing the filibuster for SCOTUS.

And so was blocking a president from filling a SCOTUS vacancy for political purposes in 2016 and then reversing it 2020..

It's all bad precedent and it leaves the opposing side with very weak footing to complain.
Democrats did it first
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

LordBrownTrout

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
30,053
Reaction score
8,565
Points
1,330
Location
South Texas
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
After libs pack the courts, RS will remove them after four years, or pack another 50 in their favor. This is the idiotic thinking of the left. You will reap your rancid fruits.
Oh? By what process will they remove them?
Impeachment, unlikely or they could another 125,789 in their favor by simple vote. Don't try to act all coy.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
34,305
Reaction score
4,496
Points
1,130
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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.


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.
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?
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...

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 ...
There wasn't an open seat at that time he offered his thoughts on the matter.

This was a raw political power move based on Constitutional authority and not the norms and rules developed over decades or even centuries of interaction between the parties. So I'm guessing that's all out the window during the next session.
So just to be clear. If Republicans said what they would do and it didn't happen, then Democrats did it. You'd say wow, Democrats doing it had zero to do with what Republicans said, it's all on the Democrats.

That's what you're claiming, that's what you'd say?

You're such ridiculous people, of course you don't. Democrats are never responsible for your own actions. It's pathetic
Clear as mud.

Democrats will be using Moscow Mitch's words in the future.

OK, lying piece of shit. Democrats were already going to stack the court. Just stop the stupid, lame lying. My God you idiots just lie and lie and lie and lie
My my, these banana Republicans sure are ruled by their emotions aren't they?

We'll have to wait and see if the Dems win, but I'm sure if they do, everything they do in the next session will be Constitutional. Any problems with that?
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,992
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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 Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices. That was determined by an act of Congress. An act of Congress can change it.
Thank you for telling us something we already know, Richard-head.
Care to take a moment and think why packing the court is a bad idea no matter who does it, and ponder the possible ramifications of doing such?
It is a bad idea.

But so was removing the filibuster for SCOTUS.

And so was blocking a president from filling a SCOTUS vacancy for political purposes in 2016 and then reversing it 2020..

It's all bad precedent and it leaves the opposing side with very weak footing to complain.
Democrats did it first
As long as Democrats like Coyote keep lying and denying that Democrats are ever responsible for what they do, there can be no change. Democrats created the judicial filibuster, created the administration filibuster, removed the judicial filibuster, removed the administration filibuster all when it was expedient. They changed the rules to get Obamacare through. Still:

Coyote: What? Democrats are pure as the driven snow. We just follow the rules and those terrible Republicans keep changing the rules on us. Up until now we've been SOOOOOO nice about it, but reluctantly we will need to do something now. We really hate it.

She lives in a fantasy land and Democrats are never responsible for anything ever, including their own actions. Everything is the Republicans fault
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,992
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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.


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.
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?
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...

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 ...
There wasn't an open seat at that time he offered his thoughts on the matter.

This was a raw political power move based on Constitutional authority and not the norms and rules developed over decades or even centuries of interaction between the parties. So I'm guessing that's all out the window during the next session.
So just to be clear. If Republicans said what they would do and it didn't happen, then Democrats did it. You'd say wow, Democrats doing it had zero to do with what Republicans said, it's all on the Democrats.

That's what you're claiming, that's what you'd say?

You're such ridiculous people, of course you don't. Democrats are never responsible for your own actions. It's pathetic
Clear as mud.

Democrats will be using Moscow Mitch's words in the future.

OK, lying piece of shit. Democrats were already going to stack the court. Just stop the stupid, lame lying. My God you idiots just lie and lie and lie and lie
My my, these banana Republicans sure are ruled by their emotions aren't they?

We'll have to wait and see if the Dems win, but I'm sure if they do, everything they do in the next session will be Constitutional. Any problems with that?
OK, lying piece of shit. Democrats were already going to stack the court. Just stop the stupid, lame lying. My God you idiots just lie and lie and lie and lie
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,022
Reaction score
12,138
Points
2,210
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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.


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.
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?
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...

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 ...
"So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ..."

You're kazzing again. Biden never said that.
You're a liar, little boy. Here's a cookie. Now go play and no setting pets on fire again
LOLOL

Nope, I didn't kaz. You did. Want proof? Watch this ... quote Biden saying they would hold no SCOTUS hearings in 1992....

:dance:
 

Desperado

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
32,431
Reaction score
6,116
Points
1,140
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
hey you liberal POS, there has been no cooperation with the Republicans since Trump was elected nearly 4 years ago, You need to pay more attention
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top