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

Status
Not open for further replies.

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 ...
"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:
Kaz can't quote, He barely has cliff notes.....(Wait, do they still have cliff notes?)
 

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 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
"Democrats removed the filibuster (they created) for all other judicial nominations"

Yes, because Republicans were going filibuster-crazy...


... what was McConnell's excuse?
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,858
Reaction score
21,370
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
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
"Democrats removed the filibuster (they created) for all other judicial nominations"

Yes, because Republicans were going filibuster-crazy...


... what was McConnell's excuse?






Because the Dems have gone batshit crazy.
 

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?
Impeachment, unlikely or they could another 125,789 in their favor by simple vote. Don't try to act all coy.
Impeachment for what?
 

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 ...
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
"Biden laid the footing for this by saying he wouldn't hold hearings on a Republican nomination in 1992."

You're still kazzing (i.e., lying) as evidenced by your utter inability to quote Biden ever saying that. :mm:
 

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 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:
As you know as you've clearly identified yourself as not a man in the past where you won't acknowledge links, you are no longer allowed to ask for links. You have to acknowledge them when you get them to get them.

Now go play in the yard. Here's a ball. Look, it's bouncy
 

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 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:
Kaz can't quote, He barely has cliff notes.....(Wait, do they still have cliff notes?)
Here you go liar. You know he said this. " It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Now acknowledge it or join Faun in that you can no longer ask for links as you're not a man
 

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:
As you know as you've clearly identified yourself as not a man in the past where you won't acknowledge links, you are no longer allowed to ask for links. You have to acknowledge them when you get them to get them.

Now go play in the yard. Here's a ball. Look, it's bouncy
I didn't ask you for a link, kazzer. I challenged you to quote Biden saying what you claim he said. You won't because you can't because he never said there would be no SCOTUS hearings in 1992. So why are you pissy with me when you're the one kazzing?
 

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
"Democrats removed the filibuster (they created) for all other judicial nominations"

Yes, because Republicans were going filibuster-crazy...


... what was McConnell's excuse?
Your chart isn't judicial filibusters
 

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 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:
As you know as you've clearly identified yourself as not a man in the past where you won't acknowledge links, you are no longer allowed to ask for links. You have to acknowledge them when you get them to get them.

Now go play in the yard. Here's a ball. Look, it's bouncy
I didn't ask you for a link, kazzer. I challenged you to quote Biden saying what you claim he said. You won't because you can't because he never said there would be no SCOTUS hearings in 1992. So why are you pissy with me when you're the one kazzing?
Does this actually work? I mean how old are you really? Wow.

BTW, I showed the dog the quote. You really are stupid that you can't read other posts mixed into the discussion
 

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
"Biden laid the footing for this by saying he wouldn't hold hearings on a Republican nomination in 1992."

You're still kazzing (i.e., lying) as evidenced by your utter inability to quote Biden ever saying that. :mm:

If you want to ask for links, you have to man up to acknowledging you when you get them. Which you don't do. Note there is no question mark in this post
 

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:
Kaz can't quote, He barely has cliff notes.....(Wait, do they still have cliff notes?)
Here you go liar. You know he said this. " It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Now acknowledge it or join Faun in that you can no longer ask for links as you're not a man
LOLOL

Kazzer, he said that at the end of June when the year was half over. And even then, only until after the election, 4 months away. That is not all of "1992." :eusa_liar:
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
35,377
Reaction score
4,390
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
[
[/QUOTE]

Kaz can't quote, He barely has cliff notes.....(Wait, do they still have cliff notes?)
[/QUOTE]
YES THEY DO. I'd have trouble with my reading group if they didn't!!!! #tooold2remembercollege
 

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:
As you know as you've clearly identified yourself as not a man in the past where you won't acknowledge links, you are no longer allowed to ask for links. You have to acknowledge them when you get them to get them.

Now go play in the yard. Here's a ball. Look, it's bouncy
I didn't ask you for a link, kazzer. I challenged you to quote Biden saying what you claim he said. You won't because you can't because he never said there would be no SCOTUS hearings in 1992. So why are you pissy with me when you're the one kazzing?
Does this actually work? I mean how old are you really? Wow.

BTW, I showed the dog the quote. You really are stupid that you can't read other posts mixed into the discussion
Kazzer, I didn't see you post the quote until after I posted that. I reply to posts in chronological order. And the quote you posted proved you kazzed as nowhere in there did he say there would be no hearings at all that year.
 

LaDairis

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
3,717
Reaction score
506
Points
140
Blumenthal and Schumer both made real threats. Schumer was never sanctioned at all for threatening Kavanaugh, including telling him "you won't know what hit you...."


Jew Supremacist Zionist Traitors above the law, both Blumenthal and Schumer....
 

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 ...
"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:
Kaz can't quote, He barely has cliff notes.....(Wait, do they still have cliff notes?)
Here you go liar. You know he said this. " It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Now acknowledge it or join Faun in that you can no longer ask for links as you're not a man
Congratulations on finding out that Joe didn't say "no to hearings in 1992" like you were told.

 

LaDairis

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
3,717
Reaction score
506
Points
140
Low IQ Joe was an off the scale racist at the Clarence Thomas hearings.
 

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 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:
As you know as you've clearly identified yourself as not a man in the past where you won't acknowledge links, you are no longer allowed to ask for links. You have to acknowledge them when you get them to get them.

Now go play in the yard. Here's a ball. Look, it's bouncy
I didn't ask you for a link, kazzer. I challenged you to quote Biden saying what you claim he said. You won't because you can't because he never said there would be no SCOTUS hearings in 1992. So why are you pissy with me when you're the one kazzing?
You seriously didn't see the quote in my response to the mutt? Seriously?
 

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 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:
Kaz can't quote, He barely has cliff notes.....(Wait, do they still have cliff notes?)
Here you go liar. You know he said this. " It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Now acknowledge it or join Faun in that you can no longer ask for links as you're not a man
Congratulations on finding out that Joe didn't say "no to hearings in 1992" like you were told.
Such a liar. I just showed you the quote. You know what he said. Pathetic. Join my you cannot ask for links list. You're a dog, not a man
 

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 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:
Kaz can't quote, He barely has cliff notes.....(Wait, do they still have cliff notes?)
Here you go liar. You know he said this. " It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Now acknowledge it or join Faun in that you can no longer ask for links as you're not a man
LOLOL

Kazzer, he said that at the end of June when the year was half over. And even then, only until after the election, 4 months away. That is not all of "1992." :eusa_liar:
So if Democrats won the 1992 election, you're saying they would have confirmed a Republican pick AFTER the election!!!!????!!!!

:auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List