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

[Remodeling Maidiac]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

Indeed and her name is Amy

 

[AZrailwhale]

Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

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

.

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

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

Yes because Obama immediately took the position that becaue the Republicans lost control of the House, Senate and White House, he could not only scold and ignore them, but ride roughshod over their legitimate concerns.

 

[BlindBoo]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

 

[22lcidw]

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

Lol. End of cooperation with republicans??? Are you ******* kidding me?
That statement alone demonstrates what a joke you are, but I’ll play along.
So, if a judge you don’t like is put on the bench, your solution is to then go down the path of adding judges (aka packing the court)? You don’t see that going down that path is disastrous?

Graham didnt agree wih Kegan or Sotamayor, but he confirmed them because they were qualified.

Voting NO because you dont agree with the politics of the judge is not how its done. Dems have always done it since Bork, also with Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.


This is interesting....

Scalia met no opposition from the committee. The full Senate debated Scalia's nomination only briefly, confirming him 98–0 on September 17, 1986 and thereby making him the first Italian-American Justice. That vote followed Rehnquist's confirmation as Chief Justice by a vote of 65–33 on the same day. Scalia took his seat on September 26, 1986. One committee member, Democratic Delaware Senator Joe Biden, later stated that he regretted not having opposed Scalia "because he was so effective".

And Garland?

Election year...Repub Senate...Prog President....no passage of Supreme Court Judge for a century I believe. Senate and Presidency controlled by different parties.

 

[WTF19]

Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

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

.

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

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

obviously there wasnt a single piece worth the paper it was on

 

[rightwinger]

Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

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

.

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

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

Yes because Obama immediately took the position that becaue the Republicans lost control of the House, Senate and White House, he could not only scold and ignore them, but ride roughshod over their legitimate concerns.

Bullshit
Republicans caucused before Obama even took office and pledged to not support Obama on ANY issue.

 

[WTF19]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

what part of the constitution do you not understand? quit your whining, typical demonrat, and deal with it. it is called fulfilling the obligation. duh

 

[rightwinger]

Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

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

.

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

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

obviously there wasnt a single piece worth the paper it was on

Obviously to the right wing media
Republicans opposed programs they had previously voted in favor of.

 

[22lcidw]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Remember that when Repubs come back to power. The electorate can be fickle. The 2022 election could bring a Repub majority if they lose it this time around. It would be funny seeing a Banana Republic style. Prog Socialists have made massive strides in a half century. And yet you are being babies. And dangerous.

 

[WTF19]

Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

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

.

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

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

Yes because Obama immediately took the position that becaue the Republicans lost control of the House, Senate and White House, he could not only scold and ignore them, but ride roughshod over their legitimate concerns.

Bullshit
Republicans caucused before Obama even took office and pledged to not support Obama on ANY issue.

you are still whining about the fantastic nominee of Amy? boo-hoo

 

[JustAGuy1]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

Indeed they do, hence the filling of the vacant seat.

 

[rightwinger]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

what part of the constitution do you not understand? quit your whining, typical demonrat, and deal with it. it is called fulfilling the obligation. duh

Nothing in the Constitution said the Senate had to fill a vacant court seat or consider an appointment from an opposition party.

Nothing in the Constitution says Congress cannot expand the court

 

[JustAGuy1]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

 

[WTF19]

Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

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

.

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

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

obviously there wasnt a single piece worth the paper it was on

Obviously to the right wing media
Republicans opposed programs they had previously voted in favor of.

i didnt hear of 1, and im not the media. so, what are you babbling? could it be the hatred you have for your president TRUMP? best pres in 100 years

 

[BluesLegend]

Elections have consequences.

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

 

[Faun]

Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

Lol. End of cooperation with republicans??? Are you ******* kidding me?
That statement alone demonstrates what a joke you are, but I’ll play along.
So, if a judge you don’t like is put on the bench, your solution is to then go down the path of adding judges (aka packing the court)? You don’t see that going down that path is disastrous?

Oh? What's disastrous about it?

 

[rightwinger]

I don’t think Biden supports packing the court and there are moderate Dem Senators who oppose it.

If the Conservative Court acts like a traditional court, I doubt Dems will try to add seats.

But if the Conservative Court becomes a rubber stamp for an extreme Conservative agenda, I think the Dems hand will be forced.

Let’s see how they rule on Obamacare and Roe

 

[WTF19]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

what part of the constitution do you not understand? quit your whining, typical demonrat, and deal with it. it is called fulfilling the obligation. duh

Nothing in the Constitution said the Senate had to fill a vacant court seat or consider an appointment from an opposition party.

Nothing in the Constitution says Congress cannot expand the court

there is supposed to be 9. not 8. it was your president TRUMPs duty to fill the vacancy. btw, it wasnt with someone the scumbag demonrats would have picked. thats the best part. any how, do be sure to watch her get nominated very soon, it should be a great show for every AMERICAN.

 

[rightwinger]

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?