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

[kaz]

[

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

YES THEY DO. I'd have trouble with my reading group if they didn't!!!! #tooold2remembercollege

OMG, you said I can't quote in a post you f'd up the quote? Is that a joke or are you just that dumb?

 

[BlindBoo]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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....

Spoiler

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

You're the one who say he said no to hearings in 92. Yet your abbreviated quote doesn't comport with your earlier statement.

 

[bendog]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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

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....

Spoiler

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."

I think that's the point. There are some similarities (and differences) between Garland's nomination and Kennedy's. But that was nowhere the ghoulishness of McConnell and Trump or RBG. Biden's quote
At the time of Biden's 1992 speech there were no vacancies — though there were whispers about retirements. But in the event that one emerged, Biden urged Bush to follow the “majority of his predecessors” and not nominate a justice during the campaign. He added that Senate Judiciary Committee — which Biden was chairman of at the time — should not hold confirmation hearings if a nominee was sent up.

Biden in ’92: No election-season Supreme Court nominees

The vice president says Republicans are incorrectly characterizing his position.

www.politico.com

I think the SC could have gotten past Gorsuch and Beerman's nominations. But any claim to judicial non partisanship is over.

 

[kaz]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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

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....

Spoiler

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.

Here's an interesting link!

Quoting, Paraphrasing, & Summarizing | UAGC Writing Center

writingcenter.ashford.edu

You're welcome

 

[Faun]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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

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....

Spoiler

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?

Dayum, you're even more retarded than I thought.

Dumbfuck, again, I was responding to your post #366 and didn't see your post #367, posted 5 minutes later, until after I posted #368, one minute after that. Ask me again and you'll get the same answer.

 

[Orangecat]

Everything in life has Consequences

Like the 2016 election? You're here whining because you're a sore loser.

 

[kaz]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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

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....

Spoiler

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

You're the one who say he said no to hearings in 92. Yet your abbreviated quote doesn't comport with your earlier statement.

You're just a liar. You know what Biden said.

Dumb dog: Duh, dar, Biden didn't say that, kaz. He would have confirmed a Republican SCOTUS pick after a Democrat was elected President.

Do you actually believe you're fooling anyone?

 

[kaz]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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

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....

Spoiler

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?

Dayum, you're even more retarded than I thought.

Dumbfuck, again, I was responding to your post #366 and didn't see your post #367, posted 5 minutes later, until after I posted #368, one minute after that. Ask me again and you'll get the same answer.

I can't take you seriously. Really, how old are you that you act like that?

 

[rightwinger]

Everything in life has Consequences

Like the 2016 election? You're here whining because you're a sore loser.

Yes...just like the 2016 election.

Makes everything about WINNING. If the Dems WIN, they have little incentive to work with Republicans

 

[kaz]

Everything in life has Consequences

Like the 2016 election? You're here whining because you're a sore loser.

Yes...just like the 2016 election.

Makes everything about WINNING. If the Dems WIN, they have little incentive to work with Republicans

And Democrats haven't worked with Republicans, so Republicans have no incentive to work with them.

My issue is just your endless LYING that you're poor innocent victims. What a load

 

[BlindBoo]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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....

Spoiler

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.

Here's an interesting link!

Quoting, Paraphrasing, & Summarizing | UAGC Writing Center

writingcenter.ashford.edu

You're welcome

Comp and Rhetoric 101, or Freshman English.

 

[Orangecat]

Makes everything about WINNING.

That's what whining losers usually say.

If the Dems WIN, they have little incentive to work with Republicans

If you think the dems had any intention of working with rebubs, you're a bigger fool than your posts illustrate.

 

[Faun]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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

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....

Spoiler

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."

So if Democrats won the 1992 election, you're saying they would have confirmed a Republican pick AFTER the election!!!!????!!!!

According to Biden, they would have held hearings after the election. Doesn't mean they would have confirmed them, but he said they would hold them. You kazzed and falsely claimed he said there would be no such hearings that year. Which again, he said halfway into the year, which left 6 months open to hearings as well.

You kazzed and got caught. Deal with it.

 

[kaz]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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

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....

Spoiler

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."

So if Democrats won the 1992 election, you're saying they would have confirmed a Republican pick AFTER the election!!!!????!!!!

According to Biden, they would have held hearings after the election. Doesn't mean they would have confirmed them, but he said they would hold them. You kazzed and falsely claimed he said there would be no such hearings that year. Which again, he said halfway into the year, which left 6 months open to hearings as well.

You kazzed and got caught. Deal with it.

The angry four year old Faun

 

[Faun]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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

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....

Spoiler

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

You're the one who say he said no to hearings in 92. Yet your abbreviated quote doesn't comport with your earlier statement.

You're just a liar. You know what Biden said.

Dumb dog: Duh, dar, Biden didn't say that, kaz. He would have confirmed a Republican SCOTUS pick after a Democrat was elected President.

Do you actually believe you're fooling anyone?

"You're just a liar. You know what Biden said."

Yes, going into July, Biden said there would be no confirmation hearings until after the election, 4 months after he said that. You kazzed, i.e., lied, and falsely claimed he said there would be no hearings that year. Deal with it.

 

[Faun]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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

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....

Spoiler

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."

So if Democrats won the 1992 election, you're saying they would have confirmed a Republican pick AFTER the election!!!!????!!!!

According to Biden, they would have held hearings after the election. Doesn't mean they would have confirmed them, but he said they would hold them. You kazzed and falsely claimed he said there would be no such hearings that year. Which again, he said halfway into the year, which left 6 months open to hearings as well.

You kazzed and got caught. Deal with it.

The angry four year old Faun

Poor kaz.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Thank you for reminding us that you consider winning elections to be justification to destroy the country nd take people's freedoms.

 

[kaz]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

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

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

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

No rule was changed, Dummy

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

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

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

Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.

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

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

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

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

www.npr.org

Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

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

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

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

www.npr.org

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

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

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....

Spoiler

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

You're the one who say he said no to hearings in 92. Yet your abbreviated quote doesn't comport with your earlier statement.

You're just a liar. You know what Biden said.

Dumb dog: Duh, dar, Biden didn't say that, kaz. He would have confirmed a Republican SCOTUS pick after a Democrat was elected President.

Do you actually believe you're fooling anyone?

"You're just a liar. You know what Biden said."

Yes, going into July, Biden said there would be no confirmation hearings until after the election, 4 months after he said that. You kazzed, i.e., lied, and falsely claimed he said there would be no hearings that year. Deal with it.

Faun the angry little boy: Biden would have confirmed a Republican AFTER the election, kaz! He would he would he would! {kicks and screams, falls on the floor, rolls in circles} He would he would he would!

Seriously? How old are you?

 

[rightwinger]

Makes everything about WINNING.

That's what whining losers usually say.

If the Dems WIN, they have little incentive to work with Republicans

If you think the dems had any intention of working with rebubs, you're a bigger fool than your posts illustrate.

We shall see
I think Biden wants to work with Republicans. He always has before. He is the Republicans best option.

If McConnell pulls out his Obama playbook and refuses to work at all.......Then I expect Schumer to play hardball and shut them out completely

 

[rightwinger]

to be justification to destroy the country nd take people's freedoms

DramaQueen