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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
48,309
Reaction score
10,516
Points
2,030
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?
Well, you know, we haven't changed any norms and rules, aside from the one where Republicans were spineless pussies who caved the instant a Democrat glared at them.

The fact that you've deliberately remained ignorant of the ACTUAL laws and procedures in this country in favor of whatever your masters told you to believe they were at the moment is a you problem, not an us problem.

If the Dems get the Senate and the Executive and decide to rush ahead with the plans they've always had for dismantling that pesky Constitution, that's all on you, and literally no one is going to buy your drivel about "it's your own fault for daring to fight back, we deserve to destroy the country as revenge." I suggest you learn to live with being a garbage human being who doesn't deserve to feel good about herself, because you're not going to be able to rationalize why your evil is "really a good thing" this time.
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
3,560
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

If he was German in the 40s: He would be an SS officer
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
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:
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. :itsok:
Um ... and you care how I feel why again, gay boy? I don't give a shit how you feel
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,012
Reaction score
12,136
Points
2,210
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?
LOL

You poor thing, you just can't stop kazzing, can ya?

No, I didn't say Biden would have confirmed a Republican after the election had Bush lost. He wouldn't have.

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.
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,137
Points
2,250
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.
Translation..........we were really really wrong when we said screw you guys when you had the power.

We promise to play nice on the playground later........
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,012
Reaction score
12,136
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:
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:
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. :itsok:
Um ... and you care how I feel why again, gay boy? I don't give a shit how you feel
Who said I care? You think making fun of you for being a pathological kazzer means I care how you feel? You're my entertainment here for the afternoon. Of course, of you could stop kazzing, I would have nothing to say to you.
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
9,377
Reaction score
2,696
Points
265
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

These guys are deranged. The President was empowered to make this appointment by the results of the 2016 election, an election these deluded clowns refused to accept.

The Senate was empowered to consent to this appointment, by the results of the 2018 election, which these nut burgers refuse to accept.

These guys are a threat to every American and our experiment in self-rule, which as proven to be one of the most durable governments today.

‘REVENGE’ FOR THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE FULFILLING THEIR CONTITUTIONAL DUTIES: Democrats Vowed Revenge For ACB Confirmation.

They have completely lost their minds, they may be even worse, within a week.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
35,377
Reaction score
4,390
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
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?
LOL

You poor thing, you just can't stop kazzing, can ya?

No, I didn't say Biden would have confirmed a Republican after the election had Bush lost. He wouldn't have.

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.
Yes Kaz lied, but he couldn't even find the issue. The issue is that RBG said she'd have retired in 2014 but McConnell wouldn't have confirmed an Obama nomination in 15. The Ghoul's seating Barrett pretty much proves that to anyone who actually thought RBG didn't understand McConnell.
 

Viktor

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
1,874
Points
1,930
Location
Southern California
there is supposed to be 9. not 8. it was your president TRUMPs duty to fill the vacancy.
Exactly
Republicans should not have left the court at 8 for a year and allowed the sitting President to fill it......Obama
OH? so now you are the Senate Majority Leader?? That is strictly HIS decision. You're just a dumb clod wearing a dirty T shirt.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,967
Reaction score
13,605
Points
2,415
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 ...
Keep pretending a 30 year old conversation is a "rule". It only became a rule when YOU guys made it one. And then...unmade it a few weeks before an election.

Own your hypocrisy and quit wimping out and blaming everyone else. Oh wait. You're a Trumpist. It's what they do.
Link us up to this imaginary rule you keep bleating about, Dummy.
 

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
2,164
Points
1,893
I think Biden wants to work with Republicans. He always has before.
Who cares what you think Biden is willing to do? He's not going to be POTUS and will be working with doctors to alleviate his senility.
He is the Republicans best option.
Incorrect. Trump 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
Schumer will be as irrelevant after the election as he is now.
 

cutter

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
1,879
Reaction score
479
Points
130
They will pack the court IF they ever get elected again. I think we are witnessing the death of the democratic party. When Trump is re-elected and all the corruption and illegal activities the deep state and democrats have done is exposed it will be the death of the democratic party and hopefully the creation of another party that will represent middle class Americans honor and integrity.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,098
Reaction score
11,146
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
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?
LOL

You poor thing, you just can't stop kazzing, can ya?

No, I didn't say Biden would have confirmed a Republican after the election had Bush lost. He wouldn't have.

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.
Yes Kaz lied, but he couldn't even find the issue. The issue is that RBG said she'd have retired in 2014 but McConnell wouldn't have confirmed an Obama nomination in 15. The Ghoul's seating Barrett pretty much proves that to anyone who actually thought RBG didn't understand McConnell.

The issue is that RBG said she'd have retired in 2014


The Dems controlled the Senate in 2014.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
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:
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. :itsok:
Um ... and you care how I feel why again, gay boy? I don't give a shit how you feel
Who said I care? You think making fun of you for being a pathological kazzer means I care how you feel? You're my entertainment here for the afternoon. Of course, of you could stop kazzing, I would have nothing to say to you.
You just said you care how I feel. Your shtick is tired, little boy. Have your tantrum outside
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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?
LOL

You poor thing, you just can't stop kazzing, can ya?

No, I didn't say Biden would have confirmed a Republican after the election had Bush lost. He wouldn't have.

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.
Yes Kaz lied, but he couldn't even find the issue. The issue is that RBG said she'd have retired in 2014 but McConnell wouldn't have confirmed an Obama nomination in 15. The Ghoul's seating Barrett pretty much proves that to anyone who actually thought RBG didn't understand McConnell.
Biden was completely clear. You're just such a blind hack partisan Democrat extremist it overrides your ability to read a simple sentence
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
91,486
Reaction score
9,669
Points
2,030
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

Only twice of 20 occasions has an opposition party confirmed a justice, that's wasn't living in the present, it was following historical norms. That seems to be something you commies know very little about.

.
Oh? How many of them were denied a hearing with almost a year left in a president's term?

Almost only counts in hand grenades, horseshoes and atom bombs child. Opposition senates don't tend to confirm justices in the last year of a presidents term.

.
that means the midterm election lost them the Senate. Right? elections have consequences if I recall correctly.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
49,595
Reaction score
15,918
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
McConnell told Obama there was no way he was going to be allowed to fill the seat
Obama started this winner take all shit in congress. Obama told Republicans "I won, sit in the back and don't do a lot of talking elections have consequences" and the Democrats froze Republicans out. You reap what you sow Democrats!
That too is a fake quote...


Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.
The WSJ disagrees with you. :itsok:
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
91,486
Reaction score
9,669
Points
2,030
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
Now apply that to the way Republicans behaved with Garland. Oh wait. You can’t. Your a fucking hypocrite.

There is nothing unconstitutional about changing the size of the Supreme Court. Dems have the same righteous justifications as the Republicans.


However, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Apply it.
That’s exactly what I’m telling you. It was a mistake for the democrats to end the filibuster.
It will be a mistake To pack the court.
Like I said, the dems keep coming up with stupid "trick plays" then get mad when used in a manner they didn't want.
they are indeed poor sports and lousy losers.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
35,377
Reaction score
4,390
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
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?
LOL

You poor thing, you just can't stop kazzing, can ya?

No, I didn't say Biden would have confirmed a Republican after the election had Bush lost. He wouldn't have.

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.
Yes Kaz lied, but he couldn't even find the issue. The issue is that RBG said she'd have retired in 2014 but McConnell wouldn't have confirmed an Obama nomination in 15. The Ghoul's seating Barrett pretty much proves that to anyone who actually thought RBG didn't understand McConnell.
The issue is that RBG said she'd have retired in 2014

The Dems controlled the Senate in 2014.
You're right. RBG said she couldn't retire AFTER the 14 election and before the 16 election. And the issue is the McConnell rule: No opposition party will EVER fill a vacancy with two years to go before a presedential election. And it may be that no opposition party will fill ANY vacancy unless the sitting poutus party wins an election while the seat is open.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
91,486
Reaction score
9,669
Points
2,030
Elections have consequences.
If Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the Senate we can pack the court and Dems won't oppose it?
They will need the House also

If Dems take all three, why should they not use their power?
Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.
You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?
It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me! :eusa_dance:
What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives
Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.
And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.
That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.
McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.
McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

How many did he block?

Now that your party set the precedent,

You think 2015-2016 was the first time a Senate controlled by an opposing party has left some
court seats open at the end of a President's term? LOL!
They just don’t seem to get it.
Then they take their perceived slight, and think “well then we will do this!” And plan to do something incredibly stupid (pack the court.
Despite me saying repeatedly that I would be opposed to anyone doing it, and telling them it’s an absolutely horrible road to go down, they keep responding like bitter little partisans.
Hey clowns, ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!!!
it's a demofk threat and only a demofk threat. stop with the both party shit. The GOP never ever did what the demofks do. never ever. The demofks created the nuclear option in the Senate. Not the republicans. Ending filibustering was the demofks, not the republicans, and now they are threatening this. It is always a threat from the demofks. Alwys
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top