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

Status
Not open for further replies.

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
91,486
Reaction score
9,669
Points
2,030
Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans
When were Democrats “cooperating” with Republicans in the past 4 years?
Kavanaugh hearing. they truly cooperated.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
91,486
Reaction score
9,669
Points
2,030
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.
not a rule dude. but thanks for playing.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
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 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.
Shitstain Reid opened the door when he ended the filibuster for everything except SC nominees, Dummy.

And it wasn't "precedent" to not confirm Barry's pick in his last year. This has been explained to you several times, Stupid.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,012
Reaction score
12,136
Points
2,210
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:
It's not me they disagree with, it's Google, which searches millions of URL's for that quote you posted yet couldn't find a single match. Not one.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,967
Reaction score
13,605
Points
2,415
Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans
After libs pack the courts, RS will remove them after four years, or pack another 50 in their favor. This is the idiotic thinking of the left. You will reap your rancid fruits.
Oh? By what process will they remove them?
Impeachment, unlikely or they could another 125,789 in their favor by simple vote. Don't try to act all coy.
Impeachment for what?
Doesn't matter. You clowns set the precedent you don't need a reason to impeach.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
47,044
Reaction score
8,563
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
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?
They can add as many as they want, FDR was blocked from packing the court by his own party because of the potential damage to the party. Right now less than 30% of the people approve of the tactic and Democrats could lose seats in the House and Senate, that's a risk and if the Democrats can do it now, the Republicans can do the same later.

This started when Bork was Borked and we have gone down a bad path since. The Democrats removed the nuclear option and I am one to believe that changing the rules to benefit now, can hurt you later. I believe we are past civil politics and the two parties are willing to destroy the country for power. Might be time the public demands real leadership for this country and not the two candidates that are running.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,165
Reaction score
39,964
Points
2,190
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
Mitch turned the filibuster from a rarely used tool to a constant 60 vote requirement
 

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.
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.
the McConnell rule: No opposition party will EVER fill a vacancy with two years to go before a presedential election.

Where did he say/write that?

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.

Did Obama get any judges confirmed in 2015-2016?
 

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.
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.
not a rule dude. but thanks for playing.
LOLOLOL

You brain-dead cons crack me up. In 1992, Biden says we should wait until after an upcoming election before holding confirmation hearings, and YOU call that the "Biden Rule"...

I gave it to you already. I don't care you don't like it, but the Biden Rule from '92 is the precedence.

... but when McConnell says a sitting president should not have any confirmation hearings for the last year of their term, you balk at that being referenced as the "McConnell Rule."

:lmao::lmao::lmao:
 

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.
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?
isn't a SCOTUS nominee a judicial nominee? what branch do you think they are?
 

BS Filter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
14,624
Reaction score
4,458
Points
360
Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans
Why not win the Senate and the White House and do it like Republicans did?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,012
Reaction score
12,136
Points
2,210
Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans
After libs pack the courts, RS will remove them after four years, or pack another 50 in their favor. This is the idiotic thinking of the left. You will reap your rancid fruits.
Oh? By what process will they remove them?
Impeachment, unlikely or they could another 125,789 in their favor by simple vote. Don't try to act all coy.
Impeachment for what?
Doesn't matter. You clowns set the precedent you don't need a reason to impeach.
^^^ bullshit
 

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?
isn't a SCOTUS nominee a judicial nominee? what branch do you think they are?
Read ... and learn ...

 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
34,305
Reaction score
4,489
Points
1,130
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Elections have consequences.
Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.
Well...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.

If the Dems get the Senate and Executive, why shouldn't they take a page from your playbook and add justices? Any good reason not to now that you've set precedents?
No rule was changed, Dummy

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

They are filling a vacancy as spelled out in the Constitution, Hack.
The Senate rules were changed. The Senate rules will be changed again too.
Source the rule that was changed.

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

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

Again, both sides played the blame game.


Nope, sorry. Harry did it.


HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.

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

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

CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?

REID: No, I think I went far enough. As a result of changing the rules, we were able to do things that made Obama's presidency one that history books will look back on and say, gee, he got a lot done. So it was something we needed for the country, and it was the right thing to do.
That was not for SC nominations. McConnell had to change that rule or he would never have gotten over the 60 vote threshold.

They keep trying to pretend it's the same. They won't "man up" even though McConnell has outright stated his intent to block Obama judicial nominations because he wanted a Republican president to fill them. So why do they keep pretending that wasn't the agenda?
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...

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

What's that noise? Oh, your standard flipping ... again ...
"So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ..."

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

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

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

Now acknowledge it or join Faun in that you can no longer ask for links as you're not a man
Congratulations on finding out that Joe didn't say "no to hearings in 1992" like you were told.
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?
You have the quote, you know what he said.
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?
isn't a SCOTUS nominee a judicial nominee? what branch do you think they are?
The SC nominations are treated differently, or were treated differently, in the Senate rules. Which is why McConnell had to change the rules in order to get the controversial judges confirmed in with a simple 50% +1 majority, Like the lower federal bench nominees can be confirmed with. That Senate rule is the one Reid changed.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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
Sure, Biden wants Republicans to vote for him. What is he offering? We both know it's nothing
 

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
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?
You have the quote, you know what he said.
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?
isn't a SCOTUS nominee a judicial nominee? what branch do you think they are?
The SC nominations are treated differently, or were treated differently, in the Senate rules. Which is why McConnell had to change the rules in order to get the controversial judges confirmed in with a simple 50% +1 majority, Like the lower federal bench nominees can be confirmed with. That Senate rule is the one Reid changed.
Yes, and Biden's words are clear. You're liar. Like every other Democrat. You look at clear words and deny they say what they say. Just like you constantly misquote Trump. You lie, lie and lie some more. Truth is not part of your game, ever.

Democrats invented the SCOTUS filibuster under W. Only three SCOTUS nominees ever had a SCOTUS filibuster attempt to stop them. Rehnquist (chief), Alito and Gorsuch. No Democrat was ever filibustered
 

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
2,164
Points
1,893
Sure, Biden wants Republicans to vote for him. What is he offering?
Higher taxes and tolerance for looters and criminals.
Also, men in drag will compete in sports with your daughters.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

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.
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.
not a rule dude. but thanks for playing.
LOLOLOL

You brain-dead cons crack me up. In 1992, Biden says we should wait until after an upcoming election before holding confirmation hearings, and YOU call that the "Biden Rule"...

I gave it to you already. I don't care you don't like it, but the Biden Rule from '92 is the precedence.


... but when McConnell says a sitting president should not have any confirmation hearings for the last year of their term, you balk at that being referenced as the "McConnell Rule."

:lmao::lmao::lmao:
It's not the McConnell rule only because Biden created it. If McConnell had created it, it would be the McConnell rule. McConnell did use the Biden rule though.

Are you going to get angry and start throwing things and ranting like a four year old again?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,206
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans
Why not win the Senate and the White House and do it like Republicans did?
It can happen.

Then what about all those new precedents you lot set?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top