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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,207
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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?
:lmao:

Biden didn't create any rule. McConnell did. And then ditched it in 2020 two weeks before the election. Own it for God's sakes and quit deflecting it onto the opposition.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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?
Like the judicial filibuster? No wait, that was you.
Ending the judicial filibuster? Oh, you again.
Filibustering administration nominees? Um ... you
Ending filibustering administration nominees? No wait, you again
Changing the rules to get Obamacare though? Um ... you again ... huh
Filibustering SCOTUS picks? No wait, that's you. Only ever done to Rehnquist (chief), Alito and Gorsuch.

Wow, those wascally wepublicans, huh????
 

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?
:lmao:

Biden didn't create any rule. McConnell did. And then ditched it in 2020 two weeks before the election. Own it for God's sakes and quit deflecting it onto the opposition.
That would be an argument if I was arguing it's only the Democrats. Problem is I'm criticizing your moronic view that you only follow the rules and get screwed for it. I want the Republicans to fight back.

But your lame crap you aren't part of it is pathetic. You're just the most partisan liars on the planet.

Poor baby, those mean Republicans. You never did anything. Sure you didn't. Lame
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,207
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.
It was a mistake for the Pubs to block Obama from filling judicial vacancies.
It was a mistake for the Pubs to end the blue slip process.
It was a mistake for the Pubs to end the filibuster for the SCOTUS.
It was a mistake for the Pubs to invent a new rule to block the president from filling a SCOTUS vacancy.
It will be a mistake if the Dems pack to the court.

What I wonder is this - WHY should they not do it given what the Pubs have set in motion? Any reason except it's a bad idea (which didn't stop all those above mistakes?)

And why won't you guys own your part in this mess of bad bad precedents?
 

BS Filter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
14,624
Reaction score
4,458
Points
360

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
7,616
Points
290
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.
It was a mistake for the Pubs to block Obama from filling judicial vacancies.
It was a mistake for the Pubs to end the blue slip process.
It was a mistake for the Pubs to end the filibuster for the SCOTUS.
It was a mistake for the Pubs to invent a new rule to block the president from filling a SCOTUS vacancy.
It will be a mistake if the Dems pack to the court.

What I wonder is this - WHY should they not do it given what the Pubs have set in motion? Any reason except it's a bad idea (which didn't stop all those above mistakes?)

And why won't you guys own your part in this mess of bad bad precedents?
They just didn't vote. Please tell me what laws they changed and where the constitutional crises lies.

And how come the left never sets any dumbass precedents?
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
35,377
Reaction score
4,390
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
I'd be proud of Moscow Mitch's Machievellian manuevering if I wanted no abortion and no Obamacare.

I'm not really sure it's going to be a bad thing when future presidents with split govt get to fill a max of two seats, maybe 3, in their first term, and then if they win reelection, we wait to fill any vacancies that occur until after yet a 3rd election.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,207
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?
Like the judicial filibuster? No wait, that was you.
Ending the judicial filibuster? Oh, you again.
Why do you deliberately omit stuff?

Who ended the SCOTUS filibuster?

WHO blocked want was normally a pretty routine Presidential right to fill judicial vacancies in order to "save them" for their team (and no, I don't mean voting DOWN applicants).

WHO made up a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy before an election?

and WHO reversed that rule 2 weeks before an election?

Those are MAJOR precedents and don't deny it. You know. If they weren't that made up rule would have held for 2020 instead of creating yet another precedent.

SO why shouldn't the Dems pack the court given YOUR behavior?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,207
Points
2,180
Location
in between
I'd be proud of Moscow Mitch's Machievellian manuevering if I wanted no abortion and no Obamacare.

I'm not really sure it's going to be a bad thing when future presidents with split govt get to fill a max of two seats, maybe 3, in their first term, and then if they win reelection, we wait to fill any vacancies that occur until after yet a 3rd election.
I wouldn't mind. I think though that rules need to be made, voted on and stuck to in that regard - not changed every election like the Republicans did.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,207
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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?
:lmao:

Biden didn't create any rule. McConnell did. And then ditched it in 2020 two weeks before the election. Own it for God's sakes and quit deflecting it onto the opposition.
That would be an argument if I was arguing it's only the Democrats. Problem is I'm criticizing your moronic view that you only follow the rules and get screwed for it. I want the Republicans to fight back.

But your lame crap you aren't part of it is pathetic. You're just the most partisan liars on the planet.

Poor baby, those mean Republicans. You never did anything. Sure you didn't. Lame
Cool. At least you admit you're a hypocrite.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
7,616
Points
290
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?
Like the judicial filibuster? No wait, that was you.
Ending the judicial filibuster? Oh, you again.
Why do you deliberately omit stuff?

Who ended the SCOTUS filibuster?

WHO blocked want was normally a pretty routine Presidential right to fill judicial vacancies in order to "save them" for their team (and no, I don't mean voting DOWN applicants).

WHO made up a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy before an election?

and WHO reversed that rule 2 weeks before an election?

Those are MAJOR precedents and don't deny it. You know. If they weren't that made up rule would have held for 2020 instead of creating yet another precedent.

SO why shouldn't the Dems pack the court given YOUR behavior?
There is no rule about waiting.

If there is, show me. Show me where the constitutional rule is that was ignored.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
7,616
Points
290
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?
:lmao:

Biden didn't create any rule. McConnell did. And then ditched it in 2020 two weeks before the election. Own it for God's sakes and quit deflecting it onto the opposition.
That would be an argument if I was arguing it's only the Democrats. Problem is I'm criticizing your moronic view that you only follow the rules and get screwed for it. I want the Republicans to fight back.

But your lame crap you aren't part of it is pathetic. You're just the most partisan liars on the planet.

Poor baby, those mean Republicans. You never did anything. Sure you didn't. Lame
Cool. At least you admit you're a hypocrite.
Now if only you could.
 

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?
It can happen.

Then what about all those new precedents you lot set?
Like the judicial filibuster? No wait, that was you.
Ending the judicial filibuster? Oh, you again.
Why do you deliberately omit stuff?

Who ended the SCOTUS filibuster?

WHO blocked want was normally a pretty routine Presidential right to fill judicial vacancies in order to "save them" for their team (and no, I don't mean voting DOWN applicants).

WHO made up a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy before an election?

and WHO reversed that rule 2 weeks before an election?

Those are MAJOR precedents and don't deny it. You know. If they weren't that made up rule would have held for 2020 instead of creating yet another precedent.

SO why shouldn't the Dems pack the court given YOUR behavior?
It's very simple. Win the Senate and the White House. Duh!
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,207
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?
Like the judicial filibuster? No wait, that was you.
Ending the judicial filibuster? Oh, you again.
Why do you deliberately omit stuff?

Who ended the SCOTUS filibuster?

WHO blocked want was normally a pretty routine Presidential right to fill judicial vacancies in order to "save them" for their team (and no, I don't mean voting DOWN applicants).

WHO made up a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy before an election?

and WHO reversed that rule 2 weeks before an election?

Those are MAJOR precedents and don't deny it. You know. If they weren't that made up rule would have held for 2020 instead of creating yet another precedent.

SO why shouldn't the Dems pack the court given YOUR behavior?
It's very simple. Win the Senate and the White House. Duh!
So you'll be fine with it if they win it and do that? There has already been a lot of whining from you guys about the possibility.

Bad ideas are still bad ideas.
 

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?
It can happen.

Then what about all those new precedents you lot set?
Like the judicial filibuster? No wait, that was you.
Ending the judicial filibuster? Oh, you again.
Why do you deliberately omit stuff?

Who ended the SCOTUS filibuster?

WHO blocked want was normally a pretty routine Presidential right to fill judicial vacancies in order to "save them" for their team (and no, I don't mean voting DOWN applicants).

WHO made up a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy before an election?

and WHO reversed that rule 2 weeks before an election?

Those are MAJOR precedents and don't deny it. You know. If they weren't that made up rule would have held for 2020 instead of creating yet another precedent.

SO why shouldn't the Dems pack the court given YOUR behavior?
It's very simple. Win the Senate and the White House. Duh!
So you'll be fine with it if they win it and do that? There has already been a lot of whining from you guys about the possibility.

Bad ideas are still bad ideas.
Of course I'm fine with following the Constitution. Always.
 

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
2,639
Points
280
People (not 'people' but dimocrap scum) misinterpret what happened under the stuttering clusterfuck.

He wasn't running for re-election. It wasn't right for him/xem/xer/it to nominate a SCOTUS Justice because he wouldn't have to answer for him.

Plus, the Senate had every right to not consider whatshisnuts.

Rober Bork, anyone? And yes, It was Hairless Hairy Reid who stopped the filibuster of Judges.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
Why do you deliberately omit stuff?

Who ended the SCOTUS filibuster?
This is just a lie. I've said repeatedly it was the Republicans. I don't list that one when I'm countering your point the Democrats did nothing ever, you follow the rules and get screwed for it. That's just a lie. You never list any counter point about the Democrats when you're attacking the Repbublicans, not ever



WHO blocked
want was normally a pretty routine Presidential right to fill judicial vacancies in order to "save them" for their team (and no, I don't mean voting DOWN applicants).

WHO made up a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy before an election?

and WHO reversed that rule 2 weeks before an election?

Those are MAJOR precedents and don't deny it. You know. If they weren't that made up rule would have held for 2020 instead of creating yet another precedent.

SO why shouldn't the Dems pack the court given YOUR behavior?
This is you making up a bunch of stuff.

Here's the fact. Both parties have filled every seat when they had the White House and the Senate. BOTH EVERY TIME.

Both have fought back when it's split. Democrats invented the SCOTUS filibuster under W and tried to filibuster Alito, Rehnquist (chief) and under Trump successfully filibustered Gorsuch.

Democrats said they wouldn't confirm an HW pick and Republicans didn't confirm Garland.

Both parties take the seat when they are in control and fight when they aren't. BOTH PARTIES. This shit that your farts smell like lilacs, you're poor, innocent, blameless and it's the Republicans is just tired. Grow the fuck up
 

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?
:lmao:

Biden didn't create any rule. McConnell did. And then ditched it in 2020 two weeks before the election. Own it for God's sakes and quit deflecting it onto the opposition.
That would be an argument if I was arguing it's only the Democrats. Problem is I'm criticizing your moronic view that you only follow the rules and get screwed for it. I want the Republicans to fight back.

But your lame crap you aren't part of it is pathetic. You're just the most partisan liars on the planet.

Poor baby, those mean Republicans. You never did anything. Sure you didn't. Lame
Cool. At least you admit you're a hypocrite.
So when you say Democrats are blameless, above reproach, so dear and unifying and just trying to get along and I say bull, both parties are fighting, that's me being a hypocrite.

That's some lame ass rhetoric
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
7,616
Points
290
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?
Like the judicial filibuster? No wait, that was you.
Ending the judicial filibuster? Oh, you again.
Why do you deliberately omit stuff?

Who ended the SCOTUS filibuster?

WHO blocked want was normally a pretty routine Presidential right to fill judicial vacancies in order to "save them" for their team (and no, I don't mean voting DOWN applicants).

WHO made up a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy before an election?

and WHO reversed that rule 2 weeks before an election?

Those are MAJOR precedents and don't deny it. You know. If they weren't that made up rule would have held for 2020 instead of creating yet another precedent.

SO why shouldn't the Dems pack the court given YOUR behavior?
It's very simple. Win the Senate and the White House. Duh!
So you'll be fine with it if they win it and do that? There has already been a lot of whining from you guys about the possibility.

Bad ideas are still bad ideas.
You can't name anything they did out of order or against the constitutional process.

Yet, the Rs did something wrong.

You not liking it doesn't make it wrong.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
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?
Like the judicial filibuster? No wait, that was you.
Ending the judicial filibuster? Oh, you again.
Why do you deliberately omit stuff?

Who ended the SCOTUS filibuster?

WHO blocked want was normally a pretty routine Presidential right to fill judicial vacancies in order to "save them" for their team (and no, I don't mean voting DOWN applicants).

WHO made up a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy before an election?

and WHO reversed that rule 2 weeks before an election?

Those are MAJOR precedents and don't deny it. You know. If they weren't that made up rule would have held for 2020 instead of creating yet another precedent.

SO why shouldn't the Dems pack the court given YOUR behavior?
There is no rule about waiting.

If there is, show me. Show me where the constitutional rule is that was ignored.
Coyote's whole argument is:

Coyote on Biden: You can't hold him to anything he said. It was just a "conversation."

Coyote on McConnell: It doesn't matter if Democrats never gave Republicans anything, he made a comment about election years and we have to hold him to it even under completely different circumstances than he said it.

Yes, it's that lame. Coyote thinks Republicans are responsible for every word uttered in every context imaginable and Democrats aren't responsible for a word they say ever. That's what she's arguing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top