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

[iceberg]

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

Anything she says is subject to emotional change.

 

[kaz]

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.

Coyote also can't list a single time Democrats didn't confirm a Democrat scotus pick and waited for an election as she demands the Republicans do

 

[iceberg]

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.

Coyote also can't list a single time Democrats didn't confirm a Democrat scotus pick and waited for an election as she demands the Republicans do

She can't say what the Rs did wrong. A "rule" is her emotional fingernails clinging to hope on something that is, not law nor process.

And Biden said it first anyway.

 

[kaz]

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.

So do you at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that ACB was irrelevant to stacking the court, Democrats were going to do it anyway?

And again as Democrats never seem to grasp, you do realize when Republicans get back in power (assuming Biden wins), they'll do the same thing. This isn't you taking the SCOTUS permanently, this is you starting an endless tit for tat process where the courts are under the control of the majority party. Both parties. This whole thing is just so you can go first. After that, it'll just go back and forth. Eventually there will be thousands of SCOTUS justices just so you could have like 10 years of absolute power

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

I could be wrong but I think you didn't know what Joe actually said back in 1992. Do you know what he said prior to the selective quote you provided?

Biden in 1992: President Should Not Name Supreme Court Nominee Until After The November Election

Then-Senator Joe Biden addresses the Senate floor in 1992 to speak against then-President George H. W. Bush nominating a Supreme Court Justice should a vacancy occur. Then-Senator Joe Biden addresses the Senate floor in 1992 to speak out against the possibility of then-President George H. W...

www.realclearpolitics.com

Full transcript:

BIDEN: Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan's and Bush's last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year.

 

[jc456]

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

Stop yourself.

Reids own words, judicial nominees. You didn’t answer what a SCOTUS nominee is if not judiciary? Why, doesn’t fit your narrative. We get it blind, stay blind literally

 

[jc456]

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?

Which ones?

 

[BS Filter]

Remember how Republicans threatened to pack the court and do such and such when Obumbo nominated Kagan and Sotomayor and the Senate approved them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 say that as though you think Democrats intend to ever allow another free and open election again if they gain power this time.

 

[iceberg]

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?

Which ones?

Asking for specifics. May as well ask a nun for sex.

 

[rightwinger]

Elections have consequences.

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

They will need the House also

If Dems take all three, why should they not use their power?

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 say that as though you think Democrats intend to ever allow another free and open election again if they gain power this time.

You Goofy

 

[rightwinger]

Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

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.

Coyote also can't list a single time Democrats didn't confirm a Democrat scotus pick and waited for an election as she demands the Republicans do

Dems never refused to fill a seat in an election year (10 months away) and then filled a seat days before the election when it favored them

 

[bendog]

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.

Well Moscow Mitch changed the fillibuster rules to not allow Obama to fill any seats after Sonmayor because he didn't like her ideas on affirm actions or "wise Latinas." Moscow Mitch doesn't seem to care too much for laws that require one to buy insurance or pay tax.

We might say Ted remade rules about qualtifictions with Bork. But Bork's veiw of outlawing abortion was at odds with over 60%. STILL it's not like these Judges are up for popular election. It used to be just whehter they were professionally qualafied and didn't belong to racist/noxious organizations

It's not my original thought that BEFORE RBG passed Moscow Mitch's Machievellian Manuevering, whoever won the 16 election would likely make 3 nominations. RBG wanted to retire in Obama's second term, but she stayed on, and then lived with her pain trying to outlast Trump's first term.

The rules now are it takes 50 plus the VP to "elect" a Justice. Candidates from the opposition party need not apply. (AND THAT IS a change from Biden, who oversaw Kennedy in Reagan's LAST YEAR and let Thomas get a pass even when Anitia Hill was not the only woman who wanted to testify)

JMO, but I want these guys termlimited. 20 years seems enough. They get good pensions. I'm sure they could find a gig teaching college. At least congresscritters have to face voters once in awhile.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yo mean like the Republicans did?

No, because the Republicans didn't. However much you are butthurt by Republicans winning elections and using the power the Constitution gives them in that event, that doesn't make it "grasping power at any cost", nor does it justify your "In that case, we're going to burn everything down so that we're ALWAYS in control!"

I think it's long past time that you grow the hell up and learn to embrace the fact that you don't always get to win, no matter HOW entitled to it you've been taught to believe you are.

 

[bendog]

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.

Coyote also can't list a single time Democrats didn't confirm a Democrat scotus pick and waited for an election as she demands the Republicans do

Dems never refused to fill a seat in an election year (10 months away) and then filled a seat days before the election when it favored them

We tend to forget that Reagan nominated "the other" Ginsburg who had to pull out cause he was still smoking pot after law school. Then Reagan nominated Kennedy. At the time, the dems thought they'd beat HW.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

.

Can you fascists tell us the last the Senate refused to allow a president to fill a vacancy?

If you whining crybabies can tell us what possible difference it makes to the point.

Oh, and just for the record, "Fascist" does not mean "People who do things I don't agree with and make me cry!!!"

 

[BS Filter]

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.

Well Moscow Mitch changed the fillibuster rules to not allow Obama to fill any seats after Sonmayor because he didn't like her ideas on affirm actions or "wise Latinas." Moscow Mitch doesn't seem to care too much for laws that require one to buy insurance or pay tax.

We might say Ted remade rules about qualtifictions with Bork. But Bork's veiw of outlawing abortion was at odds with over 60%. STILL it's not like these Judges are up for popular election. It used to be just whehter they were professionally qualafied and didn't belong to racist/noxious organizations

It's not my original thought that BEFORE RBG passed Moscow Mitch's Machievellian Manuevering, whoever won the 16 election would likely make 3 nominations. RBG wanted to retire in Obama's second term, but she stayed on, and then lived with her pain trying to outlast Trump's first term.

The rules now are it takes 50 plus the VP to "elect" a Justice. Candidates from the opposition party need not apply. (AND THAT IS a change from Biden, who oversaw Kennedy in Reagan's LAST YEAR and let Thomas get a pass even when Anitia Hill was not the only woman who wanted to testify)

JMO, but I want these guys termlimited. 20 years seems enough. They get good pensions. I'm sure they could find a gig teaching college. At least congresscritters have to face voters once in awhile.

Term limits should be for Congress not the Supreme Court. Did you listen to what Amy Barrett said at her swearing in last night?

 

[bendog]

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.

Yo mean like the Republicans did?

No, because the Republicans didn't. However much you are butthurt by Republicans winning elections and using the power the Constitution gives them in that event, that doesn't make it "grasping power at any cost", nor does it justify your "In that case, we're going to burn everything down so that we're ALWAYS in control!"

I think it's long past time that you grow the hell up and learn to embrace the fact that you don't always get to win, no matter HOW entitled to it you've been taught to believe you are.

In 1936 or so, the Republicans hadn't manipulated rules just to elect an non-FDR court. If the Barret Court starts wiping out precedents to overturn dem laws that are popular. I'm not making predictions, but if it comes about, the dems aren't going to face a backlash for putting a partisan court back in it's place.

 

[BS Filter]

Democrats are having a difficult time with this because they're like children at the checkout line. Grow up.

 

[bendog]

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.

Well Moscow Mitch changed the fillibuster rules to not allow Obama to fill any seats after Sonmayor because he didn't like her ideas on affirm actions or "wise Latinas." Moscow Mitch doesn't seem to care too much for laws that require one to buy insurance or pay tax.

We might say Ted remade rules about qualtifictions with Bork. But Bork's veiw of outlawing abortion was at odds with over 60%. STILL it's not like these Judges are up for popular election. It used to be just whehter they were professionally qualafied and didn't belong to racist/noxious organizations

It's not my original thought that BEFORE RBG passed Moscow Mitch's Machievellian Manuevering, whoever won the 16 election would likely make 3 nominations. RBG wanted to retire in Obama's second term, but she stayed on, and then lived with her pain trying to outlast Trump's first term.

The rules now are it takes 50 plus the VP to "elect" a Justice. Candidates from the opposition party need not apply. (AND THAT IS a change from Biden, who oversaw Kennedy in Reagan's LAST YEAR and let Thomas get a pass even when Anitia Hill was not the only woman who wanted to testify)

JMO, but I want these guys termlimited. 20 years seems enough. They get good pensions. I'm sure they could find a gig teaching college. At least congresscritters have to face voters once in awhile.

Term limits should be for Congress not the Supreme Court. Did you listen to what Amy Barrett said at her swearing in last night?

Imo she's a lying lawyer, not unlike the other 8