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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Name the rule
 
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.
Thé public won’t care if Dems add judges to the court

Fox News will bitch like crazy but they only impact the conservative vote
 
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?

No, he's actually saying that Republicans HAVEN'T redefined the rules, but if your butthurt over having lost has you championing the idea of changing the rules, then you should be perfectly fine if Trump wins and changes them himself. Right?
 
Something I haven't heard talked about --

Why didn't the old goat retire when the Lying Cocksucker was still president?

Answer: One thing about Totalitarian Leftist (but I repeat myself) scum -- They always die in Office. Always.

Think about it. Lenein, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, (anybody notice a pattern here) Chavez etc, etc etc ad nauseam.

leftist scum always die in office, given the opportunity.

Ever notice that?

Probably not
 
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
How is she a liar? You all say that to anyone but can’t fking ever prove it. You not so smart
 
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
Cool.
 
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?

No, he's actually saying that Republicans HAVEN'T redefined the rules, but if your butthurt over having lost has you championing the idea of changing the rules, then you should be perfectly fine if Trump wins and changes them himself. Right?
She loves to rephrase what I've said to fit her emo moods.
 
Something I haven't heard talked about --

Why didn't the old goat retire when the Lying Cocksucker was still president?

Answer: One thing about Totalitarian Leftist (but I repeat myself) scum -- They always die in Office. Always.

Think about it. Lenein, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, (anybody notice a pattern here) Chavez etc, etc etc ad nauseam.

leftist scum always die in office, given the opportunity.

Ever notice that?

Probably not
Can’t give up the power
 
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
Cool.
So at least he’s moved on from his distaste for Gorsch and Kavanaugh, progress i supposed
 
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?
Change the rules? Thank Harry Reid idiot. Add justices? Sorry dummy, the process was followed correctly and your crying and lying changes NOTHING.
 
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

If they were the same thing why did the Senate have separate rules concerning each? Are you trying to say the the rule Reid changed also effected the Supreme Court Nominees as well? I never took logic in school by I think you broke one of their rules with that word salad you just tried to play with.
 
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

The democrats are full of shit it is getting old hearing about packing the courts to maintain balance
The thing is the courts aren't meant to rule for the balance they are to rule by the Constitution and laws ruled constitutional NOT FUCKING BALANCE
THE WAY ROBERTS HAS BEEN RULING IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS DOING
hE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
 
Something I haven't heard talked about --

Why didn't the old goat retire when the Lying Cocksucker was still president?

Answer: One thing about Totalitarian Leftist (but I repeat myself) scum -- They always die in Office. Always.

Think about it. Lenein, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, (anybody notice a pattern here) Chavez etc, etc etc ad nauseam.

leftist scum always die in office, given the opportunity.

Ever notice that?

Probably not
Can’t give up the power


It's because their beliefs define who and what they are.

Not being an American, not being a parent, not being a good person, not being a child of God.....

Rather, being a power-hungry leftist scumbag (I repeat myself yet again) is all they know. They don't know how to live outside of their own disgusting circle of like-minded scumbags. They need constant reinforcement from the fishes inside their own bowl.

On the outside, they got nothing.

Typical leftists.

So they die in Office never having actually lived.
 
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?
Change the rules? Thank Harry Reid idiot. Add justices? Sorry dummy, the process was followed correctly and your crying and lying changes NOTHING.

The Constitution was followed. Their lying to the country about their motive will be replayed over and over to the public every time the Banana Republicans start whining about what Constitutional measures the Democrats take in the coming years.
 
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?
Change the rules? Thank Harry Reid idiot. Add justices? Sorry dummy, the process was followed correctly and your crying and lying changes NOTHING.

The Constitution was followed. Their lying to the country about their motive will be replayed over and over to the public every time the Banana Republicans start whining about what Constitutional measures the Democrats take in the coming years.
Cry me a river. Lying about motives? Shove that up your blind ass. See idiot, you can’t pull your bullshit now because you don’t owns the courts. And you won’t for at least 40 years. Repeat this 500 times. Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
 
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

If they were the same thing why did the Senate have separate rules concerning each? Are you trying to say the the rule Reid changed also effected the Supreme Court Nominees as well? I never took logic in school by I think you broke one of their rules with that word salad you just tried to play with.
The bottom line is you believe that Democrats should win every time and if they don't then there must be something crooked going on. Right?
 
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?
Change the rules? Thank Harry Reid idiot. Add justices? Sorry dummy, the process was followed correctly and your crying and lying changes NOTHING.

The Constitution was followed. Their lying to the country about their motive will be replayed over and over to the public every time the Banana Republicans start whining about what Constitutional measures the Democrats take in the coming years.
Cry me a river. Lying about motives? Shove that up your blind ass. See idiot, you can’t pull your bullshit now because you don’t owns the courts. And you won’t for at least 40 years. Repeat this 500 times. Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Blow it out your ass. man you guys are already whining at the thought of Democrats taking constitutional measures. Get use to it.

 
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


What cooperation commie? It has to start before it can end.

.
Democrats have always cooperated with Republicans, at least in their own view. Unfortunately, their view of cooperation is that Republicans give fifty percent while Democrats take fifty percent.

Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation
Biden Voters (Democrats) are running to their boards of elections asking to withdraw their votes for Biden. LMAO
Trump Dancing GIFs | Tenor
 
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.

Wah, wah, wah. "Refusing to confirm our nominee is JUST like us scheming to pack the court!!!! You don't like cooperation, because you refused to just give us whatever we want, and that's what cooperation means to us!!!"

You've been told this numerous times, but I'll say it again: you have no one to blame for what happened with Merrick Garland except YOUR former President, Barack Obama, and the attitude of entitlement to power and whatever he wanted that you share.

The only ones doing something they CAN do but SHOULDN'T would be you.
 
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.
Thé public won’t care if Dems add judges to the court

Fox News will bitch like crazy but they only impact the conservative vote
I think the Barrett Court would have to do something even more egregious that reversing Roe for the dems not to suffer a backlash for packing the Court. In hindsite, I think Bork should have been confirmed.

Overturning Obamaare would maybe do it. Maybe saying states could not allow women to get the abortion bill via telemedine ... but telemedicine is really in its infancy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top