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

[Nostra]

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."

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?

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.

What rule did McConnell create?

Gotta link, Stupid?

 

[basquebromance]

the Democrats should make it that the Queen of England appoints US Supreme Court justices, my friends

 

[Nostra]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

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?

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

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?

Wow! You sure can pack a record number of lies in one post.

 

[Nostra]

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?

Nobody.

 

[Nostra]

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."

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?

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.

Irony.

 

[Nostra]

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.

She keeps bleating about rule changes, but can't show what rules were changed.

Weird.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Dimwingers hate following the Constitution.

 

[Nostra]

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

They never had the chance. If the roles were reversed there is no doubt Chucky would to exactly what Mitch is doing.............so grow the fuck up and accept reality for once in your pathetic life.

 

[Nostra]

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.

The voters didn’t care that Mitch kept a court seat vacant for over a year. Why would they care if Dems add a few seats?

Most don’t even know how many seats there are

Polls show the majority of Americans oppose Dimiwngers packing the courts in a hissy fit, Stupid.

Get a clue.

 

[Nostra]

What did Trump do? McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Very True

Republicans won and there was nothing Democrat’s could do. Mitch McConnell trampled on years of Senate protocol and precedence to pack his court.

Stepped on a lot of toes and burnt all bridges of cooperation.

Democrats are in a mood to retaliate.
Packing the court and ending filibuster are likely retaliations

Lib please, like Democrats would have done anything different if the situation was reverses. In fact Dems already tried to replace a conservative justice with a liberal and would have if they had controlled the senate so enough with the faux rage.

No moron

You would have done the same thing is just a made up claim by Republicans to cover their guilt

Then of course the democrats will turn right around and do the same thing. In fact, you're cheering on to do it, so what have you gained with your faux outrage?

Now?

The McConnell Rule says an opposition party does not have to fill court seats.
Why would Dems do any differently?

Link to this "Rule"?

 

[BluesLegend]

Link to this "Rule"?

www.makebelievelandofliberalpixydustfairies.com

 

[Cecilie1200]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

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.

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a new precedent in the Senate to advance Supreme Court nominations with a simple majority. The GOP change ended a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch.

www.npr.org

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.

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the idea of scrapping the filibuster and how the Senate might move forward.

www.npr.org

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?

Who's pretending that wasn't the agenda? I've seen at least two people on every single page of posts telling you that, and also that that's how it's been since the beginning of the country.

Sounds to me like you're so busy having a debate with the voices in your head that you're not bothering to pay attention to the actual people talking to you. I can see why, too: the voices in your head are the only ones who will present the straw men you need in order to tell yourself how "devastatingly brilliant" you're being. When you debate real people and their real arguments, you end up sounding like a whining halfwit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

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.

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a new precedent in the Senate to advance Supreme Court nominations with a simple majority. The GOP change ended a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch.

www.npr.org

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.

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the idea of scrapping the filibuster and how the Senate might move forward.

www.npr.org

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 ...

There wasn't an open seat at that time he offered his thoughts on the matter.

This was a raw political power move based on Constitutional authority and not the norms and rules developed over decades or even centuries of interaction between the parties. So I'm guessing that's all out the window during the next session.

So just to be clear. If Republicans said what they would do and it didn't happen, then Democrats did it. You'd say wow, Democrats doing it had zero to do with what Republicans said, it's all on the Democrats.

That's what you're claiming, that's what you'd say?

You're such ridiculous people, of course you don't. Democrats are never responsible for your own actions. It's pathetic

Clear as mud.

Democrats will be using Moscow Mitch's words in the future.

OK, lying piece of shit. Democrats were already going to stack the court. Just stop the stupid, lame lying. My God you idiots just lie and lie and lie and lie

They wouldn't have if McConnell hadn't lain the footing for this. That's assuming they do and it's no certainty - it's another game changer, like McConnell's decision to block Obama.

I find it fascinating that every shit thing you Democrats do is "to pay back you Republicans for XYZ", but you never, EVER acknowledge that Republicans might have EVER had any reason to pay back you Democrats. My kids stopped rationalizing so illogically when they were about five.

 

[Nostra]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

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.

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a new precedent in the Senate to advance Supreme Court nominations with a simple majority. The GOP change ended a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch.

www.npr.org

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.

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the idea of scrapping the filibuster and how the Senate might move forward.

www.npr.org

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 ...

There wasn't an open seat at that time he offered his thoughts on the matter.

This was a raw political power move based on Constitutional authority and not the norms and rules developed over decades or even centuries of interaction between the parties. So I'm guessing that's all out the window during the next session.

So just to be clear. If Republicans said what they would do and it didn't happen, then Democrats did it. You'd say wow, Democrats doing it had zero to do with what Republicans said, it's all on the Democrats.

That's what you're claiming, that's what you'd say?

You're such ridiculous people, of course you don't. Democrats are never responsible for your own actions. It's pathetic

Clear as mud.

Democrats will be using Moscow Mitch's words in the future.

OK, lying piece of shit. Democrats were already going to stack the court. Just stop the stupid, lame lying. My God you idiots just lie and lie and lie and lie

They wouldn't have if McConnell hadn't lain the footing for this. That's assuming they do and it's no certainty - it's another game changer, like McConnell's decision to block Obama.

I find it fascinating that every shit thing you Democrats do is "to pay back you Republicans for XYZ", but you never, EVER acknowledge that Republicans might have EVER had any reason to pay back you Democrats. My kids stopped rationalizing so illogically when they were about five.

Exactly, has the fuckwit Cryin' Chucky Schumer ever said anything about something the Republicans did other than "They will live to regret this"?

 

[BS Filter]

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?

Like Vietnam? Like Invading Iraq, or giving GW the decider role? Like mandatory minimums and support for the war on Americans who uses non government approved recreational substances. Democrats deserved to loose. They deserve to have Roe v Wade overturned. They deserve to have the ACH taken away by the newly aligned SC court. They deserve to have the Voting Rights Act gutted. They deserve dirtier air and water.

Most of all though, they deserve to have to fight for these things again because apparently they took them for granted or they didn't know what they had till it's gone.......

You're thinking is twisted. It's not about what people deserve or don't deserve. It's all about the Constitution. You don't get it.

 

[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

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?

Like Vietnam? Like Invading Iraq, or giving GW the decider role? Like mandatory minimums and support for the war on Americans who uses non government approved recreational substances. Democrats deserved to loose. They deserve to have Roe v Wade overturned. They deserve to have the ACH taken away by the newly aligned SC court. They deserve to have the Voting Rights Act gutted. They deserve dirtier air and water.

Most of all though, they deserve to have to fight for these things again because apparently they took them for granted or they didn't know what they had till it's gone.......

You're thinking is twisted. It's not about what people deserve or don't deserve. It's all about the Constitution. You don't get it.

People deserve? Anyone who thinks that isn’t American.

no one deserves over any other. Read the constitution demofks

 

[jc456]

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

What’s the lie?
What is the motive?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Also, the dems, had they had the opportunity, would have done the exact same thing

Helps Republicans cover their guilt, but Democrats would not have done the same thing

Are you suggesting that if dems had been in control of the senate when Obama nominated garland, the dem senate would have said "sure, we will hold off on this confirmation until after the election, and take a chance that we could lose the presidency as well as a SC seat"?

No guilt, and yes, they would have done the same as the repubs are doing. Again, the only reason garland isn't on the SC is because the left didn't control the senate.

29 times there has been a vacancy in an election year and every time a new jusrice has been nominated, and I think 19 times the seat has been filled. Except for twice I think, every time the potus and senate were the same party, that justice has been confirmed.

This is really nothing new, it has happened before and will again.

 

[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

They never had the chance. If the roles were reversed there is no doubt Chucky would to exactly what Mitch is doing.............so grow the fuck up and accept reality for once in your pathetic life.

OK

And if the roles were reversed, Mitch would not hesitate to pack the court

Agree?

 

[iceberg]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

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.

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a new precedent in the Senate to advance Supreme Court nominations with a simple majority. The GOP change ended a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch.

www.npr.org

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.

Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the idea of scrapping the filibuster and how the Senate might move forward.

www.npr.org

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?

Who's pretending that wasn't the agenda? I've seen at least two people on every single page of posts telling you that, and also that that's how it's been since the beginning of the country.

Sounds to me like you're so busy having a debate with the voices in your head that you're not bothering to pay attention to the actual people talking to you. I can see why, too: the voices in your head are the only ones who will present the straw men you need in order to tell yourself how "devastatingly brilliant" you're being. When you debate real people and their real arguments, you end up sounding like a whining halfwit.

Besides, wasn't a Democrat a shoe in?