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

[eagle1462010]

The founders made the Senate as the cooler..........to not allow BS laws to be passed........there intent was to make it harder to pass laws..................in that way a better chance of only good stuff passing was achieved.........

We have enough laws...........and Charity was NEVER THE INTENT OF THE REPUBLIC.

Only the enumerated powers were there........and that has been bastardized to our demise.

 

[j-mac]

Elections have consequences.

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

They will need the House also

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

Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.

You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

How many did he block?

Now that your party set the precedent,

You think 2015-2016 was the first time a Senate controlled by an opposing party has left some
court seats open at the end of a President's term? LOL!

They just don’t seem to get it.
Then they take their perceived slight, and think “well then we will do this!” And plan to do something incredibly stupid (pack the court.
Despite me saying repeatedly that I would be opposed to anyone doing it, and telling them it’s an absolutely horrible road to go down, they keep responding like bitter little partisans.
Hey clowns, ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!!!

it's a demofk threat and only a demofk threat. stop with the both party shit. The GOP never ever did what the demofks do. never ever. The demofks created the nuclear option in the Senate. Not the republicans. Ending filibustering was the demofks, not the republicans, and now they are threatening this. It is always a threat from the demofks. Alwys

Mitch turned the filibuster from a rarely used tool to a constant 60 vote requirement

That’s how it works when the majority party won’t compromise with the minority party. The filibuster was designed to force compromise rather than one party rule.

Blame Harry Reid.

 

[eagle1462010]

Elections have consequences.

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

They will need the House also

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

Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.

You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

How many did he block?

Now that your party set the precedent,

You think 2015-2016 was the first time a Senate controlled by an opposing party has left some
court seats open at the end of a President's term? LOL!

They just don’t seem to get it.
Then they take their perceived slight, and think “well then we will do this!” And plan to do something incredibly stupid (pack the court.
Despite me saying repeatedly that I would be opposed to anyone doing it, and telling them it’s an absolutely horrible road to go down, they keep responding like bitter little partisans.
Hey clowns, ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!!!

it's a demofk threat and only a demofk threat. stop with the both party shit. The GOP never ever did what the demofks do. never ever. The demofks created the nuclear option in the Senate. Not the republicans. Ending filibustering was the demofks, not the republicans, and now they are threatening this. It is always a threat from the demofks. Alwys

Mitch turned the filibuster from a rarely used tool to a constant 60 vote requirement

That’s how it works when the majority party won’t compromise with the minority party. The filibuster was designed to force compromise rather than one party rule.

The DNC played dirty when they had power .........they threw down the gauntlet and declared War.................and now they are pissed when we picked up the gauntlet and smacked you in the face with it.

Oh well.

 

[BULLDOG]

Everything in life has Consequences

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

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

When were Democrats “cooperating” with Republicans in the past 4 years?

Hell with the past 4 years. When were the Democrats "cooperating" with Republicans in my lifetime?

I thought I’d keep it simple for the child...But you’re absolutely right. And they can’t stand it that Republicans finally are showing some backbone while using their own tactics.

More descriptively, the repubs are showing their ass.

 

[BULLDOG]

Elections have consequences.

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

They will need the House also

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

Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.

You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

How many did he block?

Now that your party set the precedent,

You think 2015-2016 was the first time a Senate controlled by an opposing party has left some
court seats open at the end of a President's term? LOL!

They just don’t seem to get it.
Then they take their perceived slight, and think “well then we will do this!” And plan to do something incredibly stupid (pack the court.
Despite me saying repeatedly that I would be opposed to anyone doing it, and telling them it’s an absolutely horrible road to go down, they keep responding like bitter little partisans.
Hey clowns, ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!!!

it's a demofk threat and only a demofk threat. stop with the both party shit. The GOP never ever did what the demofks do. never ever. The demofks created the nuclear option in the Senate. Not the republicans. Ending filibustering was the demofks, not the republicans, and now they are threatening this. It is always a threat from the demofks. Alwys

Mitch turned the filibuster from a rarely used tool to a constant 60 vote requirement

That’s how it works when the majority party won’t compromise with the minority party. The filibuster was designed to force compromise rather than one party rule.

The DNC played dirty when they had power .........they threw down the gauntlet and declared War.................and now they are pissed when we picked up the gauntlet and smacked you in the face with it.

Oh well.

The gauntlet was thrown down, and war declared in 94 by Newt Gingrich, Dick Army, and Tom Delay, when they took orders from the Heritage Foundation and launched the Contract On America. The rancor and refusal to cooperate has only grown since then.

 

[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

Exactly...Kaz seems to miss that. The Dems didn’t invent and disinvent new rules.

Bwahahahaha

And since when do these mythical rules override constitution?

Mitch taught us that Senate rules don’t override the constitution but do override decades of precedence and agreement.

Annoying things like filling vacant seats and how many judges should be on the court

 

[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 think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

How many did he block?

Now that your party set the precedent,

You think 2015-2016 was the first time a Senate controlled by an opposing party has left some
court seats open at the end of a President's term? LOL!

They just don’t seem to get it.
Then they take their perceived slight, and think “well then we will do this!” And plan to do something incredibly stupid (pack the court.
Despite me saying repeatedly that I would be opposed to anyone doing it, and telling them it’s an absolutely horrible road to go down, they keep responding like bitter little partisans.
Hey clowns, ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!!!

it's a demofk threat and only a demofk threat. stop with the both party shit. The GOP never ever did what the demofks do. never ever. The demofks created the nuclear option in the Senate. Not the republicans. Ending filibustering was the demofks, not the republicans, and now they are threatening this. It is always a threat from the demofks. Alwys

Mitch turned the filibuster from a rarely used tool to a constant 60 vote requirement

That’s how it works when the majority party won’t compromise with the minority party. The filibuster was designed to force compromise rather than one party rule.

Thats what happens when you have minority rule.

The Republicans exist on minority rule in the Senate, House, White House and now the Courts

 

[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?

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.

I can help with the rules that were changed.

Democrats
- Said no Republican nominations with a Democrat Senate in an election year (Biden)
- Created the judicial filibuster under W
- Created the administration nomination filibuster under W
- Created the SCOTUS filibuster under W
- Were the only party to try to filibuster SCOTUS nominations - Rehnquist (chief), Alito and Gorsuch - The only times it was ever attempted were by Democrats
- Changed the rules to implement Obamacare despite losing their filibuster proof majority because of Scott Brown
- Eliminated the judicial filibuster under O
- Eliminated the administration nomination filibuster under O
- Eliminated the SCOTUS filibuster under O

Republicans
- Eliminated the SCOTUS filibuster under Trump

Coyote: Oh My God! We do NOTHING but follow the rules, we are completely innocent! And what do we get for it? The Republicans SCREW us! Look at that list! Republicans ended the SCOTUS filibuster! You didn't mention that, kaz!

Actually I did ...

 

[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

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.

These idiot Democrats claiming they are pure as the driven snow and just get screwed by the wascally wepublicans is just the lamest crap ever

 

[Faun]

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

You dumbasses had a super majority in the first two years, and you squandered it with a do nothing President that was happy to tell us to get in the back of the bus....now you don’t like it...tough shit.

^^^ another idiot.

G'head, see if you could do what other rightards could not... quote Obama telling you to get in back of the bus...

User Clip: Obama tells Republicans: "You gotta get in the back seat."

Obama speech "Moving Forward Campaign" - Oct. 22, 2010, in Las Vegas on behalf of Sen. Harry Reid's re-election campaign.

www.c-span.org

LOL

So did you not bother to read your own source or did you not understand it? Where do you see anything about a bus in there...?

"And suddenly, as we’re about to get in the car, we feel this tap on our shoulder, and we look back, and who is it? It’s the Republicans. (Laughter.) And they say, “Excuse me, we’d like the keys back.” (Laughter.)​

​

And we got to tell them, “I’m sorry, you can’t have the keys back. You don’t know how to drive.” (Applause.) You don’t know how to drive. If you want, you can ride with us, but you’ve got to ride in the backseat. (Laughter and applause.) We’re putting middle-class families in the front seat where they belong. (Applause.)​

​

You ever notice when you want to go forward in your car, what do you do? You put it in “D.” If you want to go backwards, you put it in “R.” I don’t want to go backwards. Let’s go forward. (Applause.) Let’s go forward. I want to go forward."​

... now the forum sees why Toddsterpatriot was too cowardly to quote Obama or to man up and just admit he was wrong.

Clearly, Obama was talking about the backseat of a car, not the back of a bus.

Which also leaves one wondering why eagle1462010 would thank your post when you were so glaringly wrong?

Car, bus, tomato, the sentiment is the same.

No, the sentiment is entirely different. "Back of the bus" refers to segregation; which is why black conservatives, making the same idiotic mistake you made, attacked Obama for saying Republicans would have to ride in the back of the bus, when he didn't.

I see like Toddsterpatriot, you're just not man enough to admit you’re wrong.

Don’t give me that bull shit. As a truck driver, I remember hearing the other black drivers out there when Obama was elected, calling on the cb, saying “it was our turn now, crackers”, and “we are the masters now, bitches”...Everyone knew what that divisive POS Obama meant. AND we knew what his RuPaul wife meant when she said “For the first time in her life, she was proud of her country.”

You’re just astonished someone took your stupid challenge and posted it, when you were trying to deny he used it. And now you’re using semantics to weasel out of it.

You want racial peace? Then you’re going to have to own your part in the division.

LOL

You're fucking deranged.

He said car, not bus. I don't care how demented you are.

 

[kaz]

Elections have consequences.

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

They will need the House also

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

Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.

You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

How many did he block?

Now that your party set the precedent,

You think 2015-2016 was the first time a Senate controlled by an opposing party has left some
court seats open at the end of a President's term? LOL!

They just don’t seem to get it.
Then they take their perceived slight, and think “well then we will do this!” And plan to do something incredibly stupid (pack the court.
Despite me saying repeatedly that I would be opposed to anyone doing it, and telling them it’s an absolutely horrible road to go down, they keep responding like bitter little partisans.
Hey clowns, ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!!!

it's a demofk threat and only a demofk threat. stop with the both party shit. The GOP never ever did what the demofks do. never ever. The demofks created the nuclear option in the Senate. Not the republicans. Ending filibustering was the demofks, not the republicans, and now they are threatening this. It is always a threat from the demofks. Alwys

Mitch turned the filibuster from a rarely used tool to a constant 60 vote requirement

That’s how it works when the majority party won’t compromise with the minority party. The filibuster was designed to force compromise rather than one party rule.

Thats what happens when you have minority rule.

The Republicans exist on minority rule in the Senate, House, White House and now the Courts

Democrats are also a minority party, Sport. Your command of the English language is as bad as the government that educated you

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Lol. End of cooperation with republicans??? Are you fucking kidding me?
That statement alone demonstrates what a joke you are, but I’ll play along.
So, if a judge you don’t like is put on the bench, your solution is to then go down the path of adding judges (aka packing the court)? You don’t see that going down that path is disastrous?

 

[kaz]

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.

Yep. For example, Democrats tried to filibuster Rehnquiest (for chief) and Alito then actually did filibuster Gorsuch.

No Democrat SCOTUS nomination has ever been filibustered by the Republicans. Gorsuch didn't have the votes, he wasn't filibustered.

Democrats created the judicial filibuster under W and ended it under O when Republicans tried to use it.

Democrats created the administration nomination under W and ended it under O when Republicans tried to use it.

But to Coyote, Democrats are still pure as the driven snow, just innocent victims of the Republicans. It's pathetic.

And Democrats have never passed on confirming a Democrat SCOTUS nomination when they had the votes to confirm them EVER. Yet Coyote whines and whines the Republicans won't do that and vows to as you say pay them back.

Totally pathetic

 

[kaz]

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"?

And it was already going to happen. Schumer was already going to stack the court. But now it's because of ACB. But it was because of Kavanaugh. But it was because of Garland.

When you're already going to already do something, it's not an incentive. What Shumer is saying is we WERE going to do it beacause of Garland Kavanaugh, but now we're really mad, it's because of ACB! You'll be sorry that we're going to do it now because of ACB instead of Garland, I mean Kavanaugh!

 

[Dragonlady]

Elections have consequences.

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

They will need the House also

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

Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.

You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

How many did he block?

Now that your party set the precedent,

You think 2015-2016 was the first time a Senate controlled by an opposing party has left some
court seats open at the end of a President's term? LOL!

They just don’t seem to get it.
Then they take their perceived slight, and think “well then we will do this!” And plan to do something incredibly stupid (pack the court.
Despite me saying repeatedly that I would be opposed to anyone doing it, and telling them it’s an absolutely horrible road to go down, they keep responding like bitter little partisans.
Hey clowns, ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!!!

it's a demofk threat and only a demofk threat. stop with the both party shit. The GOP never ever did what the demofks do. never ever. The demofks created the nuclear option in the Senate. Not the republicans. Ending filibustering was the demofks, not the republicans, and now they are threatening this. It is always a threat from the demofks. Alwys

Mitch turned the filibuster from a rarely used tool to a constant 60 vote requirement

That’s how it works when the majority party won’t compromise with the minority party. The filibuster was designed to force compromise rather than one party rule.

Thats what happens when you have minority rule.

The Republicans exist on minority rule in the Senate, House, White House and now the Courts

Democrats are also a minority party, Sport. Your command of the English language is as bad as the government that educated you

Republicans are the minority party, Sport. The Senators who voted for ACB represent 13.5 million FEWER voters that the Senators who voted against her. Republicans have been the minority party for years, winning the House with consistently fewer votes than Democrats. Trump lost the popular vote.

The packing of the courts will be undone. There won't be enough Republicans left to stop them after this election.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

Which just goes to show you how your mind works.
You would be perfectly fine if all is left of America is burning rubble... as long as the last fire was set by a liberal.

 

[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

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?

Stacking the court isn't what you think it is. You think that you stack the court, you win, it's over.

You only win until Republicans are back in charge, then they stack it back. Then you do. Then they do ...

This isn't the permanent takeover of the court you idiots think it is. You really don't grasp that, do you? You think the court is yours now

 

[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

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?

Fuck it then...........we are going to put a 1000 more in after we win the election...............

and change the laws via judicial activism and fuck you sideways forever.....................

BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY...........that is the mud fight you want now..............Reid proved it..

So fuck it then.......time to give you more of a taste of your own medicine.

RW actually doesn't grasp this. He thinks stacking the court is permanent for Democrats. He really doesn't get that it isn't. Government schools just pump out people ill equipped to process the world around them

 

[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.
Filibustering administration nominees? Um ... you
Ending filibustering administration nominees? No wait, you again
Changing the rules to get Obamacare though? Um ... you again ... huh
Filibustering SCOTUS picks? No wait, that's you. Only ever done to Rehnquist (chief), Alito and Gorsuch.

Wow, those wascally wepublicans, huh????

"Filibustering SCOTUS picks? No wait, that's you. Only ever done to Rehnquist (chief), Alito and Gorsuch."

Kazzing again? Abe Fortas, 1968.

Fortas wasn't filibustered, there was one cloture vote. Don't know what a filibuster is, huh, little boy?

And it was both parties that voted against cloture.

And one more, he wasn't filibustered as a SCOTUS nomination.

Do you know what the issue with Fortas was? Do you know why he had to resign from the court completely? Same reason. Had nothing to do with party, angry tyke.

Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about

 

[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

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

Exactly...Kaz seems to miss that. The Dems didn’t invent and disinvent new rules.

Bwahahahaha

And since when do these mythical rules override constitution?

Mitch taught us that Senate rules don’t override the constitution but do override decades of precedence and agreement.

Annoying things like filling vacant seats and how many judges should be on the court

Precedence and agreement? You can't be serious.

Democrats
- Said no Republican nominations with a Democrat Senate in an election year (Biden)
- Created the judicial filibuster under W
- Created the administration nomination filibuster under W
- Created the SCOTUS filibuster under W
- Were the only party to try to filibuster SCOTUS nominations - Rehnquist (chief), Alito and Gorsuch - The only times it was ever attempted were by Democrats
- Changed the rules to implement Obamacare despite losing their filibuster proof majority because of Scott Brown
- Eliminated the judicial filibuster under O
- Eliminated the administration nomination filibuster under O

Republicans
- Eliminated the SCOTUS filibuster under Trump


You can keep lying, but the truth doesn't go away