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

[WTF19]

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 ******* 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?

Oh? What's disastrous about it?

are you really that stupid, that you have to ask?

 

[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.

What rule was changed? Be specific.

 

[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

Yes because Obama immediately took the position that becaue the Republicans lost control of the House, Senate and White House, he could not only scold and ignore them, but ride roughshod over their legitimate concerns.

Quote Obama...

 

[rightwinger]

there is supposed to be 9. not 8. it was your president TRUMPs duty to fill the vacancy.

Exactly
Republicans should not have left the court at 8 for a year and allowed the sitting President to fill it......Obama

 

[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

Lol. End of cooperation with republicans??? Are you ******* 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?

Oh? What's disastrous about it?

are you really that stupid, that you have to ask?

LOL

Your inability to answer is noted and laughed at.

 

[Faun]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

what part of the constitution do you not understand? quit your whining, typical demonrat, and deal with it. it is called fulfilling the obligation. duh

That's odd; Republicans felt no such obligation during Obama's final year in office.

 

[Faun]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

what part of the constitution do you not understand? quit your whining, typical demonrat, and deal with it. it is called fulfilling the obligation. duh

Nothing in the Constitution said the Senate had to fill a vacant court seat or consider an appointment from an opposition party.

Nothing in the Constitution says Congress cannot expand the court

there is supposed to be 9. not 8. it was your president TRUMPs duty to fill the vacancy. btw, it wasnt with someone the scumbag demonrats would have picked. thats the best part. any how, do be sure to watch her get nominated very soon, it should be a great show for every AMERICAN.

"there is supposed to be 9"

Utter ignorance. There is no such "supposed" number of seats.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

 

[AZrailwhale]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

It's not a new rule. In hte entire history of out country there have been only ten nominations when control of the Senate and White House were split during an election year and eight of those ten failed to be confirmed. The first nomination not to be confirmed under these circumstances happened in 1828.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

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.

Doesn’t matter. The democrats and media (but I repeat myself) tell her “this is unprecedented” and “breaking the rules” and other absurd sound bites, so she believes it.
As you and I stated, literally nothing out of the norm is occurring.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

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

Yes because Obama immediately took the position that becaue the Republicans lost control of the House, Senate and White House, he could not only scold and ignore them, but ride roughshod over their legitimate concerns.

And when he couldn’t get what he wanted legally, he just called it an “executive action” and did it.

 

[rightwinger]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

It's not a new rule. In hte entire history of out country there have been only ten nominations when control of the Senate and White House were split during an election year and eight of those ten failed to be confirmed. The first nomination not to be confirmed under these circumstances happened in 1828.

Tell the rest of the story

If you are referring to cases over 150 years ago, then changing the number of judges is not unprecedented either

 

[Nostra]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

It's not a new rule. In hte entire history of out country there have been only ten nominations when control of the Senate and White House were split during an election year and eight of those ten failed to be confirmed. The first nomination not to be confirmed under these circumstances happened in 1828.

Tell the rest of the story

Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?

Nope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.

He nominated.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Exactly what Mitch McConnell did.....a power grab
He didn’t pay a political price, neither would Democrats

 

[OldLady]

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.

But only in certain situations.

 

[rightwinger]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

It's not a new rule. In hte entire history of out country there have been only ten nominations when control of the Senate and White House were split during an election year and eight of those ten failed to be confirmed. The first nomination not to be confirmed under these circumstances happened in 1828.

Tell the rest of the story

Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?

Nope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.

He nominated.

He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a year

That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court

 

[JustAGuy1]

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

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

But only in certain situations.

No, the Prez appts and the Senate confirms or rejects ALL SC Justices.

 

[OldLady]

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.

But only in certain situations.

No, the Prez appts and the Senate confirms or rejects ALL SC Justices.

Eventually.