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

Status
Not open for further replies.

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
15,006
Reaction score
4,448
Points
275
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.


Exactly what happened
You are not talking about Democratic Judges. You are talking Prog Socialist Extremists. Making law. Turning back the will of the people voting and more. And you sell it so nice.
 

Beef_Supreme

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
1,497
Points
1,908
you don’t see the problem presented with packing the court each time power changes hands?
Thé party must have the House, Senate and White House to pack the court.

It may be decades before Republicans can retaliate
You are a god damned fool.
And nothing I say to you will get you to see that, because you refuse to actually use your brain and think of the ramifications of such actions.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
69,898
Reaction score
12,088
Points
2,210
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
Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.
You might actually have a point if that is what happened

Mitch McConnell proclaimed he would not allow Obama to fill that seat before Scalias body was even cold
Because Obama wanted to change the "polarity" of the seat. Up until that point there had been a gentlemen's agreement to keep the court balanced to reduce the politicicalization of the court. That's why most justices were easily confirmed with near unanimity before the Democrats decided to legislate from the bench.
So it's ok for Republicans to flip the "polarity" of a seat, but not for Democrats?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
69,898
Reaction score
12,088
Points
2,210
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
The point of changing/adding to the number of seats (and number of court houses, branches, etc) was to enlarge the court in order to handle the workload.
It wasn’t meant to add judges so a president could pack the court.

Look, if you don’t give a fuck about our system of government and the reasons things are done the way they are done and the reasons why things are set up the way they are, just say so. Just say “I only care about power, specifically me having said power. Fuck the system”.
myself and others are warning you about packing the court not because it’s democrats doing it, but because we don’t want anyone doing it. It’s a horrible idea and it will be disastrous. I would absolutely oppose republican doing it.
“I only care about power, specifically me having said power. Fuck the system”

It's a pity Republicans did that 4 years ago with Obama.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,912
Reaction score
13,543
Points
2,415
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
You wanted the rest of the story, Dummy. I gave it to you in the form of an education on our Constitution.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,102
Reaction score
39,877
Points
2,190
Obama was President. He nominated someone. Republicans held the senate. They weren’t going to appoint anyone who wasn’t a conservative.
For a hundred years, the President got to decide the judicial leanings of the court and the Senate would generally consent to the Presidents selection.

Mitch McConnell is now saying the Senate gets to decide who fills the court.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,102
Reaction score
39,877
Points
2,190
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
You wanted the rest of the story, Dummy. I gave it to you in the form of an education on our Constitution.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court

I assume you have no objection
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,912
Reaction score
13,543
Points
2,415
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
Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.
You might actually have a point if that is what happened

Mitch McConnell proclaimed he would not allow Obama to fill that seat before Scalias body was even cold
Because Obama wanted to change the "polarity" of the seat. Up until that point there had been a gentlemen's agreement to keep the court balanced to reduce the politicicalization of the court. That's why most justices were easily confirmed with near unanimity before the Democrats decided to legislate from the bench.
So it's ok for Republicans to flip the "polarity" of a seat, but not for Democrats?
Both have done it, Stupid. It all depends on which seat is open and who is President.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,912
Reaction score
13,543
Points
2,415
Obama was President. He nominated someone. Republicans held the senate. They weren’t going to appoint anyone who wasn’t a conservative.
For a hundred years, the President got to decide the judicial leanings of the court and the Senate would generally consent to the Presidents selection.

Mitch McConnell is now saying the Senate gets to decide who fills the court.
No, the Constitution says that. The Senate confirms or denies the nominee.

You really need a massive education on the Constitution, Dummy.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
69,898
Reaction score
12,088
Points
2,210
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
Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.
Liar. McConnell said Obama would not get to replace Scalia's seat even before Obama nominated anyone.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.
Obama was President. He nominated someone. Republicans held the senate. They weren’t going to appoint anyone who wasn’t a conservative. That was the position they were in, based upon the rules. I get you don’t like it because it didn’t favor your side.
I wouldn’t have liked it if it was a democrat senate putting a lefty in place of Scalia.
But that doesn’t mean they did anything outside the rules, anythjng wrong, broke the rules, etc.
There is a oresident and senate of the same party, therefore he can put in whoever he wants. That’s the way it’s set up.
Fucking grow up and stop crying like bitches.
What I don't like is being told the Senate will not fill a seat with a year left in a president's term because we don't replace SC justices in an election year, that the American people should vote in an election some 9 months away to decide who should pick the replacement ... but now we do, with just one week before an election, fuck the American people, unlike 4 years ago, they won't get to decide in the upcoming election.

Republicans opened this can of worms; Democrats are merely reaching into the already opened can.
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
2,031
Reaction score
419
Points
140
Location
North Carolina
I s
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?
Oh? What's disastrous about it?
you don’t see the problem presented with packing the court each time power changes hands?
the court is supposed to provide stability, to Remain unaffected by the political changes. That was one of the reasons for the lifetime appointments. Adding judges every timea party takes power undercuts that.
I believe packing the courts could be quite effective. Lifetime appointments never meant fifty damn years on the bench. But having, say, 15 justices that are randomly rotated on cases, say 7 per case, would help eliminate the political bend of the court. Because let's get something clear, the current Supreme Court SUCKS ASS. When a case, like the Alabama car voting case, runs through the entire federal court system with the ruling confirmed, and then the SCOTUS overturns it, it ain't about "law" or the "constitution". It is about politics, plain and simple. It is insulting, to say the least. And to be blunt, that asshole Scalia started the whole damn thing. Reading his rulings is laughable, they twist and turn in the wind and he molds his opinions to serve his political purpose. You can beat your sweet ass Barrett will be the same way. Once again, the founders would be appalled.
 

Beef_Supreme

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
1,497
Points
1,908
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?
Oh? What's disastrous about it?
you don’t see the problem presented with packing the court each time power changes hands?
the court is supposed to provide stability, to Remain unaffected by the political changes. That was one of the reasons for the lifetime appointments. Adding judges every timea party takes power undercuts that.
The court shouldn't be political. It is now that Republicans have declared if they have the power, they will not replace a seat with a Democrat president whereas they will under similar circumstances with a Republican president. That politicized the court. Now that it's politicized, get used to it. So where's the disaster?
Let me get this straight....
You think if there was a democrat president and a democrat senate, they wouldn’t be confirming a supreme justice right now?
Of course they would.
There is nothing politicized about this, except you people have been convinced this is some anomoly, crime against nature, “never been done befo!” Kind of event, by the media and democrats to get you worked up.
There is literally nothing out of the norm going on here.
What is different is that with the filibuster rule, the trouble would have needed democrat help to pass this judge. My out buddy Harry Reid got rid of it in order to say “fuck you, we donwhat we want” to the Republicans. And guess what... power changed hands and now it’s biting you in the ass.
That is the exact same thing I am trying to warn you about when you say you want to pack the court. Power will change hands and it will bite you. But worse than that, playing games with the court is a problem for the country.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
767
Reaction score
748
Points
883
Location
Arizona
The court shouldn't be political. It is now that Republicans have declared if they have the power, they will not replace a seat with a Democrat president whereas they will under similar circumstances with a Republican president. That politicized the court. Now that it's politicized, get used to it. So where's the disaster?
I don’t see why Republicans would be upset if Dems pack the court.
I guess they will eventually get used to it and just go about their business
Actually we are used to the Democrats using the courts to do things they could never get away with in the legislature. It's you Democrats who are upset because we are trying to return the government to the legislature and the executive rather than nine unelected justices.
 

Beef_Supreme

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
1,497
Points
1,908
Obama was President. He nominated someone. Republicans held the senate. They weren’t going to appoint anyone who wasn’t a conservative.
For a hundred years, the President got to decide the judicial leanings of the court and the Senate would generally consent to the Presidents selection.

Mitch McConnell is now saying the Senate gets to decide who fills the court.
robert bork
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
50,458
Reaction score
9,738
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?
Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

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

Only twice of 20 occasions has an opposition party confirmed a justice, that's wasn't living in the present, it was following historical norms. That seems to be something you commies know very little about.

.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,912
Reaction score
13,543
Points
2,415
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
Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.
Liar. McConnell said Obama would not get to replace Scalia's seat even before Obama nominated anyone.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.
Obama was President. He nominated someone. Republicans held the senate. They weren’t going to appoint anyone who wasn’t a conservative. That was the position they were in, based upon the rules. I get you don’t like it because it didn’t favor your side.
I wouldn’t have liked it if it was a democrat senate putting a lefty in place of Scalia.
But that doesn’t mean they did anything outside the rules, anythjng wrong, broke the rules, etc.
There is a oresident and senate of the same party, therefore he can put in whoever he wants. That’s the way it’s set up.
Fucking grow up and stop crying like bitches.
What I don't like is being told the Senate will not fill a seat with a year left in a president's term because we don't replace SC justices in an election year, that the American people should vote in an election some 9 months away to decide who should pick the replacement ... but now we do, with just one week before an election, fuck the American people, unlike 4 years ago, they won't get to decide in the upcoming election.

Republicans opened this can of worms; Democrats are merely reaching into the already opened can.
Nothing unprecedented about what is happening now You are just butthurt over uber-lib Ginsberg being replaced by a real judge.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,157
Reaction score
20,199
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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?
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
767
Reaction score
748
Points
883
Location
Arizona
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
Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.
You might actually have a point if that is what happened

Mitch McConnell proclaimed he would not allow Obama to fill that seat before Scalias body was even cold
Because Obama wanted to change the "polarity" of the seat. Up until that point there had been a gentlemen's agreement to keep the court balanced to reduce the politicicalization of the court. That's why most justices were easily confirmed with near unanimity before the Democrats decided to legislate from the bench.
So it's ok for Republicans to flip the "polarity" of a seat, but not for Democrats?
What goes around comes around. You guys broke the gentleman's agreement, why should we be bound by it any more? You guys wanted bare-knuckle politics when you held all the House, Senate and Presidency, you can't complain when we play by your rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top