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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
39,836
Reaction score
7,975
Points
1,140
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

That's not a threat, it's a promise.
 

WTF19

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
1,250
Points
893
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
who gives a shit what BARRAG said? not me, not the obligation of the sitting president --TRUMP
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,306
Reaction score
20,302
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.

.
Can you fascists tell us the last the Senate refused to allow a president to fill a vacancy?
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,192
Reaction score
13,745
Points
2,415
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?
Nope. Wrong again.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
91,563
Reaction score
9,704
Points
2,030
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Elections have consequences.
Don’t they!
 

WTF19

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
1,250
Points
893
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.
cant blame em, BARRAG is a treasonist, so is xiden...they sold AMERICA out retard
 

two_iron

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2019
Messages
10,076
Reaction score
6,992
Points
920
Location
Republic of Texas
Sounds like the Danang Dick is threatening to "go all Vietcong on our asses".

Except he wouldn't know a goddamn thing about that.... would he. He's probably better suited winning bar bets by deep throating 12" dildos at the club.
 

wamose

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
6,506
Reaction score
5,516
Points
2,015
Location
Pennsylvania
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
How do you know the American voter will not be turned off by your threats of various power grabs? The American voters would turn on Democrats if they're smart. Why the hell would they stand by and let one party take total control. And that will be a big reason your beloved Democrats won't do too good this election. The American people still believe in checks and balances even though Democrats might not. We'll be sticking with Trump who is obviously the far superior candidate.
 

Mike473

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
627
Points
200
Packing the court is so unpopular that Biden won't even admit to it in public. Empty threats by the Dems. I am glad the GOP has grown a backbone and is doing what needs to be done. Will the Dems be for packing the court after a convincing Trump win? I hope so, maybe the public will get behind it and we can add a few more conservative justices and then end it there with a new amendment, limiting any further expansion.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
17,278
Reaction score
7,796
Points
400
Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster
Not very likely.
Blumenthal is like a little dog behind a fence barking at the big dogs.


Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans
LoL...what cooperation? What are they going to do? Try to seize power by illegally
deposing the president?
They've been there and tried that.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,192
Reaction score
13,745
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

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.

.
Can you fascists tell us the last the Senate refused to allow a president to fill a vacancy?
Three other times no action was taken.

Several times they were voted down.

Next stupid question?
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
29,074
Reaction score
7,732
Points
290
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
91,563
Reaction score
9,704
Points
2,030
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.

.
Can you fascists tell us the last the Senate refused to allow a president to fill a vacancy?
Obammy, cause elections have consequences right?
 

WTF19

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
1,250
Points
893
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?
are you really that stupid, that you have to ask?
LOL

Your inability to answer is noted and laughed at.
you are the retard that deflected---duh
 

Beef_Supreme

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
1,330
Reaction score
1,574
Points
1,908
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.
That was a foolish reason they gave. I will give you that. I truthfully don’t remember the specifics of the garland nomination. I believe it had to do with Obongo being a lame duck who couldn’t run again, and it was an election year. Their argument was the people may be deciding to change course for president, or something to that effect.
That was lame, in my opinion. They should have just said no, we control the senate and we aren’t confirming your boy.

I get that you arepissed you didn’t get your seat. The lame excuse given also causes some bitterness. They should have told the country “no, we aren’t replacing a solid conservative like Scalia with someoneObongopicks. We may win the White House, in which case we will put a conservative in his seat.

However, this situation is not the same. You are basically screwed here of your own making (Reid getting rid of the filibuster). If youthink the answer to the problem the democrats created by k coming down a firewall (the filibuster) is to knock down yet ANOTHER firewall (packing the court), you haven’t learned your lesson. And next time it will be even more painful. For all of us.
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
3,171
Reaction score
3,442
Points
1,918
Location
Sunny Florida
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
Ah...when is the last time the Democrats "cooperated" with the GOP? Are you kidding?
The fact of the matter is that if Harry Reid hadn't used the nuclear option years ago...which he was warned would come back to bite the Democrats in the ass some time down the road...the GOP wouldn't be able to do what they're doing now!
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,306
Reaction score
20,302
Points
2,180
Location
in between
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
 

Thinker101

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2017
Messages
18,230
Reaction score
5,350
Points
290
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
Cooperation with Republicans?! Good one....dumbass.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
12,253
Points
2,210
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.
"You think if there was a democrat president and a democrat senate, they wouldn’t be confirming a supreme justice right now?"

We'll never know but I don't believe they would have prevented a Republican president from replacing a vacancy with a year left in their term under the guise the American people should decide in 9 months; but then 4 years later, say the American people should not decide one week later. And this is not the norm. Never in the history of this nation has a Senate Majority Leader pulled the stunt McConnell pulled.

As far as Reid nuking the filibuster, he did that in response to Republicans abusing filibusters on most of Obama's nominations. We can argue if he was right to do that or not, but at least he had a reason. Whereas McConnell nuked filibusters on the Supreme Court even before Democrats used a filibuster.
 

airplanemechanic

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
11,526
Reaction score
4,791
Points
400
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Elections have consequences.
Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.
Well...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.

If the Dems get the Senate and Executive, why shouldn't they take a page from your playbook and add justices? Any good reason not to now that you've set precedents?
Republicans didn't add justices, they filled open seats. If dems regain control I support them filling any open seats that come available. But ADDING seats? Oh hell no.

And if you want to start that game, when republicans regain control they'll stack the court again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top