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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,466
Reaction score
12,367
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

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.

.
Oh? How many of them were denied a hearing with almost a year left in a president's term?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,466
Reaction score
12,367
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.
Nothing unprecedented about what is happening now You are just butthurt over uber-lib Ginsberg being replaced by a real judge.
Great, then name the last Senate Majority Leader to hold a hearing and confirm a SC justice in a month after denying an opposition party president a hearing altogether with a year left in their term....
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,466
Reaction score
12,367
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?
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.
Great, then you'll be onboard when Democrats #PackTheCourt.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,466
Reaction score
12,367
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
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
LOL

As always, your unhinged hysterics are noted and laughed at.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
29,195
Reaction score
7,935
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?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you illustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.

So... What rules have they redefined? We will start there and yes I know. My wanting facts, and details, pisses you off.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
13,844
Points
2,415
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?

No rule was redefined.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
13,844
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.
Great, then name the last Senate Majority Leader to hold a hearing and confirm a SC justice in a month after denying an opposition party president a hearing altogether with a year left in their term....
Why? Because you are butthurt over it?
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
33,840
Reaction score
9,987
Points
1,340
Location
Boston, MA
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.
You’re old and won’t be around much longer so please remind me, or better yet inform me. Didn’t the Democrats do this to Robert Bork? I was Born in 1980 so it’s not top of mind. Thank you, walking corpse.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,389
Reaction score
20,359
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?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
Now apply that to the way Republicans behaved with Garland. Oh wait. You can’t. Your a fucking hypocrite.

There is nothing unconstitutional about changing the size of the Supreme Court. Dems have the same righteous justifications as the Republicans.


However, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Apply it.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,389
Reaction score
20,359
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
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.
You’re old and won’t be around much longer so please remind me, or better yet inform me. Didn’t the Democrats do this to Robert Bork? I was Born in 1980 so it’s not top of mind. Thank you, walking corpse.
Remind me...that vacancy Bork didn’t fill...who filled it? Which president?
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
29,195
Reaction score
7,935
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?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Elections have consequences.
So shut up and deal with losing the last one. if that means you ow wish to redefine the rules, great. if Trump wins he can do just that, right?
Oh...wait, so you’re saying only the Republicans get to redefine the rules, after which it needs to stop?
What rules have they redefined? None that I know of so far.

You may not like it but they are following the constitution. If you feel that means you are owed something then you 8llustrate my point of you that you don't give a fuck about cooperation but getting your way.
Now apply that to the way Republicans behaved with Garland. Oh wait. You can’t. Your a fucking hypocrite.

There is nothing unconstitutional about changing the size of the Supreme Court. Dems have the same righteous justifications as the Republicans.


However, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Apply it.
so you can't name how the Republicans are redefining the rules. got it.

rage on, mcduff.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
33,840
Reaction score
9,987
Points
1,340
Location
Boston, MA
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.
You’re old and won’t be around much longer so please remind me, or better yet inform me. Didn’t the Democrats do this to Robert Bork? I was Born in 1980 so it’s not top of mind. Thank you, walking corpse.
Remind me...that vacancy Bork didn’t fill...who filled it? Which president?
Don’t recall but I was alive then as I recall his creepy face and hair. Just looked up it was 1987 so I was six. That walking corpse Faun was like 36 ha ha ha ha. So Reagan was President.

 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
50,542
Reaction score
9,781
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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
obviously there wasnt a single piece worth the paper it was on
Obviously to the right wing media
Republicans opposed programs they had previously voted in favor of.

Sounds like today's commies, eh?

.
 

Beef_Supreme

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
1,624
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.
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.
Great, then you'll be onboard when Democrats #PackTheCourt.
I can’t stress enough how bad of an idea it is to go down this path.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,466
Reaction score
12,367
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?
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
You're truly a moron. In reality, I responded directly to what another poster claimed. You prove you're an imbecile by calling that a "deflection." :cuckoo:
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,513
Reaction score
40,423
Points
2,190
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.
The voters didn’t give a shit when Republicans prevented Obama from filling an empty seat for a year because it was an election year
They don’t give a shit that Republicans installed Barrett in a month days before the election
They won’t care if Democrats add a few seats to the court
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,466
Reaction score
12,367
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.
Nothing unprecedented about what is happening now You are just butthurt over uber-lib Ginsberg being replaced by a real judge.
Great, then name the last Senate Majority Leader to hold a hearing and confirm a SC justice in a month after denying an opposition party president a hearing altogether with a year left in their term....
Why? Because you are butthurt over it?
No, because it's never happened before.
 

WTF19

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1,261
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
LOL

As always, your unhinged hysterics are noted and laughed at.
i notice you come on as the --what i say goes--kinda person. guess what--not in my world, sorry to break it to ya this way. your posts mean shit pretty much. enough said
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,513
Reaction score
40,423
Points
2,190
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.
Democrats will fill open seats that were created by a Constitutionally elected Congress

Who could object to Congress doing its job?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top