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

Status
Not open for further replies.

LeftofLeft

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
12,968
Reaction score
4,618
Points
350
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
You people never had cooperation with Republicans. Blumenthal never had any consequences for lying like a pussy that he served in Vietnam.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,259
Reaction score
13,814
Points
2,415
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
The majority of Americans support Barrett being confirmed.

More Americans oppose packing the court than support it by 13 points.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,343
Reaction score
12,318
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.
I can’t stress enough how bad of an idea it is to go down this path.
Republicans wanted to politicize that bench, now the toothpaste is out of the tube.

#PackTheCourt
 

WTF19

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
1,251
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
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
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.
then right that date on your calendar and celebrate each year. dont forget, ACB is the pig hill-arious' b'day present. that treasonist should enjoy
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,259
Reaction score
13,814
Points
2,415
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?
Run it up to 15 seats and enjoy your 9-6 Libtard majority.

Once Republicans get control there is nothing preventing them from running it down to 6 and throwing all 9 libs off the court.

6-0 Majority.

:oops8:
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,913
Reaction score
4,499
Points
280
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
They haven't done that for decades. To a democrat, cooperation goes only one way.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,476
Reaction score
40,345
Points
2,190
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.
It is just reality

Mitch McConnell made his power play because he thinks it may be decades before a Republican President has a Democratic Senate.

It would be the same power play by Democrats. It may be decades before Republicans control the Congress and White House
 

WTF19

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
1,251
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
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.
Republicans wanted to politicize that bench, now the toothpaste is out of the tube.

#PackTheCourt
all because the position should be filled by now. so revert back to kindergarten and waa--waaa--waaaa
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,951
Reaction score
21,536
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
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




Indeed they do. Just imagine if obummer had actually been a good president instead of the corrupt piece of shit he turned out to be.

He is why Trump got elected.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
50,530
Reaction score
9,771
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
I don’t think Biden supports packing the court and there are moderate Dem Senators who oppose it.

If the Conservative Court acts like a traditional court, I doubt Dems will try to add seats.

But if the Conservative Court becomes a rubber stamp for an extreme Conservative agenda, I think the Dems hand will be forced.

Let’s see how they rule on Obamacare and Roe

Maobamacare should have been stricken from the first decision when Roberts invented the unconstitutional direct tax, and severed unconstitutional parts, without authorization from congress to do so. If the current court strikes it now, it will just be rectifying a bad original decision and two subsequent bad decisions.

.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,476
Reaction score
40,345
Points
2,190
Run it up to 15 seats and enjoy your 9-6 Libtard majority.

Once Republicans get control there is nothing preventing them from running it down to 6 and throwing all 9 libs off the court.
Works for me.
It may be quite a while before Republicans take control of the WH, Senate and House to pack the court again.

BTW.....there is no way to remove a sitting SCOTUS judge without impeachment
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,343
Reaction score
12,318
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
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
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.
then right that date on your calendar and celebrate each year. dont forget, ACB is the pig hill-arious' b'day present. that treasonist should enjoy
Sure, I'll be sure to right that, ShortBus.


In the meantime, that has still never happened before.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,259
Reaction score
13,814
Points
2,415
Run it up to 15 seats and enjoy your 9-6 Libtard majority.

Once Republicans get control there is nothing preventing them from running it down to 6 and throwing all 9 libs off the court.
Works for me.
It may be quite a while before Republicans take control of the WH, Senate and House to pack the court again.

BTW.....there is no way to remove a sitting SCOTUS judge without impeachment
Impeach them dor trying to be a judge when there isn’t a seat for them.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,476
Reaction score
40,345
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
They haven't done that for decades. To a democrat, cooperation goes only one way.
Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate on a single Obama initiative
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,259
Reaction score
13,814
Points
2,415
Run it up to 15 seats and enjoy your 9-6 Libtard majority.

Once Republicans get control there is nothing preventing them from running it down to 6 and throwing all 9 libs off the court.
Works for me.
It may be quite a while before Republicans take control of the WH, Senate and House to pack the court again.

BTW.....there is no way to remove a sitting SCOTUS judge without impeachment
Excuse me if I place no credence on your prognostication skills, Kreskin.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,343
Reaction score
12,318
Points
2,210
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?
Run it up to 15 seats and enjoy your 9-6 Libtard majority.

Once Republicans get control there is nothing preventing them from running it down to 6 and throwing all 9 libs off the court.

6-0 Majority.

:oops8:
LOLOL

You're such a fucking imbecile, putz ... the Constitution is preventing them, ya moron, which only allows for impeachment to remove a SC justice.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,259
Reaction score
13,814
Points
2,415
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
They haven't done that for decades. To a democrat, cooperation goes only one way.
Democrats cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate on a single Obama initiative
Sotomayor 66-32
Kagan 63-37

Do you ever get tired of your lies being exposed?
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,259
Reaction score
13,814
Points
2,415
I
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?
Run it up to 15 seats and enjoy your 9-6 Libtard majority.

Once Republicans get control there is nothing preventing them from running it down to 6 and throwing all 9 libs off the court.

6-0 Majority.

:oops8:
LOLOL

You're such a fucking imbecile, putz ... the Constitution is preventing them, ya moron, which only allows for impeachment to remove a SC justice.
Impeach them. We are in power, Putz.

Nwxt?
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
67,923
Reaction score
10,750
Points
2,030
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?
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.
No rules need to be changed to add justices to the court.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,343
Reaction score
12,318
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.
I can’t stress enough how bad of an idea it is to go down this path.
Republicans wanted to politicize that bench, now the toothpaste is out of the tube.

#PackTheCourt
all because the position should be filled by now. so revert back to kindergarten and waa--waaa--waaaa
Nope, now thanks to McConnell, there is no rush to fill a vacancy. The Senate can now even tell a president they will never fill a vacancy. Meaning if Democrats win the Senate and Impeached Trump wins the presidency and yet another SC seat opens up in January, 2021, Democrats can tell him to fuck off and leave the seat open for 4 years until the next president is seated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top