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
70,180
Reaction score
12,198
Points
2,210
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?
LOLOL

You think you control the House???

 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
50,512
Reaction score
9,761
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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.

It's gonna cost them in this election.

.
 

Missourian

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
22,267
Reaction score
9,153
Points
940
Location
Missouri
STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Blumenthal need to be stuffed into the world's largest cannon and shot across the world's largest cheese grater.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,139
Reaction score
13,709
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?
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.
So?
 

LeftofLeft

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
12,939
Reaction score
4,574
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
This coming from the side that needs safe spaces from consequences. Toughen up buttercup.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,139
Reaction score
13,709
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?
LOLOL

You think you control the House???

What part of “ once Republicans get control” is confusing to you, Simpleton?
Good Lord, you have the reading comprehension skills of a box of retarded hair.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,353
Reaction score
40,178
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
You people never had cooperation with Republicans. Blumenthal never had any consequences for lying like a pussy that he served in Vietnam.
Blumenthal served his country

What Trump likes to call a loser and sucker
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,353
Reaction score
40,178
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
Sotomayor 66-32
Kagan 63-37

Do you ever get tired of your lies being exposed?
What was the vote on Garland?

All of Bush’s nominees got a vote
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,139
Reaction score
13,709
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
You people never had cooperation with Republicans. Blumenthal never had any consequences for lying like a pussy that he served in Vietnam.
Blumenthal served his country

What Trump likes to call a loser and sucker
He is a stolen valor fuckwit.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,353
Reaction score
40,178
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
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.
The McConnell Rule now says that an opposition Senate will not fill SCOTUS seats
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,353
Reaction score
40,178
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
You people never had cooperation with Republicans. Blumenthal never had any consequences for lying like a pussy that he served in Vietnam.
Blumenthal served his country

What Trump likes to call a loser and sucker
He is a stolen valor fuckwit.
He said he was a Vietnam vet instead of a Vietnam Era Vet.

Fat Donnie had Bone Spurs
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
67,873
Reaction score
10,693
Points
2,030
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.
You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,139
Reaction score
13,709
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?
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.
The McConnell Rule now says that an opposition Senate will not fill SCOTUS seats
Your meltdown is cute. :itsok:
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,353
Reaction score
40,178
Points
2,190
I don’t think Dems will rush to pack the court and don’t think Biden is too big on it.

But if Barrett is rushed in and abolishes Obamacare and Roe
I would expect unanimous support for packing the court.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,139
Reaction score
13,709
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
You people never had cooperation with Republicans. Blumenthal never had any consequences for lying like a pussy that he served in Vietnam.
Blumenthal served his country

What Trump likes to call a loser and sucker
He is a stolen valor fuckwit.
He said he was a Vietnam vet instead of a Vietnam Era Vet.

Fat Donnie had Bone Spurs
The stolen valor fuckwit claimed he “served IN Vietnam”.....and he got 5 deferments before pulling strings for a cushy job.

Do you ever get tired of me exposing your lies?

 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,139
Reaction score
13,709
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.
You think appointing Barrett doesn't look like an open move to grasp political power?
We already have the power. Elections have consequences, Halfwit.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
18,139
Reaction score
13,709
Points
2,415
I don’t think Dems will rush to pack the court and don’t think Biden is too big on it.

But if Barrett is rushed in and abolishes Obamacare and Roe
I would expect unanimous support for packing the court.
How does one justice do that? Explain how that works, Simpleton.

Your meltdown is cute. :itsok:
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,902
Reaction score
4,488
Points
280
I don’t think Dems will rush to pack the court and don’t think Biden is too big on it.

But if Barrett is rushed in and abolishes Obamacare and Roe
I would expect unanimous support for packing the court.
The Constitution need not apply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top