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

[ThisIsMe]

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

Nothing in the Constitution said the Senate had to fill a vacant court seat or consider an appointment from an opposition party.

Nothing in the Constitution says Congress cannot expand the court

there is supposed to be 9. not 8. it was your president TRUMPs duty to fill the vacancy. btw, it wasnt with someone the scumbag demonrats would have picked. thats the best part. any how, do be sure to watch her get nominated very soon, it should be a great show for every AMERICAN.

"there is supposed to be 9"

Utter ignorance. There is no such "supposed" number of seats.

Well, there is the judiciary act of 1869

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Almost only counts in hand grenades, horseshoes and atom bombs child. Opposition senates don't tend to confirm justices in the last year of a presidents term.

.

No worries. Now it can be all 4 years of a president's term thanks to the McConnell rule.

Really, do tell. LMAO

.

The McConnell rule ... the Constitution doesn't specify any time frame to hold a confirmation hearing. He held it for a record 11 months. Democrats can now break that record with 4 years.

You're assuming they'd survive the midterms pulling shit like that, that would be highly doubtful.

.

 

[Nostra]

I

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

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.

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.

Putz, your words, "Impeach them. We are in power, Putz."

Are you ever not a flaming imbecile?

Ever??

Yep, that was the scenario we were talking about.

Learn to read for comprehension you blithering idiot. Try to follow a conversation for once in your life, Ignoramus.

Yeah, "we are in power" is present tense. Guess what, Spunky, you are not in power of the House.

Yep, present tense in the context of the conversation we were having before you butted in to make a fool of yourself.

Your colossal inability to follow the simplest of conversations is astounding.......until one realized what a complete moron you are.

LOLOL

Suuure, Spunky. Uh-huh...

​

​

Nope. Never used the word "mortality", idiot.​

​

Quote my post using "mortality", or admit you can't read on a second grade level.​

​

​

My G-d, you're even more rightarded than I ever gave you credit for....​

​

Mortality rate we are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list, Dummy.

[emphasis added to highlight Nostra's dementia]​

​

​

​

G'head, talk to me about following a conversation.​

​

​

:a​

Let me help you out, lil fella.....

I was talking about what the Republican response to Dimwingers packing the S.C. could be........so tell all of us how that could possibly be referencing the “present”, you raving lunatic.

Learn English, Spunky. Proper English is, "once Republicans get control ... we will be in power," not, "once Republicans get control ... we are in power." You prove to be too big of an idiot to play with tenses like that. Once you figure that out, see if you can find a legitimate reason for impeaching 9 Liberal justices. When you get past that hurdle, spend some time to understand you actually did talk about "mortality rate," despite your nutty denial to the contrary.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

Actually the Constitution is moot on the subject of the size of the court. It doesn't address it at all. It merely says that there will be a Supreme Court.

Leaves it to Congress

Lets see if Congress thinks it must expand the court

Congress can't expand the court. They can change the judiciary act of 1869 l, that currently limits the number of SC justices to 9, but beyond that, only a president can increase the size of the SC.

 

[Nostra]

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?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Elections have consequences.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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?

The court has been political for decades. Its evident by the fighting that goes on everytime a new seat comes up.

Also, the dems, had they had the opportunity, would have done the exact same thing. If you feel you should be angry, be angry at both sides. They are both playing the game that similar opportunities would lend to them if the situation arises.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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?

Almost only counts in hand grenades, horseshoes and atom bombs child. Opposition senates don't tend to confirm justices in the last year of a presidents term.

.

No worries. Now it can be all 4 years of a president's term thanks to the McConnell rule.

Really, do tell. LMAO

.

The McConnell rule ... the Constitution doesn't specify any time frame to hold a confirmation hearing. He held it for a record 11 months. Democrats can now break that record with 4 years.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about hearings at all. All it says is that the Senate will “advise and consent” on SCOTUS nominations. How the senate does that is up to the controlling party. It can be as complex as official hearings, or as simple as informal discussions. He only unusual thing about the Garland nomination process is that the opposition party gave up the opportunity to bloviate in front of the cameras while rejecting Garland.

 

[Faun]

Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation

After he told them to sit in the back of the bus.

Quote him...

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

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?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.

 

[eagle1462010]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

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

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

How many did he block?

Now that your party set the precedent,

You think 2015-2016 was the first time a Senate controlled by an opposing party has left some
court seats open at the end of a President's term? LOL!

 

[Beef_Supreme]

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?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

How many did he block?

Now that your party set the precedent,

You think 2015-2016 was the first time a Senate controlled by an opposing party has left some
court seats open at the end of a President's term? LOL!

They just don’t seem to get it.
Then they take their perceived slight, and think “well then we will do this!” And plan to do something incredibly stupid (pack the court.
Despite me saying repeatedly that I would be opposed to anyone doing it, and telling them it’s an absolutely horrible road to go down, they keep responding like bitter little partisans.
Hey clowns, ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!!!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Toooooooooooooo fucking funny.

Cooperation with Republicans.

Like that has happened in the last four years.

You are so full of shit they call you bown-eyes.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

More like 85%.

 

[BluesLegend]

What did Trump do? McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

 

[BluesLegend]

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

McConnell blocked nothing, he simply told Dems to no.

 

[Bulletbob]

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 with republicans ?

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

It looks like another HUGE win for president Trump to me!

What did Trump do?

McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.

And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.

That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.
I can’t stress that enough.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea. Now that your party set the precedent, it's a little late for you to start whining about what your party set in motion.

McConnell blocking all those Obama appointments and leaving them for Trump to fill was a horrible idea.

How many did he block?

Now that your party set the precedent,

You think 2015-2016 was the first time a Senate controlled by an opposing party has left some
court seats open at the end of a President's term? LOL!

They just don’t seem to get it.
Then they take their perceived slight, and think “well then we will do this!” And plan to do something incredibly stupid (pack the court.
Despite me saying repeatedly that I would be opposed to anyone doing it, and telling them it’s an absolutely horrible road to go down, they keep responding like bitter little partisans.
Hey clowns, ITS A HORRIBLE IDEA NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!!!

You understand this is an anonymous chat board, and nobody gives a shit what you say, don't you?