Sun Devil 92
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2015
- 32,078
- 11,097
- 1,410
- Banned
- #241
Fuck Blumenthal.......the ugly duck.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So if Trump wins again, then it's his right to do the same, correct? bump it up to 101 and add away? you cool with that?Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.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.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?
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
And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.
by following the constitution?That is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.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.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?
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
And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.
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.
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
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.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 cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation
that must be 1 of your wet dreams...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.all because the position should be filled by now. so revert back to kindergarten and waa--waaa--waaaaRepublicans wanted to politicize that bench, now the toothpaste is out of the tube.I can’t stress enough how bad of an idea it is to go down this path.Great, then you'll be onboard when Democrats #PackTheCourt.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.So it's ok for Republicans to flip the "polarity" of a seat, but not for Democrats?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.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.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
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
#PackTheCourt
Perhaps he can paint his face and put on his old Vietnam War jungle cammie's and low crawl into the Senate.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
True. Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Schumer and Biden all voted to go to war with Iraq.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.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 cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation
Trump will nominate a moderate that Clinton put on the federal bench. Then what are Democratic Party crybabies going to do?that must be 1 of your wet dreams...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.all because the position should be filled by now. so revert back to kindergarten and waa--waaa--waaaaRepublicans wanted to politicize that bench, now the toothpaste is out of the tube.I can’t stress enough how bad of an idea it is to go down this path.Great, then you'll be onboard when Democrats #PackTheCourt.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.So it's ok for Republicans to flip the "polarity" of a seat, but not for Democrats?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.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.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
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
#PackTheCourt
Also, the dems, had they had the opportunity, would have done the exact same thing
True. Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Schumer and Biden all voted to go to war with Iraq.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.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 cooperated with George Bush
Republicans refused to cooperate with Obama and did not support a single piece of legislation
After 8 years of Republican gridlock under Obama, a new form of politics was in play.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
When were Democrats “cooperating” with Republicans in the past 4 years?
Very TrueWhat did Trump do? McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives
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
blah blah blah... hope you are enjoying the newest addition to the sc. im sure she will do a great job. enjoyThat is a horrible idea, no natter which side does it.Didn't block anything. Just didn't call a vote. His right.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.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?
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
And it will be the Democrat's right to add more members to the court.
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.
Reid started this shit you idiot..........now it comes back to haunt you and you whine like bitches....Also, the dems, had they had the opportunity, would have done the exact same thing
Helps Republicans cover their guilt, but Democrats would not have done the same thing
all you scum of the demonrat party do is whine, whine, whine, when it dont go your way. thats real helpful. if that dont work, pig-lousy threatens, thats adult like. the biggest problem within your party is the douchebag pig-lousy. this twat thinks you owe it. as soon as this piece of garbage is disposed of, maybe the 2 could work together.After 8 years of Republican gridlock under Obama, a new form of politics was in play.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
When were Democrats “cooperating” with Republicans in the past 4 years?
Republicans had done nothing to earn cooperation, they didn’t get any
After 8 years of Republican gridlock under Obama, a new form of politics was in play.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
When were Democrats “cooperating” with Republicans in the past 4 years?
Republicans had done nothing to earn cooperation, they didn’t get any
Your side already ended the fillbusters moron..........Your side started this.........And had you been in with these appointments you would have done it again.Democrats are in a mood to retaliate.
Packing the court and ending filibuster are likely retaliations