BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 56,962
- 16,756
- 2,180
LOLOL"So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ..."No rule was changed, DummyYes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.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.
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?
The Republican “playbook” doesnt include “adding justices”, Stupid.
They are filling a vacancy as spelled out in the Constitution, Hack.
The Senate rules were changed. The Senate rules will be changed again too.
Source the rule that was changed.
The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to reduce the vote threshold for confirming nominees to the Supreme Court from 60 to 51, per The New York Times.
(The need for a 60-vote supermajority still exists for legislation.)
Again, both sides played the blame game.
Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees
Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.www.usatoday.com
Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a new precedent in the Senate to advance Supreme Court nominations with a simple majority. The GOP change ended a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch.www.npr.org
Nope, sorry. Harry did it.
HARRY REID: Glad to be with you.
CORNISH: You've said that you do not regret changing the rules to eliminate the need for 60 votes to end debate over judicial nominations. But since it's paved the way for how Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority are basically steamrolling Democrats in the Senate now, what's your response to Democrats who say you should?
REID: Well, let's look at what happened. Obama was president. He'd been elected by a large majority, but Republicans were filibustering everything. He couldn't get his cabinet officers confirmed, subcabinet. We had the D.C. Circuit, the second most important court in the country - had many vacancies. What were we to do? So that's the reason that I moved to change the rules.
CORNISH: Do you wish you went further?
REID: No, I think I went far enough. As a result of changing the rules, we were able to do things that made Obama's presidency one that history books will look back on and say, gee, he got a lot done. So it was something we needed for the country, and it was the right thing to do.
Former Senate Majority Leader On Filibuster And Supreme Court Vacancy
NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the idea of scrapping the filibuster and how the Senate might move forward.www.npr.org
That was not for SC nominations. McConnell had to change that rule or he would never have gotten over the 60 vote threshold.
They keep trying to pretend it's the same. They won't "man up" even though McConnell has outright stated his intent to block Obama judicial nominations because he wanted a Republican president to fill them. So why do they keep pretending that wasn't the agenda?
So just to be clear, when Biden said no scotus hearings in 1992 ...
They keep trying to pretend it's the same. They won't "man up" even thoughMcConnellBiden has outright stated his intent to blockObamaHW judicial nominations because he wanted aRepublicanDemocrat president to fill them. So why do they keep pretending that wasn't the agenda?
What's that noise? Oh, your standard flipping ... again ...
You're kazzing again. Biden never said that.
You're a liar, little boy. Here's a cookie. Now go play and no setting pets on fire again
Nope, I didn't kaz. You did. Want proof? Watch this ... quote Biden saying they would hold no SCOTUS hearings in 1992....
Kaz can't quote, He barely has cliff notes.....(Wait, do they still have cliff notes?)