Senate votes to limit debate on Barrett nomination

[Auld Phart]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Empty threat.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

For Biden OR Trump

 

[BULLDOG]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Your idiots were the ones to first use that rule.... Karma is a bitch...

I don't think so, but either way, it's in play now.

 

[otto105]

Means the demos can't try to debate forever to delay it past the election.

It's just another slap in the dems faces.

There won't be much debate allowed about expanding the court next year either.

 

[BULLDOG]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Empty threat.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

For Biden OR Trump

Doesn't matter which. An increase in size would be a good thing no matter who does it.

 

[Auld Phart]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Empty threat.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

For Biden OR Trump

Doesn't matter which. An increase in size would be a good thing no matter who does it.

An increase in size would be a good thing no matter who does it.

WHY would it be a good thing?

Instead of 5-4 decisions, you want 8-7 decisions?

11-10 decisions?

 

[Auld Phart]

If Trump wins and adds 15 more bodies to SCOTUS, are you going to put up with 21-4 decisions?

 

[otto105]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Empty threat.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

For Biden OR Trump

Doesn't matter which. An increase in size would be a good thing no matter who does it.

An increase in size would be a good thing no matter who does it.

WHY would it be a good thing?

Instead of 5-4 decisions, you want 8-7 decisions?

11-10 decisions?

Because it makes Roberts the Swing vote again.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Same tactic Republicans used in the Trump impeachment

They don’t want any discussion, they just want to ram through a vote

Everything has been discussed. Anything further is the basis for obstruction.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Same tactic Republicans used in the Trump impeachment

They don’t want any discussion, they just want to ram through a vote

There was no discussion during the Q&A.

Just moronic questions by the gay pineapple.

Harris' efforts showed just what a pathetic senators she was and is.

Get used to it....Justice Barrett.

 

[basquebromance]

she's only been a "judge" for 3 years, by the way

 

[JGalt]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Empty threat.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

Actually, that would be called "cheating." It would be like you're losing a checkers game, so you want to add more black checkers on the board.

 

[basquebromance]

As her confirmation hearing shows, Barrett is the justice Donald Trump is looking for

She refused to say whether she believes a president should commit to the peaceful transfer of power

She also refused to say whether voter intimidation is illegal, which it is, whether the president can unilaterally delay an election, which he cannot...And whether the Constitution empowers Congress to protect the right to vote, which it does

The stakes have never been higher for our Democracy, my friends

 

[Camp]

As her confirmation hearing shows, Barrett is the justice Donald Trump is looking for

She refused to say whether she believes a president should commit to the peaceful transfer of power

She also refused to say whether voter intimidation is illegal, which it is, whether the president can unilaterally delay an election, which he cannot...And whether the Constitution empowers Congress to protect the right to vote, which it does

The stakes have never been higher for our Democracy, my friends

Her misleading Congress is the basis for impeachment.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

As her confirmation hearing shows, Barrett is the justice Donald Trump is looking for

She refused to say whether she believes a president should commit to the peaceful transfer of power

She also refused to say whether voter intimidation is illegal, which it is, whether the president can unilaterally delay an election, which he cannot...And whether the Constitution empowers Congress to protect the right to vote, which it does

The stakes have never been higher for our Democracy, my friends

I thought she couldnt answer most of those questions directly because she wasnt at liberty, due to her current position, and/or the question was actually hypothetical.

 

[BULLDOG]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Empty threat.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

Actually, that would be called "cheating." It would be like you're losing a checkers game, so you want to add more black checkers on the board.

Cheating? You mean like the repubs have been doing? Things like that are what McConnell's new "because we can" rule is for.

 

[JGalt]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Empty threat.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

Actually, that would be called "cheating." It would be like you're losing a checkers game, so you want to add more black checkers on the board.

Cheating? You mean like the repubs have been doing? Things like that are what McConnell's new "because we can" rule is for.

Oh, I wasn't aware that McConnell increased the number of Supreme Court Justices.

Thanks for the info.

Schmuck.

 

[CowboyTed]

Means the demos can't try to debate forever to delay it past the election.

It's just another slap in the dems faces.

Just making a better case for increasing the size when Biden gets in charge...

Biden said he wants a bipartisan body to review the justice system when he gets in charge...

 

[CowboyTed]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

McConnell vandalism of the US Justice system will have to be reversed I say...

 

[BlindBoo]

It is an exercise in the use of raw political power to achieve a highly partisan majority in an entire branch of government.

 

[BlindBoo]

It means the "Because we can" rule is firmly ensconced as a senate precedent, so don't be surprised when the next Democratically run Senate puts it to use.

Empty threat.

Could be, but it would be a very helpful rule to use to increase the size of the supreme court.

Actually, that would be called "cheating." It would be like you're losing a checkers game, so you want to add more black checkers on the board.

Not cheating. Completely Constitutional.