Senate votes to limit debate on Barrett nomination

[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.

Not cheating. Completely Constitutional.

Constitutional only if the Democrats gain full control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate.

Doesn't appear that that's going to happen for a long time.

 

[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.

Constitutional only if the Democrats gain full control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate.

Doesn't appear that that's going to happen for a long time.

Shoving hard core partisans jurist down Americans throats like they have may have some unlikely and unintended outcomes in the near future for the Banana Republicans. Flip enough state houses and we might be able to put in some constitutional protection against their authoritarians and religionist ideals.

 

[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.

Not cheating. Completely Constitutional.

Constitutional only if the Democrats gain full control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate.

Doesn't appear that that's going to happen for a long time.

Shoving hard core partisans jurist down Americans throats like they have may have some unlikely and unintended outcomes in the near future for the Banana Republicans. Flip enough state houses and we might be able to put in some constitutional protection against their authoritarians and religionist ideals.

Well enjoy your banana. Be sure to swallow and not spit it out

 

[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.

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.

Constitutional only if the Democrats gain full control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate.

Doesn't appear that that's going to happen for a long time.

Shoving hard core partisans jurist down Americans throats like they have may have some unlikely and unintended outcomes in the near future for the Banana Republicans. Flip enough state houses and we might be able to put in some constitutional protection against their authoritarians and religionist ideals.

Shoving hard core partisans jurist down Americans throats

Common practice on both sides for a long time now.

 

[hadit]

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.

They would do that anyway. Why anyone would pretend they wouldn't is a mystery.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Same tactic Republicans used in the Trump impeachment

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

So what ? As long as she in confirmed.

 

[hadit]

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 job is to apply the Constitution to the law, not to express opinions about Orange Man Bad. What you want is an excuse to demand she recuse herself if any case related to those topics comes before the Court, and she should not oblige you. You have her paper trail, look at it.

 

[hadit]

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.

They haven't been "cheating". Note that TRUMP! did not expand the court because RBG refused to retire. When she died, he was well within his rights to nominate a replacement justice, and did so.

 

[basquebromance]

she refused to answer any questions about her policy positions, yet she wants the Senators to vote for her?

that's like before getting married, asking your would be wife if she likes to go to a Bon Jovi concert, and she says: "well, i'll tell you after we get married"

 

[hadit]

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...

The only thing that body could do is appeal to Congress and the president to make the process less political, and Quid Pro Joe wouldn't tolerate anything like that.

 

[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.

Constitutional only if the Democrats gain full control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate.

Doesn't appear that that's going to happen for a long time.

Shoving hard core partisans jurist down Americans throats like they have may have some unlikely and unintended outcomes in the near future for the Banana Republicans. Flip enough state houses and we might be able to put in some constitutional protection against their authoritarians and religionist ideals.

Shoving hard core partisans jurist down Americans throats

Common practice on both sides for a long time now.

No not really. Scallia 98-0 Ginsberg 96-3 Kennedy 97-0 Roberts 78-22 Sotomayor 68 -31.

 

[hadit]

she refused to answer any questions about her policy positions, yet she wants the Senators to vote for her?

that's like before getting married, asking your would be wife if she likes to go to a Bon Jovi concert, and she says: "well, i'll tell you after we get married"

She's not supposed to have "policy positions", that's the whole point. The Supreme Court is supposed to hear both pro and con arguments on cases involving the law, then apply the Constitution to see if the law passes muster or not. "Policy positions" are the realm of the legislators and the president, NOT the court. The ONLY "policy position" they should be asking her at all is whether she is willing to apply the Constitution to strike down popular laws or to uphold unpopular ones. IOW, the Court is not supposed to be swayed by political winds. THAT'S the point.

The other way lies predetermined outcomes and the irrelevancy of both the Constitution and the SC.

 

[basquebromance]

she refused to answer any questions about her policy positions, yet she wants the Senators to vote for her?

that's like before getting married, asking your would be wife if she likes to go to a Bon Jovi concert, and she says: "well, i'll tell you after we get married"

She's not supposed to have "policy positions", that's the whole point. The Supreme Court is supposed to hear both pro and con arguments on cases involving the law, then apply the Constitution to see if the law passes muster or not. "Policy positions" are the realm of the legislators and the president, NOT the court. The ONLY "policy position" they should be asking her at all is whether she is willing to apply the Constitution to strike down popular laws or to uphold unpopular ones.

that's propaganda

 

[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.

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.

Constitutional only if the Democrats gain full control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate.

Doesn't appear that that's going to happen for a long time.

Shoving hard core partisans jurist down Americans throats like they have may have some unlikely and unintended outcomes in the near future for the Banana Republicans. Flip enough state houses and we might be able to put in some constitutional protection against their authoritarians and religionist ideals.

Shoving hard core partisans jurist down Americans throats

Common practice on both sides for a long time now.

No not really. Scallia 98-0 Ginsberg 96-3 Kennedy 97-0 Roberts 78-22 Sotomayor 68 -31.

Thomas 52-48, Kavanaugh 50-48

 

[hadit]

she refused to answer any questions about her policy positions, yet she wants the Senators to vote for her?

that's like before getting married, asking your would be wife if she likes to go to a Bon Jovi concert, and she says: "well, i'll tell you after we get married"

She's not supposed to have "policy positions", that's the whole point. The Supreme Court is supposed to hear both pro and con arguments on cases involving the law, then apply the Constitution to see if the law passes muster or not. "Policy positions" are the realm of the legislators and the president, NOT the court. The ONLY "policy position" they should be asking her at all is whether she is willing to apply the Constitution to strike down popular laws or to uphold unpopular ones.

that's propaganda

1. Define "propaganda".
2. Show how it applies in this situation.
3. Show where the SC is supposed to apply the law from "policy positions" instead of the Constitution.
4. Explain why it was fine for RBG to refuse to spell out how she would vote on cases in her nomination but not for ACB.

 

[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.

Constitutional only if the Democrats gain full control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate.

Doesn't appear that that's going to happen for a long time.

Shoving hard core partisans jurist down Americans throats like they have may have some unlikely and unintended outcomes in the near future for the Banana Republicans. Flip enough state houses and we might be able to put in some constitutional protection against their authoritarians and religionist ideals.

Shoving hard core partisans jurist down Americans throats

Common practice on both sides for a long time now.

No not really. Scallia 98-0 Ginsberg 96-3 Kennedy 97-0 Roberts 78-22 Sotomayor 68 -31.

Thomas 52-48, Kavanaugh 50-48

Not a long time. A very short time that a simple majority can confirm a SC judge.

 

[Dick Foster]

Same tactic Republicans used in the Trump impeachment

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

Yeah bend over bitch while it's rammed home. There's more where that came from on the way soon. Say about Nov 4th. You might want to grab your ankles and brace yourself for that one. It's gonna be really really bigly like you've never seen before.

 

[kaz]

Same tactic Republicans used in the Trump impeachment

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

The Democrats came to the hearings and thoroughly embarrassed themselves. How did they do that if there was no discussion?

 

[Auld Phart]

Thurgood Marshall--69 aye-11 nay -20 nv.

 

[kaz]

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.

Democrats created the judicial filibuster under W and ended it under O. They created the administration nomination filibuster under W and ended it under O. They changed the rules to ram Obamacare through despite Scott Brown being added to the senate ending the filibuster proof majority.

Just cut the shit that you're the innocent party that keeps having rules changed on you