Stack The Court, Genius Move Democrats!

[mamooth]

And nowhere did he say your claim that Biden would have had hearings after the election for an HW nominee. You still lied, you still made it up

You suck at lying, little partisan asslicker. When Biden said to put forth a nomination, he very clearly meant so the senate could vote on it. No non-pathological liar denies something that obvious, meaning you're trying to deny it.

This is another reason why it's so good to be a liberal. We don't have a fascist party ordering us to lie and doom our souls to eternal damnation.

As for you, if you're going to be such a shameless partisan hypocrite, at least own it and be proud of it. The only thing worse than a shameless partisan hypocrite is a cowardly dishonest shameless partisan hypocrite.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hillary was supposed to appoint the 5th and final SCOTUS justice who would eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment; the 4th died right after 9/11

What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense at all. Even if someone want to get rid of an amendment, the SCOTUS can not do it unilaterally . Your just spewing hot air

OK does shall not be infringed mean it cannot be restricted or does it mean we can restrict it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The dissent in Heller shows where the American Taliban justices were headed towards eliminating the 2A as an individual right

 

[Missourian]

Democrat leaders are acting like a bunch of imbeciles they are going to blow this election with their putting "stacking the Supreme Court" on the table! By threatening this consequence they are giving the Republican Party a gigantic size hypodermic needle of adrenaline for the Republican Party to inject into their base and people open to voting for them it will make a measurable difference in this election. Don't Democrat leaders monitor right wing radio, these hosts en masse are cautioning their listeners that the stakes of this election are that the Democrats if they gain power are going to pack the Supreme Court with extreme liberal Justices who will do things like take away your Second Amendment right to possess a gun, your right to private health insurance, they will dramatically diminish state and individual rights culminating in Democrat liberal elitist running your life. What has unfolded is right wing radio is scaring the hell out of people about the effect of the Democrats packing the Court, Democrat leadership is incredibly foolish for giving the Republican Party this aid for this upcoming November election!

I get why the Democrat leadership has come out with such a big threat, Republicans putting Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court is unfair and will turn that Court into a right-wing activist Supreme Court. Nevertheless, wisdom calls for restraint so you don't make the situation worse. Democrats need to remember that Donald Trump with his ignoring the long standing in America customs and legal standards of restraint on Presidential power changed the rules, after Trump a President can now largely do whatever he wants through Executive Order. So let's say on this ACA case currently in the Supreme Court, Judge Barrett is confirmed as a Justice and she gives the Court the additional vote to say the individual mandate is unconstitutional and even goes as far as saying therefore the ACA's whole entire scheme of the individual insurance market with communal pricing based on large enrollee pools is unconstitutional so that as a consequence people with pre-existing conditions would again be subject to insurance underwriting based on their health status in trying to get health insurance which would put the cost of that insurance out of reach for most such Americans. Well what does a President Biden do in this post-Trump world he issues an Executive Order that Medicare has to open up enrollment to Americans with pre-existing conditions unless they are high income American and he also says publicly to American seniors you are not going to pay one dollar out of your Medicare fund for this coverage expansion because I promise I will not sign one budget bill until Congress covers Medicare's monetary loss from this expansion. The bottom line is that Democrats have other options to fight this injustice and its effects other than stacking the Court!

One thing Democrats might want to consider is slightly changing the terms of the Supreme Court by this I mean the following. When one really thinks about it America has a somewhat depraved system for our Supreme Court. The current terms are that a Justice once confirmed to that bench receives a life-time appointment which necessitates the question what has that wrought America. Well in Ruth Bader Ginsburg case it wrought a hundred and seventy-five million Americans continually hoping she would not die during the Trump presidency so he would have the opportunity to choose her replacement. This RBG scenario is not the first of its kind it is often the case where the American people have to pin their hopes on a responsible Supreme Court on a responsible body which is the final arbiter of America's laws on a specific Justice not dying during a specific President's term of office, cannot we do better as a people, cannot we create a better design for the highest Court of our country! How about making the mandatory retirement age of a Supreme Court Justice seventy-two years of age that would be five years past the Social Security full retirement age, ten years past the mandatory retirement age for people in the U.S. army! If there was a mandatory retirement age than the American people would have a bigger say on who gets put on the court because they would know when a President will have a seat to fill and they could factor that in with regard to how they vote in the respective Presidential election - therefore America would be a stronger Democrat country; not to mention Justice Thomas is currently seventy-two years of age and so would have to give up his seat!

Tl;dr

Democrats are dumb.

We already knew that.

Here's your problem Jim.

You've raised a generation of whiny babies that think they're entitled to everything and never learned how to lose.

"There are no winners...we don't even keep score...here's your participation trophy"

They are spoiled and angry...and now that they have lost the Supreme Court for a decade...they can't/won't accept it...and if you tell them they lost...if Biden said "Hey, idiots, we're definitely not packing the court"...they won't vote for him...and if he doesn't say it...the sane folks won't vote for him.

So he's screwed...and you're going to lose again.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hillary was supposed to appoint the 5th and final SCOTUS justice who would eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment; the 4th died right after 9/11

What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense at all. Even if someone want to get rid of an amendment, the SCOTUS can not do it unilaterally . Your just spewing hot air

OK does shall not be infringed mean it cannot be restricted or does it mean we can restrict it?

WHAT???

 

[Winston]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

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

OK, stupid one.

There was no judicial filibuster before W. Democrats invented it. Then under Obama Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial appointments other than SCOTUS.

That Republicans approved two hard left Obama appointments, so Democrats didn't have to end it.

So there was zero reason they had to leave the selective filibuster Democrats invented one administration ago in place

The first time a judicial filibuster was used was in 1968 when Johnson tried to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice. You do realize Johnson was a democrat, so it was the Republicans that first started the practice. It was done through the cloture motion, which I am quite sure you don't even know what the hell that is.

There was no filibuster in 1968, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what the term filibuster means? You don't, do you?

You have zero understanding of what happened in 1968. There was one cloture vote. Democrats wanted Johnson to withdraw Fortas for chief justice, it wasn't "Republicans," you lied. Democrats didn't want to vote him down, they wanted him to be withdrawn so they didn't have to. Both parties voted against the single cloture attempt.

Also, if Johnson hadn't removed him, they were going to vote him down, not continue to vote against cloture. Again, that means it was NOT a filibuster, you lied.

Do you know what happened ultimately to the criminally corrupt Fortas?

Yes, I know what a filibuster is. Evidently you don't know what cloture is.

Cloture is a procedure used occasionally in the U.S. Senate to break a filibuster.

How to Break a Filibuster Using the U.S. Senate Rulebook

Find out how the cloture rule came to life in the U.S. Senate. Discover how often this measure is used.

www.thoughtco.com

.

LMAO

 

[kaz]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat
You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

I believe Trump and his enablers have set another bad precedent, and the country will be worse off because of it.

You people are a joke. Dems would leap at the chance to fill a conservative seat on the court with a liberal and you people know it.

Remember when Stewart retired and Democrats screamed they get anyone they want since he was a total brainless leftist and preserving the balance of the court was SOOOOOO important to them?

Then when Scalia died, they nominated a leftist ideologue in a heartbeat.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, that's all Democrats do

That is the point that president Trump has tried to make with the GOP, Dem's no longer play by the rules and would throw the GOP under the bus in a heartbeat. It's already happened many times. It's like the GOP keep praying one day Lucy won't snatch the football away.

Exactly. Democrats are actually as stupid as they think everyone else is. They change the rules and create and end filibusters over and over then say wow, you change a rule and you'll pay for it!

 

[kaz]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

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

OK, stupid one.

There was no judicial filibuster before W. Democrats invented it. Then under Obama Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial appointments other than SCOTUS.

That Republicans approved two hard left Obama appointments, so Democrats didn't have to end it.

So there was zero reason they had to leave the selective filibuster Democrats invented one administration ago in place

The first time a judicial filibuster was used was in 1968 when Johnson tried to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice. You do realize Johnson was a democrat, so it was the Republicans that first started the practice. It was done through the cloture motion, which I am quite sure you don't even know what the hell that is.

There was no filibuster in 1968, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what the term filibuster means? You don't, do you?

You have zero understanding of what happened in 1968. There was one cloture vote. Democrats wanted Johnson to withdraw Fortas for chief justice, it wasn't "Republicans," you lied. Democrats didn't want to vote him down, they wanted him to be withdrawn so they didn't have to. Both parties voted against the single cloture attempt.

Also, if Johnson hadn't removed him, they were going to vote him down, not continue to vote against cloture. Again, that means it was NOT a filibuster, you lied.

Do you know what happened ultimately to the criminally corrupt Fortas?

Yes, I know what a filibuster is. Evidently you don't know what cloture is.

Cloture is a procedure used occasionally in the U.S. Senate to break a filibuster.

How to Break a Filibuster Using the U.S. Senate Rulebook

Find out how the cloture rule came to life in the U.S. Senate. Discover how often this measure is used.

www.thoughtco.com

.

LMAO

That doesn't contradict what I said.

A filibuster is when you block voting by blocking cloture endlessly, you stupid fuck. It's not using cloture ONCE.

And again, in your severe mental retardation, you LIED repeatedly.

They did not use that ONE cloture vote to filibuster, they used it to get LBJ to withdraw the nomination. YOU LIED.

And it was not a REPUBLICAN block of cloture, BOTH PARTIES voted for it. YOU LIED.

As for your argument that you use cloture to filibuster, that's just stupid. That is saying there can be ONLY ONE use for a tool. There isn't.

You're ignorant, kiddo. Learn what you're talking about before you waste the time of people better informed and smarter than you are.

Again filibuster is ENDLESS DEBATE you stupid jackass. It's not ONE cloture vote where if LBJ hasn't withdrawn the nomination they would have simply voted him down

 

[kaz]

And nowhere did he say your claim that Biden would have had hearings after the election for an HW nominee. You still lied, you still made it up

You suck at lying, little partisan asslicker. When Biden said to put forth a nomination, he very clearly meant so the senate could vote on it. No non-pathological liar denies something that obvious, meaning you're trying to deny it.

This is another reason why it's so good to be a liberal. We don't have a fascist party ordering us to lie and doom our souls to eternal damnation.

As for you, if you're going to be such a shameless partisan hypocrite, at least own it and be proud of it. The only thing worse than a shameless partisan hypocrite is a cowardly dishonest shameless partisan hypocrite.

You didn't argue what Biden "meant" in your warped little lying world.

You said Biden SAID they would hold hearings. That was a lie, he did not say that

 

[Winston]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

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

OK, stupid one.

There was no judicial filibuster before W. Democrats invented it. Then under Obama Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial appointments other than SCOTUS.

That Republicans approved two hard left Obama appointments, so Democrats didn't have to end it.

So there was zero reason they had to leave the selective filibuster Democrats invented one administration ago in place

The first time a judicial filibuster was used was in 1968 when Johnson tried to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice. You do realize Johnson was a democrat, so it was the Republicans that first started the practice. It was done through the cloture motion, which I am quite sure you don't even know what the hell that is.

There was no filibuster in 1968, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what the term filibuster means? You don't, do you?

You have zero understanding of what happened in 1968. There was one cloture vote. Democrats wanted Johnson to withdraw Fortas for chief justice, it wasn't "Republicans," you lied. Democrats didn't want to vote him down, they wanted him to be withdrawn so they didn't have to. Both parties voted against the single cloture attempt.

Also, if Johnson hadn't removed him, they were going to vote him down, not continue to vote against cloture. Again, that means it was NOT a filibuster, you lied.

Do you know what happened ultimately to the criminally corrupt Fortas?

Yes, I know what a filibuster is. Evidently you don't know what cloture is.

Cloture is a procedure used occasionally in the U.S. Senate to break a filibuster.

How to Break a Filibuster Using the U.S. Senate Rulebook

Find out how the cloture rule came to life in the U.S. Senate. Discover how often this measure is used.

www.thoughtco.com

.

LMAO

That doesn't contradict what I said.

A filibuster is when you block voting by blocking cloture endlessly, you stupid fuck. It's not using cloture ONCE.

And again, in your severe mental retardation, you LIED repeatedly.

They did not use that ONE cloture vote to filibuster, they used it to get LBJ to withdraw the nomination. YOU LIED.

And it was not a REPUBLICAN block of cloture, BOTH PARTIES voted for it. YOU LIED.

As for your argument that you use cloture to filibuster, that's just stupid. That is saying there can be ONLY ONE use for a tool. There isn't.

You're ignorant, kiddo. Learn what you're talking about before you waste the time of people better informed and smarter than you are.

Again filibuster is ENDLESS DEBATE you stupid jackass. It's not ONE cloture vote where if LBJ hasn't withdrawn the nomination they would have simply voted him down

Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer. Cloture, by definition, is used to stop a filibuster. You claimed there was no filibuster, but then you admit there was a cloture vote. I even posted the definition of cloture for you. There cannot be a cloture vote without a filibuster, how hard is that to understand?

And you display your own ignorance when talking about "both parties" voted for cloture. Like "Du Huh", it pretty much requires both parties to vote for cloture for the motion to pass. At the time period we are talking about it took 67 votes to pass a cloture motion. Even today, it still takes 60. So even today, a cloture motion cannot pass without votes from both parties.

Now as to your claims of being smarter and better informed. Well, you got one piece of evidence that pretty much makes that claim impossible. 60,000 posts. From my calculations, you are making about 6,000 posts a year. Certainly you would not want to make the claim that you get your information from this place, but with posting that frequently you hardly have time to be adequately informed. And one has to seriously question a person's mental stability, let alone their intellect, for spending that much time posting.

I own and run several businesses. The primary business does five million dollars a year in sales with a gross profit of 20%, it is an industry leader. I lead the nation in several categories. I have six kids, two are completing their Phd's, one is working on his MBA, and the youngest is completing his degree in Philosophy and almost certainly will pursue a graduate degree in that field. I am quite sure our Thanksgiving day dinner conversation will easily exceed your mental capacity.

 

[kaz]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

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

OK, stupid one.

There was no judicial filibuster before W. Democrats invented it. Then under Obama Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial appointments other than SCOTUS.

That Republicans approved two hard left Obama appointments, so Democrats didn't have to end it.

So there was zero reason they had to leave the selective filibuster Democrats invented one administration ago in place

The first time a judicial filibuster was used was in 1968 when Johnson tried to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice. You do realize Johnson was a democrat, so it was the Republicans that first started the practice. It was done through the cloture motion, which I am quite sure you don't even know what the hell that is.

There was no filibuster in 1968, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what the term filibuster means? You don't, do you?

You have zero understanding of what happened in 1968. There was one cloture vote. Democrats wanted Johnson to withdraw Fortas for chief justice, it wasn't "Republicans," you lied. Democrats didn't want to vote him down, they wanted him to be withdrawn so they didn't have to. Both parties voted against the single cloture attempt.

Also, if Johnson hadn't removed him, they were going to vote him down, not continue to vote against cloture. Again, that means it was NOT a filibuster, you lied.

Do you know what happened ultimately to the criminally corrupt Fortas?

Yes, I know what a filibuster is. Evidently you don't know what cloture is.

Cloture is a procedure used occasionally in the U.S. Senate to break a filibuster.

How to Break a Filibuster Using the U.S. Senate Rulebook

Find out how the cloture rule came to life in the U.S. Senate. Discover how often this measure is used.

www.thoughtco.com

.

LMAO

That doesn't contradict what I said.

A filibuster is when you block voting by blocking cloture endlessly, you stupid fuck. It's not using cloture ONCE.

And again, in your severe mental retardation, you LIED repeatedly.

They did not use that ONE cloture vote to filibuster, they used it to get LBJ to withdraw the nomination. YOU LIED.

And it was not a REPUBLICAN block of cloture, BOTH PARTIES voted for it. YOU LIED.

As for your argument that you use cloture to filibuster, that's just stupid. That is saying there can be ONLY ONE use for a tool. There isn't.

You're ignorant, kiddo. Learn what you're talking about before you waste the time of people better informed and smarter than you are.

Again filibuster is ENDLESS DEBATE you stupid jackass. It's not ONE cloture vote where if LBJ hasn't withdrawn the nomination they would have simply voted him down

Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer. Cloture, by definition, is used to stop a filibuster. You claimed there was no filibuster, but then you admit there was a cloture vote. I even posted the definition of cloture for you. There cannot be a cloture vote without a filibuster, how hard is that to understand?

And you display your own ignorance when talking about "both parties" voted for cloture. Like "Du Huh", it pretty much requires both parties to vote for cloture for the motion to pass. At the time period we are talking about it took 67 votes to pass a cloture motion. Even today, it still takes 60. So even today, a cloture motion cannot pass without votes from both parties.

Now as to your claims of being smarter and better informed. Well, you got one piece of evidence that pretty much makes that claim impossible. 60,000 posts. From my calculations, you are making about 6,000 posts a year. Certainly you would not want to make the claim that you get your information from this place, but with posting that frequently you hardly have time to be adequately informed. And one has to seriously question a person's mental stability, let alone their intellect, for spending that much time posting.

I own and run several businesses. The primary business does five million dollars a year in sales with a gross profit of 20%, it is an industry leader. I lead the nation in several categories. I have six kids, two are completing their Phd's, one is working on his MBA, and the youngest is completing his degree in Philosophy and almost certainly will pursue a graduate degree in that field. I am quite sure our Thanksgiving day dinner conversation will easily exceed your mental capacity.

A filibuster is the ENDLESS use of cloture to block a vote you stupid lying fuck. There was ONE cloture vote. There wouldn't have been a second that failed, they'd have voted him down.

This is how stupid you are. You think that because the repeated use of blocking cloture (filibuster) is the same as using it once because in your tiny mind a tool can only have ONE use, which is stupid.

THE REPEATED USE OF BLOCKING CLOTURE IS A FILIBUSTER.

How stupid are you?

Then there's your lie that Republicans did it when it was BOTH PARTIES. You lied again.

You're stupid as shit, you don't know what you're talking about

 

[Winston]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

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

OK, stupid one.

There was no judicial filibuster before W. Democrats invented it. Then under Obama Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial appointments other than SCOTUS.

That Republicans approved two hard left Obama appointments, so Democrats didn't have to end it.

So there was zero reason they had to leave the selective filibuster Democrats invented one administration ago in place

The first time a judicial filibuster was used was in 1968 when Johnson tried to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice. You do realize Johnson was a democrat, so it was the Republicans that first started the practice. It was done through the cloture motion, which I am quite sure you don't even know what the hell that is.

There was no filibuster in 1968, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what the term filibuster means? You don't, do you?

You have zero understanding of what happened in 1968. There was one cloture vote. Democrats wanted Johnson to withdraw Fortas for chief justice, it wasn't "Republicans," you lied. Democrats didn't want to vote him down, they wanted him to be withdrawn so they didn't have to. Both parties voted against the single cloture attempt.

Also, if Johnson hadn't removed him, they were going to vote him down, not continue to vote against cloture. Again, that means it was NOT a filibuster, you lied.

Do you know what happened ultimately to the criminally corrupt Fortas?

Yes, I know what a filibuster is. Evidently you don't know what cloture is.

Cloture is a procedure used occasionally in the U.S. Senate to break a filibuster.

How to Break a Filibuster Using the U.S. Senate Rulebook

Find out how the cloture rule came to life in the U.S. Senate. Discover how often this measure is used.

www.thoughtco.com

.

LMAO

That doesn't contradict what I said.

A filibuster is when you block voting by blocking cloture endlessly, you stupid fuck. It's not using cloture ONCE.

And again, in your severe mental retardation, you LIED repeatedly.

They did not use that ONE cloture vote to filibuster, they used it to get LBJ to withdraw the nomination. YOU LIED.

And it was not a REPUBLICAN block of cloture, BOTH PARTIES voted for it. YOU LIED.

As for your argument that you use cloture to filibuster, that's just stupid. That is saying there can be ONLY ONE use for a tool. There isn't.

You're ignorant, kiddo. Learn what you're talking about before you waste the time of people better informed and smarter than you are.

Again filibuster is ENDLESS DEBATE you stupid jackass. It's not ONE cloture vote where if LBJ hasn't withdrawn the nomination they would have simply voted him down

Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer. Cloture, by definition, is used to stop a filibuster. You claimed there was no filibuster, but then you admit there was a cloture vote. I even posted the definition of cloture for you. There cannot be a cloture vote without a filibuster, how hard is that to understand?

And you display your own ignorance when talking about "both parties" voted for cloture. Like "Du Huh", it pretty much requires both parties to vote for cloture for the motion to pass. At the time period we are talking about it took 67 votes to pass a cloture motion. Even today, it still takes 60. So even today, a cloture motion cannot pass without votes from both parties.

Now as to your claims of being smarter and better informed. Well, you got one piece of evidence that pretty much makes that claim impossible. 60,000 posts. From my calculations, you are making about 6,000 posts a year. Certainly you would not want to make the claim that you get your information from this place, but with posting that frequently you hardly have time to be adequately informed. And one has to seriously question a person's mental stability, let alone their intellect, for spending that much time posting.

I own and run several businesses. The primary business does five million dollars a year in sales with a gross profit of 20%, it is an industry leader. I lead the nation in several categories. I have six kids, two are completing their Phd's, one is working on his MBA, and the youngest is completing his degree in Philosophy and almost certainly will pursue a graduate degree in that field. I am quite sure our Thanksgiving day dinner conversation will easily exceed your mental capacity.

A filibuster is the ENDLESS use of cloture to block a vote you stupid lying fuck. There was ONE cloture vote. There wouldn't have been a second that failed, they'd have voted him down.

This is how stupid you are. You think that because the repeated use of blocking cloture (filibuster) is the same as using it once because in your tiny mind a tool can only have ONE use, which is stupid.

THE REPEATED USE OF BLOCKING CLOTURE IS A FILIBUSTER.

How stupid are you?

Then there's your lie that Republicans did it when it was BOTH PARTIES. You lied again.

You're stupid as shit, you don't know what you're talking about

Damn, a filibuster has nothing to do with cloture. Cloture is the process used to end a filibuster. So, you can filibuster and never have cloture. But you can't have cloture without a filibuster. This is some simple ass shit and the fact that you can't wrap your head around easily reveals that your intelligence level is somewhere around the third grade, if that.

Cloture is a motion to end debate, period. A filibuster is endless talking that perpetuates debate until everyone just gets tired of it and moves on. Come on, some senators have read Dr. Suess during a filibuster. A cloture vote limits debate, requires the continuing debate to be "germane" to the issue at hand, you go ahead and look that up, and essentially ends the filibuster.

 

[kaz]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

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

OK, stupid one.

There was no judicial filibuster before W. Democrats invented it. Then under Obama Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial appointments other than SCOTUS.

That Republicans approved two hard left Obama appointments, so Democrats didn't have to end it.

So there was zero reason they had to leave the selective filibuster Democrats invented one administration ago in place

The first time a judicial filibuster was used was in 1968 when Johnson tried to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice. You do realize Johnson was a democrat, so it was the Republicans that first started the practice. It was done through the cloture motion, which I am quite sure you don't even know what the hell that is.

There was no filibuster in 1968, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what the term filibuster means? You don't, do you?

You have zero understanding of what happened in 1968. There was one cloture vote. Democrats wanted Johnson to withdraw Fortas for chief justice, it wasn't "Republicans," you lied. Democrats didn't want to vote him down, they wanted him to be withdrawn so they didn't have to. Both parties voted against the single cloture attempt.

Also, if Johnson hadn't removed him, they were going to vote him down, not continue to vote against cloture. Again, that means it was NOT a filibuster, you lied.

Do you know what happened ultimately to the criminally corrupt Fortas?

Yes, I know what a filibuster is. Evidently you don't know what cloture is.

Cloture is a procedure used occasionally in the U.S. Senate to break a filibuster.

How to Break a Filibuster Using the U.S. Senate Rulebook

Find out how the cloture rule came to life in the U.S. Senate. Discover how often this measure is used.

www.thoughtco.com

.

LMAO

That doesn't contradict what I said.

A filibuster is when you block voting by blocking cloture endlessly, you stupid fuck. It's not using cloture ONCE.

And again, in your severe mental retardation, you LIED repeatedly.

They did not use that ONE cloture vote to filibuster, they used it to get LBJ to withdraw the nomination. YOU LIED.

And it was not a REPUBLICAN block of cloture, BOTH PARTIES voted for it. YOU LIED.

As for your argument that you use cloture to filibuster, that's just stupid. That is saying there can be ONLY ONE use for a tool. There isn't.

You're ignorant, kiddo. Learn what you're talking about before you waste the time of people better informed and smarter than you are.

Again filibuster is ENDLESS DEBATE you stupid jackass. It's not ONE cloture vote where if LBJ hasn't withdrawn the nomination they would have simply voted him down

Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer. Cloture, by definition, is used to stop a filibuster. You claimed there was no filibuster, but then you admit there was a cloture vote. I even posted the definition of cloture for you. There cannot be a cloture vote without a filibuster, how hard is that to understand?

And you display your own ignorance when talking about "both parties" voted for cloture. Like "Du Huh", it pretty much requires both parties to vote for cloture for the motion to pass. At the time period we are talking about it took 67 votes to pass a cloture motion. Even today, it still takes 60. So even today, a cloture motion cannot pass without votes from both parties.

Now as to your claims of being smarter and better informed. Well, you got one piece of evidence that pretty much makes that claim impossible. 60,000 posts. From my calculations, you are making about 6,000 posts a year. Certainly you would not want to make the claim that you get your information from this place, but with posting that frequently you hardly have time to be adequately informed. And one has to seriously question a person's mental stability, let alone their intellect, for spending that much time posting.

I own and run several businesses. The primary business does five million dollars a year in sales with a gross profit of 20%, it is an industry leader. I lead the nation in several categories. I have six kids, two are completing their Phd's, one is working on his MBA, and the youngest is completing his degree in Philosophy and almost certainly will pursue a graduate degree in that field. I am quite sure our Thanksgiving day dinner conversation will easily exceed your mental capacity.

A filibuster is the ENDLESS use of cloture to block a vote you stupid lying fuck. There was ONE cloture vote. There wouldn't have been a second that failed, they'd have voted him down.

This is how stupid you are. You think that because the repeated use of blocking cloture (filibuster) is the same as using it once because in your tiny mind a tool can only have ONE use, which is stupid.

THE REPEATED USE OF BLOCKING CLOTURE IS A FILIBUSTER.

How stupid are you?

Then there's your lie that Republicans did it when it was BOTH PARTIES. You lied again.

You're stupid as shit, you don't know what you're talking about

Damn, a filibuster has nothing to do with cloture. Cloture is the process used to end a filibuster. So, you can filibuster and never have cloture. But you can't have cloture without a filibuster. This is some simple ass shit and the fact that you can't wrap your head around easily reveals that your intelligence level is somewhere around the third grade, if that.

Cloture is a motion to end debate, period. A filibuster is endless talking that perpetuates debate until everyone just gets tired of it and moves on. Come on, some senators have read Dr. Suess during a filibuster. A cloture vote limits debate, requires the continuing debate to be "germane" to the issue at hand, you go ahead and look that up, and essentially ends the filibuster.

Now you're just digging deeper in your hole ...

You actually said this: "a filibuster has nothing to do with cloture. Cloture is the process used to end a filibuster."

Just double speak from the double think guy. They have nothing to do with each other, then you explain how they are related. A filibuster is endless debate. Cloture ends debate by definition. That they have nothing to do with each other is more of your stupid shit.

That isn't why it was used under LBJ, they were just going to vote Fortas down if LBJ didn't withdraw him. It wasn't a filibuster.

And your lie is still out there that cloture was denied by Republicans when it was both parties. Democrats wanted LBJ to withdraw Fortas from chief justice so they didn't have to vote down their own party.

Speaking of which the question you hid from.

What was the issue with Fortas? It had nothing to do with party. And, WHAT BECAME OF FORTAS? So?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

Nobody ever said otherwise. The point is your inconsistency, not ours, because we're totally consistent.

You sir, are a total and complete liar.

You sir, are a rank coward and hypocrite. You ran from the point, which is how your position on filling vacancies flipflopped completely between 2016 and 2020.

Instead of weaseling and running, I suggest doing what the other Trump cultists do, which is proudly announcing your hypocrisy to the world, followed by a "screw you libtard, might makes right, so what are you gonna do about it?". If you're going to be a hypocrite, at least be a brave hypocrite.

Totally consistent ?

That's funny.

 

[jc456]

Funny, why don't the demofks legislate roe vs wade and get the SCOTUS out of the picture? they had the congress in 2009 and 10? wtf?

They could have killed all the babies they want without worrying about the SCOTUS.

 

[Winston]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

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

OK, stupid one.

There was no judicial filibuster before W. Democrats invented it. Then under Obama Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial appointments other than SCOTUS.

That Republicans approved two hard left Obama appointments, so Democrats didn't have to end it.

So there was zero reason they had to leave the selective filibuster Democrats invented one administration ago in place

The first time a judicial filibuster was used was in 1968 when Johnson tried to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice. You do realize Johnson was a democrat, so it was the Republicans that first started the practice. It was done through the cloture motion, which I am quite sure you don't even know what the hell that is.

There was no filibuster in 1968, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what the term filibuster means? You don't, do you?

You have zero understanding of what happened in 1968. There was one cloture vote. Democrats wanted Johnson to withdraw Fortas for chief justice, it wasn't "Republicans," you lied. Democrats didn't want to vote him down, they wanted him to be withdrawn so they didn't have to. Both parties voted against the single cloture attempt.

Also, if Johnson hadn't removed him, they were going to vote him down, not continue to vote against cloture. Again, that means it was NOT a filibuster, you lied.

Do you know what happened ultimately to the criminally corrupt Fortas?

Yes, I know what a filibuster is. Evidently you don't know what cloture is.

Cloture is a procedure used occasionally in the U.S. Senate to break a filibuster.

How to Break a Filibuster Using the U.S. Senate Rulebook

Find out how the cloture rule came to life in the U.S. Senate. Discover how often this measure is used.

www.thoughtco.com

.

LMAO

That doesn't contradict what I said.

A filibuster is when you block voting by blocking cloture endlessly, you stupid fuck. It's not using cloture ONCE.

And again, in your severe mental retardation, you LIED repeatedly.

They did not use that ONE cloture vote to filibuster, they used it to get LBJ to withdraw the nomination. YOU LIED.

And it was not a REPUBLICAN block of cloture, BOTH PARTIES voted for it. YOU LIED.

As for your argument that you use cloture to filibuster, that's just stupid. That is saying there can be ONLY ONE use for a tool. There isn't.

You're ignorant, kiddo. Learn what you're talking about before you waste the time of people better informed and smarter than you are.

Again filibuster is ENDLESS DEBATE you stupid jackass. It's not ONE cloture vote where if LBJ hasn't withdrawn the nomination they would have simply voted him down

Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer. Cloture, by definition, is used to stop a filibuster. You claimed there was no filibuster, but then you admit there was a cloture vote. I even posted the definition of cloture for you. There cannot be a cloture vote without a filibuster, how hard is that to understand?

And you display your own ignorance when talking about "both parties" voted for cloture. Like "Du Huh", it pretty much requires both parties to vote for cloture for the motion to pass. At the time period we are talking about it took 67 votes to pass a cloture motion. Even today, it still takes 60. So even today, a cloture motion cannot pass without votes from both parties.

Now as to your claims of being smarter and better informed. Well, you got one piece of evidence that pretty much makes that claim impossible. 60,000 posts. From my calculations, you are making about 6,000 posts a year. Certainly you would not want to make the claim that you get your information from this place, but with posting that frequently you hardly have time to be adequately informed. And one has to seriously question a person's mental stability, let alone their intellect, for spending that much time posting.

I own and run several businesses. The primary business does five million dollars a year in sales with a gross profit of 20%, it is an industry leader. I lead the nation in several categories. I have six kids, two are completing their Phd's, one is working on his MBA, and the youngest is completing his degree in Philosophy and almost certainly will pursue a graduate degree in that field. I am quite sure our Thanksgiving day dinner conversation will easily exceed your mental capacity.

A filibuster is the ENDLESS use of cloture to block a vote you stupid lying fuck. There was ONE cloture vote. There wouldn't have been a second that failed, they'd have voted him down.

This is how stupid you are. You think that because the repeated use of blocking cloture (filibuster) is the same as using it once because in your tiny mind a tool can only have ONE use, which is stupid.

THE REPEATED USE OF BLOCKING CLOTURE IS A FILIBUSTER.

How stupid are you?

Then there's your lie that Republicans did it when it was BOTH PARTIES. You lied again.

You're stupid as shit, you don't know what you're talking about

Damn, a filibuster has nothing to do with cloture. Cloture is the process used to end a filibuster. So, you can filibuster and never have cloture. But you can't have cloture without a filibuster. This is some simple ass shit and the fact that you can't wrap your head around easily reveals that your intelligence level is somewhere around the third grade, if that.

Cloture is a motion to end debate, period. A filibuster is endless talking that perpetuates debate until everyone just gets tired of it and moves on. Come on, some senators have read Dr. Suess during a filibuster. A cloture vote limits debate, requires the continuing debate to be "germane" to the issue at hand, you go ahead and look that up, and essentially ends the filibuster.

Now you're just digging deeper in your hole ...

You actually said this: "a filibuster has nothing to do with cloture. Cloture is the process used to end a filibuster."

Just double speak from the double think guy. They have nothing to do with each other, then you explain how they are related. A filibuster is endless debate. Cloture ends debate by definition. That they have nothing to do with each other is more of your stupid shit.

That isn't why it was used under LBJ, they were just going to vote Fortas down if LBJ didn't withdraw him. It wasn't a filibuster.

And your lie is still out there that cloture was denied by Republicans when it was both parties. Democrats wanted LBJ to withdraw Fortas from chief justice so they didn't have to vote down their own party.

Speaking of which the question you hid from.

What was the issue with Fortas? It had nothing to do with party. And, WHAT BECAME OF FORTAS? So?

Glad you are learning. Because did you, or did you not say, there was no filibuster concerning Fortas but there was cloture? That was my point. What happened to Fortas is not "germane" to our debate. Did you look that word up? But I will admit, Johnson was an "operator". He ranks as one of the top presidents in the modern era. Trump wishes he could even come close to Johnson.

 

[kaz]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

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

OK, stupid one.

There was no judicial filibuster before W. Democrats invented it. Then under Obama Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial appointments other than SCOTUS.

That Republicans approved two hard left Obama appointments, so Democrats didn't have to end it.

So there was zero reason they had to leave the selective filibuster Democrats invented one administration ago in place

The first time a judicial filibuster was used was in 1968 when Johnson tried to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice. You do realize Johnson was a democrat, so it was the Republicans that first started the practice. It was done through the cloture motion, which I am quite sure you don't even know what the hell that is.

There was no filibuster in 1968, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what the term filibuster means? You don't, do you?

You have zero understanding of what happened in 1968. There was one cloture vote. Democrats wanted Johnson to withdraw Fortas for chief justice, it wasn't "Republicans," you lied. Democrats didn't want to vote him down, they wanted him to be withdrawn so they didn't have to. Both parties voted against the single cloture attempt.

Also, if Johnson hadn't removed him, they were going to vote him down, not continue to vote against cloture. Again, that means it was NOT a filibuster, you lied.

Do you know what happened ultimately to the criminally corrupt Fortas?

Yes, I know what a filibuster is. Evidently you don't know what cloture is.

Cloture is a procedure used occasionally in the U.S. Senate to break a filibuster.

How to Break a Filibuster Using the U.S. Senate Rulebook

Find out how the cloture rule came to life in the U.S. Senate. Discover how often this measure is used.

www.thoughtco.com

.

LMAO

That doesn't contradict what I said.

A filibuster is when you block voting by blocking cloture endlessly, you stupid fuck. It's not using cloture ONCE.

And again, in your severe mental retardation, you LIED repeatedly.

They did not use that ONE cloture vote to filibuster, they used it to get LBJ to withdraw the nomination. YOU LIED.

And it was not a REPUBLICAN block of cloture, BOTH PARTIES voted for it. YOU LIED.

As for your argument that you use cloture to filibuster, that's just stupid. That is saying there can be ONLY ONE use for a tool. There isn't.

You're ignorant, kiddo. Learn what you're talking about before you waste the time of people better informed and smarter than you are.

Again filibuster is ENDLESS DEBATE you stupid jackass. It's not ONE cloture vote where if LBJ hasn't withdrawn the nomination they would have simply voted him down

Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer. Cloture, by definition, is used to stop a filibuster. You claimed there was no filibuster, but then you admit there was a cloture vote. I even posted the definition of cloture for you. There cannot be a cloture vote without a filibuster, how hard is that to understand?

And you display your own ignorance when talking about "both parties" voted for cloture. Like "Du Huh", it pretty much requires both parties to vote for cloture for the motion to pass. At the time period we are talking about it took 67 votes to pass a cloture motion. Even today, it still takes 60. So even today, a cloture motion cannot pass without votes from both parties.

Now as to your claims of being smarter and better informed. Well, you got one piece of evidence that pretty much makes that claim impossible. 60,000 posts. From my calculations, you are making about 6,000 posts a year. Certainly you would not want to make the claim that you get your information from this place, but with posting that frequently you hardly have time to be adequately informed. And one has to seriously question a person's mental stability, let alone their intellect, for spending that much time posting.

I own and run several businesses. The primary business does five million dollars a year in sales with a gross profit of 20%, it is an industry leader. I lead the nation in several categories. I have six kids, two are completing their Phd's, one is working on his MBA, and the youngest is completing his degree in Philosophy and almost certainly will pursue a graduate degree in that field. I am quite sure our Thanksgiving day dinner conversation will easily exceed your mental capacity.

A filibuster is the ENDLESS use of cloture to block a vote you stupid lying fuck. There was ONE cloture vote. There wouldn't have been a second that failed, they'd have voted him down.

This is how stupid you are. You think that because the repeated use of blocking cloture (filibuster) is the same as using it once because in your tiny mind a tool can only have ONE use, which is stupid.

THE REPEATED USE OF BLOCKING CLOTURE IS A FILIBUSTER.

How stupid are you?

Then there's your lie that Republicans did it when it was BOTH PARTIES. You lied again.

You're stupid as shit, you don't know what you're talking about

Damn, a filibuster has nothing to do with cloture. Cloture is the process used to end a filibuster. So, you can filibuster and never have cloture. But you can't have cloture without a filibuster. This is some simple ass shit and the fact that you can't wrap your head around easily reveals that your intelligence level is somewhere around the third grade, if that.

Cloture is a motion to end debate, period. A filibuster is endless talking that perpetuates debate until everyone just gets tired of it and moves on. Come on, some senators have read Dr. Suess during a filibuster. A cloture vote limits debate, requires the continuing debate to be "germane" to the issue at hand, you go ahead and look that up, and essentially ends the filibuster.

Now you're just digging deeper in your hole ...

You actually said this: "a filibuster has nothing to do with cloture. Cloture is the process used to end a filibuster."

Just double speak from the double think guy. They have nothing to do with each other, then you explain how they are related. A filibuster is endless debate. Cloture ends debate by definition. That they have nothing to do with each other is more of your stupid shit.

That isn't why it was used under LBJ, they were just going to vote Fortas down if LBJ didn't withdraw him. It wasn't a filibuster.

And your lie is still out there that cloture was denied by Republicans when it was both parties. Democrats wanted LBJ to withdraw Fortas from chief justice so they didn't have to vote down their own party.

Speaking of which the question you hid from.

What was the issue with Fortas? It had nothing to do with party. And, WHAT BECAME OF FORTAS? So?

Glad you are learning. Because did you, or did you not say, there was no filibuster concerning Fortas but there was cloture? That was my point. What happened to Fortas is not "germane" to our debate. Did you look that word up? But I will admit, Johnson was an "operator". He ranks as one of the top presidents in the modern era. Trump wishes he could even come close to Johnson.

I'll take your babble and double talk as you're realizing how full of shit you are.

Filibuster is endless debate which is ended by cloture. Your word games around that are to the point of silly.

There was no filibuster for Fortas and you lied that it was "Republicans" who denied cloture when it was both parties.




So what happened to Fortas? Obviously you know and can't admit it, can you? Even you know how stupid you are regarding your idiotic claims this had anything to do with party.

Hint: It's the same reason DEMOCRATS were ready to vote Fortas down.

So what was it?

 

[georgephillip]

Democrat leaders are acting like a bunch of imbeciles they are going to blow this election with their putting "stacking the Supreme Court" on the table! By threatening this consequence they are giving the Republican Party a gigantic size hypodermic needle of adrenaline for the Republican Party

Republicans have been packing the Supreme Court since Nixon was in office. During that time Republican presidents have seen 15 of their SCOTUS nominees confirmed compared to 4 SCOTUS confirmations for Democrat president.

SCOTUS doesn't need to be packed; it needs unpacking.

Packing the Courts: How Republicans Spent Decades Installing Judges to Cement Minority Rule

 

[kaz]

Democrat leaders are acting like a bunch of imbeciles they are going to blow this election with their putting "stacking the Supreme Court" on the table! By threatening this consequence they are giving the Republican Party a gigantic size hypodermic needle of adrenaline for the Republican Party

Republicans have been packing the Supreme Court since Nixon was in office. During that time Republican presidents have seen 15 of their SCOTUS nominees confirmed compared to 4 SCOTUS confirmations for Democrat president.

SCOTUS doesn't need to be packed; it needs unpacking.

Packing the Courts: How Republicans Spent Decades Installing Judges to Cement Minority Rule

You're a moron. There are 9 justices and have been for 150 years.

How stupid are you? You thought Republicans increased the number of justices? You need to take a civics class again. Don't go to government schools this time, stupid ass.

My God, you thought Republicans were increasing the number of justices. Democrats are just the flat out dumbest people

 

[georgephillip]

You're a moron. There are 9 justices and have been for 150 years.

So what, Einstein?
Show me where SCOTUS is limited to nine justices?
The 9th Circuit has 29.
Expand SCOTUS to 27 and extend its calendar to 12 months.
Each case would be decided by nine justices selected randomly from the 27. Dark money plaintiffs like those behind the nomination of Catholic, corporate whores would have no way of knowing in advance which justices would rule on their undemocratic tripe.