Democrats: Here's who's to blame for overturning of Roe...

Republican George H W Bush
Thomas, Clarence 52-48 Oct 15, 1991
What happened to needing 60 votes?

Republican George W. Bush
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. 58-42 Jan 31, 2006
Again, why no 60 votes needed?

Republican Donald Trump
(because Mitch McConnell nuked the supreme court filibuster)
Barrett, Amy Coney 52-48 Oct 26, 2020
Kavanaugh, Brett 50-48 Oct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M. 54-45 Apr 7, 2017

Not a single nominee even came close to getting 60 votes
Do you not know the difference between cloture and confirmation?

You need 60 votes to end debate on the confirmation proceedings and to bring the confirmation to a vote.

And you'll notice many more Republicans voted for Democrats confirmations than vice versa.
 
I know. Like Plessy. Or Dred Scott.
Plessy was decided 7-1
Brown overturned it by a 9-0 vote.

An example of how cases should be overturned, by a bigger majority the other way.

BTW, Dred Scott was never overturned. It's conclusions are still valid.
 
Wrong again. Very wrong.

His numbers are right. California has 55 electors, and Montana has 3

You can google it.


California 55
Montana 3

His numbers are right. California has 55 electors, and Montana has 3

California has 53 electors because of their population and Montana has 1.
 
Plessy was decided 7-1
Brown overturned it by a 9-0 vote.

An example of how cases should be overturned, by a bigger majority the other way.

BTW, Dred Scott was never overturned. It's conclusions are still valid.

Plessy was decided 7-1
Brown overturned it by a 9-0 vote.


But stability and whims........
 
Um...removing the filibuster IS changing the rules!

And it's funny how you neglected to point out McConnell's blazing hypocrisy by refusing to confirm Garland because it was a presidential election year, and yet he confirmed TWO judges in the next presidential election year.

So, yeah. It's McConnell's fault. Bigly.
Republicans controlled the Senate.

Had Democrats controlled the Senate in 2015, they could have confirmed Garland.

If Hillary had won in 2016, they would have confirmed a moderate Hillary pick.

Had Democrats won control of the Senate in 2018...they would have been able to hold off the confirmation just like Mcconnell did.


No hypocrisy at all.
 
Do you not know the difference between cloture and confirmation?

You need 60 votes to end debate on the confirmation proceedings and to bring the confirmation to a vote.

And you'll notice many more Republicans voted for Democrats confirmations than vice versa.
It means democrats voted to bring the nomination up for a vote, while republicans didn't. Republicans routinely fillibustered or blue slipped judicial nominees of democrats, even when they later got overwhelming support.

And as for republicans voting for democratic nominees, it's because democrats nominated centralist nominees. Where republicans nominated judges who wanted to overturn roe v wade.
 
His numbers are right. California has 55 electors, and Montana has 3

California has 53 electors because of their population and Montana has 1.
If you want to play semantics, you should say that california has 52 electors due to their population and Montana has 0.

Because every state gets a minimum of 3 electors. Everything past that is what you would call "because of their population"
 
Wrong again. Very wrong.

His numbers are right. California has 55 electors, and Montana has 3

You can google it.


California 55
Montana 3
Regardless, it's a wash...Rhode Island has a million population and four electors in 2020.

Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii...small states, low population, three to four delegates.
 
iu
 
Regardless, it's a wash...Rhode Island has a million population and four electors in 2020.

Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii...small states, low population, three to four delegates.
  1. Wyoming (Population: 581,075)
  2. Vermont (Population: 623,251)
  3. District of Columbia (Population: 714,153)
  4. Alaska (Population: 724,357)
  5. North Dakota (Population: 770,026)
  6. South Dakota (Population: 896,581)
  7. Delaware (Population: 990,334)
  8. Rhode Island (Population: 1,061,509)
  9. Montana (Population: 1,085,004)
  10. Maine (Population: 1,354,522)
 
It means democrats voted to bring the nomination up for a vote, while republicans didn't. Republicans routinely fillibustered or blue slipped judicial nominees of democrats, even when they later got overwhelming support.

And as for republicans voting for democratic nominees, it's because democrats nominated centralist nominees. Where republicans nominated judges who wanted to overturn roe v wade.
What supreme court justice other than Garland did the Republicans not vote for cloture?

I can think of three Democrats refused to vote for.

AND NONE WERE TREATED LIKE THOMAS AND KAVANAUGH...

...YET.

So I think you are confused
 
But stability and whims........
It's no different than in sports. If a team beats another team 7-1 you would say they were clearly the better team.
If the other team in a rematch wins 6-3 you would say the first team was still better, the second team just got lucky.

But if the second team come back and beats them 9-0 you would say they were clearly better.

Brown came back to trounce Plessy, so there was no question which was the better dcecision.

Dobbs was not a clear victory. And required nominees to purposefully deceive the senate about their not having an opinion on what would clearly be an upcoming case.
 
It's no different than in sports. If a team beats another team 7-1 you would say they were clearly the better team.
If the other team in a rematch wins 6-3 you would say the first team was still better, the second team just got lucky.

But if the second team come back and beats them 9-0 you would say they were clearly better.

Brown came back to trounce Plessy, so there was no question which was the better dcecision.

Dobbs was not a clear victory. And required nominees to purposefully deceive the senate about their not having an opinion on what would clearly be an upcoming case.
You're just tapdancin' now.

Looking for a nail to hang any old flawed argument on to save face.

The score is inconsequential...if the team that plays the best game...a metaphor in this instance for the best constitutional argument... wins, then the score is trivial.
 
It's no different than in sports. If a team beats another team 7-1 you would say they were clearly the better team.
If the other team in a rematch wins 6-3 you would say the first team was still better, the second team just got lucky.

But if the second team come back and beats them 9-0 you would say they were clearly better.

So we had to keep the awful, terrible no good 7-1 decision until it could be reversed 9-0?

Reversing it 5-4 in 1910 would have been wrong? Right vs wrong loses to "better team"?
 
  1. Wyoming (Population: 581,075)
  2. Vermont (Population: 623,251)
  3. District of Columbia (Population: 714,153)
  4. Alaska (Population: 724,357)
  5. North Dakota (Population: 770,026)
  6. South Dakota (Population: 896,581)
  7. Delaware (Population: 990,334)
  8. Rhode Island (Population: 1,061,509)
  9. Montana (Population: 1,085,004)
  10. Maine (Population: 1,354,522)
BTW...that's five Red States, four Blue States (3 states 1 district) and one that's 3/4s blue and 1/4 red in 2016 and 2020 for the first time since 1828.

Blue that's as close to a wash as you can get.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top