Historic Censure Moves Forward

[Billiejeens]

When Trent Lott made his remarks about Strom Thurmond he was pressured to step down as Senate Majority Leader. Perhaps Schumer should do the same as Minority Leader.

Only because Republicans are total pussies.

 

[CWayne]

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing?

How do you figure, snowflake?

After 4 years the Democrats Impeached without a crime, without any evidence, and without any witnesses.

Schumer - on tv in front of the world - pointed to the USSC Building, called out the Justices by name - 'I am telling YOU, Gorsuch, I am telling YOU, Kavanaugh' - ad told them they would 'pay a price' and 'would never know what HIT them'.

You sound as stupid as Schumer who tried to claim when the backlash hit that he was NOT talking to the USSC Justices.....

REALLY?!

'I am telling YOU, Gorsuch, I am telling YOU, Kavanaugh'

REALLY?!

Bwuhahahahahaha!

Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?

If McConnel said it, you'd be walking around with a rope in your back pocket.

 

[CWayne]

"Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?"

Intimidation does not have to specifically be physical harm, it can be political retaliation, or anything else that could be detrimental to someone's career, livelihood, whatever. What Schumer said was intimidating, and when he specifically named Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is where I think he crossed the line and went too far. It's one thing to bitch about the SCOTUS in general but another to go after an individual or individuals. Under the applicable statute, a threat of any kind made to influence their decisions in an ongoing case is prima facie proof of obstruction of justice. No threat of violence is required.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 115, whoever threatens a federal official, “with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished” by a fine or imprisonment of as much as ten years.

I would add this: it's about time politicians and others realized that freedom of speech requires some discretion. You do not threaten people, end of story. Maybe censure isn't enough, maybe Schumer ought to be the one paying a price. And what if somebody decides to take a shot at, let alone wound or even kill Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, and he/or she says I did it after hearing Schumer say what he said. I doubt that Schumer should be held legally accountable for that maybe it's about time there were real consequences for shooting your mouth off. And BTW, I do not exclude President Trump either.

I think if he were prosecuted, he would likely get off... with a good lawyer....

only because they would have to prove he was speaking about one official case the Justices were working on that he pointed to with his threat, (maybe that is possible, but maybe it is not?)

seems like the Justices were not sitting in an official hearing or working on an official case, at the time of the alleged threat....at the protest, or were they? And we do have the right to protest and object to anything the gvt does, including Supreme court justices....

Then his lawyers would probably argue free speech, the right to protest issues of the govt's handling of things or issues.... and by the time the trial was over, there would likely be a couple of jurors that would not vote to convict, because it was not beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.... Censure is likely the best they can do..

Just my opinion....

These are all of the reasons President Trump supporters have claimed Trump can demean federal judges by name even, causing uproar with his followers against these judges that he calls out, in his tweets....

And why they did not blame trump for inciting violence by his supporters like the guy who shot up the synagogue and the anthrax threat guy, who claimed it was Trump's words that influenced them....?

Or Sarah Palin PAC with a list of Democratic senators and congress critters, with cross hairs on.... was not meant as a threat and did not really cause Gabby Gifford's attack though named on her list, who was shot and mamed forever....

Or president Trump's threat at one of his rallies, saying Hillary would take their 2nd amendment rights away if elected, but maybe some 2nd amendmenters, could take care of that problem, if she were elected.... free speech and a joke so others say...?

None of that is makes any sense.

Schumer cannot be prosecuted because he is not held to the same laws the rest of us are. As a sitting US Senator, he immune. The only price he can pay is political.

 

[Nostra]

I'm not saying I agree with censuring, but do you feel Schumer's actions were appropriate?

The ambiguous words he used are exactly what the propagandist need to manipulate the dittoheads. He shouldn't have left it open ended to the negative interpretation that he must have known was coming.

Does it matter? And don't you think his words could encourage others to inflict physical harm?

Anyone deranged enough to have Chuckies word tip him over the edge would probably go over sooner than later. So I suppose they could. It's not like he points at the SC and calls them Evil People or the Enemies of State all the time.

There was nothing "ambiguous" about his words. You are either too dumb to know the meaning of the words you use, or are such a hack you think using such words will change reality.

Which is it?

 

[Care4all]

"Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?"

Intimidation does not have to specifically be physical harm, it can be political retaliation, or anything else that could be detrimental to someone's career, livelihood, whatever. What Schumer said was intimidating, and when he specifically named Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is where I think he crossed the line and went too far. It's one thing to bitch about the SCOTUS in general but another to go after an individual or individuals. Under the applicable statute, a threat of any kind made to influence their decisions in an ongoing case is prima facie proof of obstruction of justice. No threat of violence is required.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 115, whoever threatens a federal official, “with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished” by a fine or imprisonment of as much as ten years.

I would add this: it's about time politicians and others realized that freedom of speech requires some discretion. You do not threaten people, end of story. Maybe censure isn't enough, maybe Schumer ought to be the one paying a price. And what if somebody decides to take a shot at, let alone wound or even kill Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, and he/or she says I did it after hearing Schumer say what he said. I doubt that Schumer should be held legally accountable for that maybe it's about time there were real consequences for shooting your mouth off. And BTW, I do not exclude President Trump either.

I think if he were prosecuted, he would likely get off... with a good lawyer....

only because they would have to prove he was speaking about one official case the Justices were working on that he pointed to with his threat, (maybe that is possible, but maybe it is not?)

seems like the Justices were not sitting in an official hearing or working on an official case, at the time of the alleged threat....at the protest, or were they? And we do have the right to protest and object to anything the gvt does, including Supreme court justices....

Then his lawyers would probably argue free speech, the right to protest issues of the govt's handling of things or issues.... and by the time the trial was over, there would likely be a couple of jurors that would not vote to convict, because it was not beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.... Censure is likely the best they can do..

Just my opinion....

These are all of the reasons President Trump supporters have claimed Trump can demean federal judges by name even, causing uproar with his followers against these judges that he calls out, in his tweets....

And why they did not blame trump for inciting violence by his supporters like the guy who shot up the synagogue and the anthrax threat guy, who claimed it was Trump's words that influenced them....?

Or Sarah Palin PAC with a list of Democratic senators and congress critters, with cross hairs on.... was not meant as a threat and did not really cause Gabby Gifford's attack though named on her list, who was shot and mamed forever....

Or president Trump's threat at one of his rallies, saying Hillary would take their 2nd amendment rights away if elected, but maybe some 2nd amendmenters, could take care of that problem, if she were elected.... free speech and a joke so others say...?

None of that is makes any sense.

Schumer cannot be prosecuted because he is not held to the same laws the rest of us are. As a sitting US Senator, he immune. The only price he can pay is political.

How so? I've seen plenty of congress critters charged and prosecuted for crimes while in office.... my understanding is that they can not be arrested while on the job in D.C., that's it.... anywhere else they can be....

we just had 2 Republican Congressmen charged with felonies, found guilty in their trials, a couple of months ago, while they were still serving?

 

[CWayne]

"Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?"

Intimidation does not have to specifically be physical harm, it can be political retaliation, or anything else that could be detrimental to someone's career, livelihood, whatever. What Schumer said was intimidating, and when he specifically named Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is where I think he crossed the line and went too far. It's one thing to bitch about the SCOTUS in general but another to go after an individual or individuals. Under the applicable statute, a threat of any kind made to influence their decisions in an ongoing case is prima facie proof of obstruction of justice. No threat of violence is required.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 115, whoever threatens a federal official, “with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished” by a fine or imprisonment of as much as ten years.

I would add this: it's about time politicians and others realized that freedom of speech requires some discretion. You do not threaten people, end of story. Maybe censure isn't enough, maybe Schumer ought to be the one paying a price. And what if somebody decides to take a shot at, let alone wound or even kill Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, and he/or she says I did it after hearing Schumer say what he said. I doubt that Schumer should be held legally accountable for that maybe it's about time there were real consequences for shooting your mouth off. And BTW, I do not exclude President Trump either.

I think if he were prosecuted, he would likely get off... with a good lawyer....

only because they would have to prove he was speaking about one official case the Justices were working on that he pointed to with his threat, (maybe that is possible, but maybe it is not?)

seems like the Justices were not sitting in an official hearing or working on an official case, at the time of the alleged threat....at the protest, or were they? And we do have the right to protest and object to anything the gvt does, including Supreme court justices....

Then his lawyers would probably argue free speech, the right to protest issues of the govt's handling of things or issues.... and by the time the trial was over, there would likely be a couple of jurors that would not vote to convict, because it was not beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.... Censure is likely the best they can do..

Just my opinion....

These are all of the reasons President Trump supporters have claimed Trump can demean federal judges by name even, causing uproar with his followers against these judges that he calls out, in his tweets....

And why they did not blame trump for inciting violence by his supporters like the guy who shot up the synagogue and the anthrax threat guy, who claimed it was Trump's words that influenced them....?

Or Sarah Palin PAC with a list of Democratic senators and congress critters, with cross hairs on.... was not meant as a threat and did not really cause Gabby Gifford's attack though named on her list, who was shot and mamed forever....

Or president Trump's threat at one of his rallies, saying Hillary would take their 2nd amendment rights away if elected, but maybe some 2nd amendmenters, could take care of that problem, if she were elected.... free speech and a joke so others say...?

None of that is makes any sense.

Schumer cannot be prosecuted because he is not held to the same laws the rest of us are. As a sitting US Senator, he immune. The only price he can pay is political.

How so? I've seen plenty of congress critters charged and prosecuted for crimes while in office.... my understanding is that they can not be arrested while on the job in D.C., that's it.... anywhere else they can be....

we just had 2 Republican Congressmen charged with felonies, found guilty in their trials, a couple of months ago, while they were still serving?

All Congress is immune for their speech, even incitement to riot. They can be prosecuted after they leave office, but really, does that ever happen?

 

[hadit]

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing?

How do you figure, snowflake?

After 4 years the Democrats Impeached without a crime, without any evidence, and without any witnesses.

Schumer - on tv in front of the world - pointed to the USSC Building, called out the Justices by name - 'I am telling YOU, Gorsuch, I am telling YOU, Kavanaugh' - ad told them they would 'pay a price' and 'would never know what HIT them'.

You sound as stupid as Schumer who tried to claim when the backlash hit that he was NOT talking to the USSC Justices.....

REALLY?!

'I am telling YOU, Gorsuch, I am telling YOU, Kavanaugh'

REALLY?!

Bwuhahahahahaha!

Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?

How can you retaliate politically? They have a lifetime appointment. He meant harm, he meant harassment, he meant attack.

 

[tyroneweaver]

SHAME ON SCHUMER
GOP pushes ahead with historic censure over SCOTUS threat


"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."


View attachment 311322

"What the hell was I thinking?"




Schumer’s Supreme Court saga not over, as GOP presses forward on historic censure

Schumer should change his name to Beaky
Look at the buzz on that lefty

 

[tyroneweaver]

 

[Dick Foster]

Trump said he wanted to 'lock up' Hillary. Do you think he meant to kidnap her and put her in his crawl space?

Nah...put her ass in jail where she belongs.....

Yeah and because they're both so evil, nasty and fucked up, put Schiff in the cell with her. That would serve them both right.

 

[L.K.Eder]

SHAME ON SCHUMER
GOP pushes ahead with historic censure over SCOTUS threat


"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."


View attachment 311322

"What the hell was I thinking?"




Schumer’s Supreme Court saga not over, as GOP presses forward on historic censure

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing? And the downward spiral continues...

Hey, wanna play by Marcus of Queensbury rules, then fine. But your side doesn't! We owe you 3 years worth, and we are just starting the repayment plan-)

"Marcus of Queensbury". Ask me how i know that you are another talk radio victim. Lol.

 

[rightwinger]

Schumer made a perfect speech

 

[jc456]

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing? And the downward spiral continues...

Hey, wanna play by Marcus of Queensbury rules, then fine. But your side doesn't! We owe you 3 years worth, and we are just starting the repayment plan-)

Let's not forget the 11 Benghazi Congressional hearings, Whitewater, and the numerous investigations in between. Let's not forget McConnell refusing to hold SCOTUS hearings to deny Obama the seat. No, there are no innocents in Washington. Obviously no adults there either.

There will be 12 Benghazi hearings, the 11 that happened, and the 1 yet to happen. Doubt me? Watch! And that one will come out much different than the 1st eleven-)

As far as the Supreme Court, that is on Harry Reid, your own guy, not us. You people thought you were slick, then it backfired, and now your bitching. He made the rule, not us! Look back before you argue.

You know, you may be correct in hating Trump with a passion, because I have little doubt that if he gets re-elected and carries the House and Senate on his coat tails, you people are done for at least 10 years!

And when he doesn't have to worry about re-election, I can only imagine the "can of whoop a**" he opens on you people for fooling around through his 1st term. I almost pity you, but not quite-)

You managed to miss the point entirely. It's not that the Dems didn't do politically expedient things when they could just like the GOP. The point is that NO ONE STARTED IT!!! Alas, it appears no one is willing to stop it.

You MISS THE POINT too!

If what the GOP is putting out is a smoke screen, then I agree with you, since it has been obvious that is exactly what the Left has done.

But, what if the GOP is not! What if they have the Obama Administration dead to rights!

Then I say, carry on. If we got them, then stick it to them. The American people deserve to know what the hell is going on.

I am not going to go into a diatribe about I KNOW they have them, but I am pretty damn sure.

Why?

Because 1/2 of the GOP was against Trump through at least 2016, and then something happened; the GOP in the House blew the whistle on what they found. To think that 1/2 to 1/3rd of the GOP would switch sides when they were actually willing to vote for Hilly as a better choice is ridiculous. THEY KNOW SOMETHING, and reasonably sure, they can PROVE SOMETHING!

Yeah, it is all political expediency, I will give you that, but the fact is------------->people who were totally against Trump, found a reason to believe that no matter WHAT they thought of him, the other side was worse, and know it is coming out before the election, so they better get on the correct side. Add to that, the continued attempts to get rid of him by the Democrats, and you know it is more likely true, than not.

While we do not believe it, politics is a full contact sport. They want power......all of them......and they will do ANYTHING to acquire, or maintain their power. No matter what you think, if the Trump Administration has ANYTHING at all, it is coming out long before November the 3rd.

I am sure you disagree, so that means we can agree to disagree, lol. But trust me on this, GOPers are notorious COWARDS as you probably well know. Soooooooo, if you don't believe what I have written, then you just suggested that those COWARDS, committed political suicide.

Let us see who is correct-)

Oh fk no, demofks are kings

 

[jc456]

SHAME ON SCHUMER
GOP pushes ahead with historic censure over SCOTUS threat


"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."


View attachment 311322

"What the hell was I thinking?"




Schumer’s Supreme Court saga not over, as GOP presses forward on historic censure

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing? And the downward spiral continues...

Hey, wanna play by Marcus of Queensbury rules, then fine. But your side doesn't! We owe you 3 years worth, and we are just starting the repayment plan-)

"Marcus of Queensbury". Ask me how i know that you are another talk radio victim. Lol.

Cause you’re a parrot?

 

[toobfreak]

SHAME ON SCHUMER
GOP pushes ahead with historic censure over SCOTUS threat
"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."
View attachment 311322
"What the hell was I thinking?"
Schumer’s Supreme Court saga not over, as GOP presses forward on historic censure

God, I've seen many a dog's ass that was better looking than Schumer's face. Get this jerk out of office.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Schumer should just resign. He is a disgrace.

 

[task0778]

"Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?"

Intimidation does not have to specifically be physical harm, it can be political retaliation, or anything else that could be detrimental to someone's career, livelihood, whatever. What Schumer said was intimidating, and when he specifically named Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is where I think he crossed the line and went too far. It's one thing to bitch about the SCOTUS in general but another to go after an individual or individuals. Under the applicable statute, a threat of any kind made to influence their decisions in an ongoing case is prima facie proof of obstruction of justice. No threat of violence is required.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 115, whoever threatens a federal official, “with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished” by a fine or imprisonment of as much as ten years.

I would add this: it's about time politicians and others realized that freedom of speech requires some discretion. You do not threaten people, end of story. Maybe censure isn't enough, maybe Schumer ought to be the one paying a price. And what if somebody decides to take a shot at, let alone wound or even kill Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, and he/or she says I did it after hearing Schumer say what he said. I doubt that Schumer should be held legally accountable for that maybe it's about time there were real consequences for shooting your mouth off. And BTW, I do not exclude President Trump either.

I think if he were prosecuted, he would likely get off... with a good lawyer....

only because they would have to prove he was speaking about one official case the Justices were working on that he pointed to with his threat, (maybe that is possible, but maybe it is not?)

seems like the Justices were not sitting in an official hearing or working on an official case, at the time of the alleged threat....at the protest, or were they? And we do have the right to protest and object to anything the gvt does, including Supreme court justices....

Then his lawyers would probably argue free speech, the right to protest issues of the govt's handling of things or issues.... and by the time the trial was over, there would likely be a couple of jurors that would not vote to convict, because it was not beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.... Censure is likely the best they can do..

Just my opinion....

These are all of the reasons President Trump supporters have claimed Trump can demean federal judges by name even, causing uproar with his followers against these judges that he calls out, in his tweets....

And why they did not blame trump for inciting violence by his supporters like the guy who shot up the synagogue and the anthrax threat guy, who claimed it was Trump's words that influenced them....?

Or Sarah Palin PAC with a list of Democratic senators and congress critters, with cross hairs on.... was not meant as a threat and did not really cause Gabby Gifford's attack though named on her list, who was shot and mamed forever....

Or president Trump's threat at one of his rallies, saying Hillary would take their 2nd amendment rights away if elected, but maybe some 2nd amendmenters, could take care of that problem, if she were elected.... free speech and a joke so others say...?

None of that is makes any sense.

Schumer cannot be prosecuted because he is not held to the same laws the rest of us are. As a sitting US Senator, he immune. The only price he can pay is political.

How so? I've seen plenty of congress critters charged and prosecuted for crimes while in office.... my understanding is that they can not be arrested while on the job in D.C., that's it.... anywhere else they can be....

we just had 2 Republican Congressmen charged with felonies, found guilty in their trials, a couple of months ago, while they were still serving?

All Congress is immune for their speech, even incitement to riot. They can be prosecuted after they leave office, but really, does that ever happen?

All Congress is immune for their speech, even incitement to riot. Not exactly:

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution states in part,

for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place.

The purpose of the clause is to prevent the arrest and prosecution of unpopular legislators based on their political views.

The U.S. Supreme Court has gradually defined and redefined the Speech or Debate Clause in several cases over the years. The first case concerning the Speech and Debate Clause was Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. (13 Otto) 168, 26 L. Ed. 377 (1880). The Court has interpreted the Speech or Debate Clause to mean that members of Congress and their aides are immune from prosecution for their "legislative acts." This does not mean that members of Congress and their aides may not be prosecuted. Rather, evidence of legislative acts may not be used in a prosecution against a member of Congress or a congressional aide.

The main controversy surrounding the Speech or Debate Clause concerns the scope of the phrase "legislative acts." The phrase obviously encompasses speeches and debates on the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives. According to the Supreme Court, voting, preparing committee reports, and conducting committee hearings also are legislative acts, but republishing legislative materials for distribution to constituents and accepting a bribe to influence a vote are not.

Congressional immunity

ME: I do not believe what Schumer said and the circumstances he said it would fall under the "legislative acts" exemption.


"only because they would have to prove he was speaking about one official case the Justices were working on that he pointed to with his threat"

ME: I found nothing to back this assertion. I ain't saying it's not true. But I did find an opinion that basically says the intimidated individual(s) would have to believe Schumer has some means to affect them in some harmful way. If Schumer can't do nothin' and the victims know that, then the intimidation kinda loses its validity. Which might be Schumer's way out of prosecution.


"And we do have the right to protest and object to anything the govt does, including Supreme court justices...."

ME: Of course, but that doesn't extend to intimidation.


"Censure is likely the best they can do.."

ME: Probably, if that even. Would any Dems vote for that? Doubtful. Would any Repubs not vote for it? I dunno. I gotta be honest though, I do think that we gotta tone down the rhetoric somewhat, especially by our elected representatives and appointees. We definitely do not need the inciteful speech that seems to be more prevalent these days.


"my understanding is that they can not be arrested while on the job in D.C., that's it.... anywhere else they can be...."

The House or Senate has to be in session, they can't be arrested if that is the case, but once in recess I think they can.

 

[EvMetro]

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing?

How do you figure, snowflake?

After 4 years the Democrats Impeached without a crime, without any evidence, and without any witnesses.

Schumer - on tv in front of the world - pointed to the USSC Building, called out the Justices by name - 'I am telling YOU, Gorsuch, I am telling YOU, Kavanaugh' - ad told them they would 'pay a price' and 'would never know what HIT them'.

You sound as stupid as Schumer who tried to claim when the backlash hit that he was NOT talking to the USSC Justices.....

REALLY?!

'I am telling YOU, Gorsuch, I am telling YOU, Kavanaugh'

REALLY?!

Bwuhahahahahaha!

Do you really believe Schumer was threatening them with physical harm rather than political retaliation?

If you have to ask this, then he needs to be censured.

 

[L.K.Eder]

SHAME ON SCHUMER
GOP pushes ahead with historic censure over SCOTUS threat


"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."


View attachment 311322

"What the hell was I thinking?"




Schumer’s Supreme Court saga not over, as GOP presses forward on historic censure

So after complaining about the partisan impeachment, the GOP is going to do exactly the same thing? And the downward spiral continues...

Hey, wanna play by Marcus of Queensbury rules, then fine. But your side doesn't! We owe you 3 years worth, and we are just starting the repayment plan-)

"Marcus of Queensbury". Ask me how i know that you are another talk radio victim. Lol.

Cause you’re a parrot?

did that make sense to you?

 

[imawhosure]

LOLOLOL, then tell us oh wise one, who was it that stated as head of the senate that---------->we will NOT confirm a new SJ if you are in the last year of your term?

Why don't you tell us what exactly was said and when it was said ?

As far as the Supreme Court, that is on Harry Reid, your own guy, not us. You people thought you were slick, then it backfired, and now your bitching. He made the rule, not us! Look back before you argue.

fyi-
He did make the rule for LOWER positions that the Republicans had filibustered for over a year or two.....and NOT for the supreme court justices?

Mitch did that all on his own.

You asked, and I delivered Blind as a Bat-) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...25c65c-8067-11e8-b660-4d0f9f0351f1_story.html