Sen. Blumenthal makes threats on Senate floor if ACB is confirmed to SC.

[Cecilie1200]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

It's not a new rule. In hte entire history of out country there have been only ten nominations when control of the Senate and White House were split during an election year and eight of those ten failed to be confirmed. The first nomination not to be confirmed under these circumstances happened in 1828.

Tell the rest of the story

Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?

Nope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.

He nominated.

He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a year

That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court

The point of changing/adding to the number of seats (and number of court houses, branches, etc) was to enlarge the court in order to handle the workload.
It wasn’t meant to add judges so a president could pack the court.

Look, if you don’t give a fuck about our system of government and the reasons things are done the way they are done and the reasons why things are set up the way they are, just say so. Just say “I only care about power, specifically me having said power. Fuck the system”.
myself and others are warning you about packing the court not because it’s democrats doing it, but because we don’t want anyone doing it. It’s a horrible idea and it will be disastrous. I would absolutely oppose republican doing it.

“I only care about power, specifically me having said power. Fuck the system”

It's a pity Republicans did that 4 years ago with Obama.

You’re old and won’t be around much longer so please remind me, or better yet inform me. Didn’t the Democrats do this to Robert Bork? I was Born in 1980 so it’s not top of mind. Thank you, walking corpse.

Remind me...that vacancy Bork didn’t fill...who filled it? Which president?

Remind me . . . what the fuck point do you imagine you're making that has anything to do with the topic?

 

[jc456]

The SC nominations are treated differently, or were treated differently, in the Senate rules. Which is why McConnell had to change the rules in order to get the controversial judges confirmed in with a simple 50% +1 majority, Like the lower federal bench nominees can be confirmed with. That Senate rule is the one Reid changed

Stop yourself.

Reids own words, judicial nominees. You didn’t answer what a SCOTUS nominee is if not judiciary? Why, doesn’t fit your narrative. We get it blind, stay blind literally

If they were the same thing why did the Senate have separate rules concerning each? Are you trying to say the the rule Reid changed also effected the Supreme Court Nominees as well? I never took logic in school by I think you broke one of their rules with that word salad you just tried to play with.

What branch is SCOTUS? Why won’t you answer? Chicken huh? That answer fks you

 

[bendog]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.

Well...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.

If the Dems get the Senate and Executive, why shouldn't they take a page from your playbook and add justices? Any good reason not to now that you've set precedents?

Change the rules? Thank Harry Reid idiot. Add justices? Sorry dummy, the process was followed correctly and your crying and lying changes NOTHING.

The Constitution was followed. Their lying to the country about their motive will be replayed over and over to the public every time the Banana Republicans start whining about what Constitutional measures the Democrats take in the coming years.

Cry me a river. Lying about motives? Shove that up your blind ass. See idiot, you can’t pull your bullshit now because you don’t owns the courts. And you won’t for at least 40 years. Repeat this 500 times. Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Blow it out your ass. man you guys are already whining at the thought of Democrats taking constitutional measures. Get use to it.

Ever watch the show Life in Pieces? I liked the Ear Nose and Throat Doctor finding out the person shaving him before his vasectomy was someone he fired. (oops now shaving cream, we're gonna have to dry shave you)

 

[BS Filter]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.

Well...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.

If the Dems get the Senate and Executive, why shouldn't they take a page from your playbook and add justices? Any good reason not to now that you've set precedents?

Change the rules? Thank Harry Reid idiot. Add justices? Sorry dummy, the process was followed correctly and your crying and lying changes NOTHING.

The Constitution was followed. Their lying to the country about their motive will be replayed over and over to the public every time the Banana Republicans start whining about what Constitutional measures the Democrats take in the coming years.

Cry me a river. Lying about motives? Shove that up your blind ass. See idiot, you can’t pull your bullshit now because you don’t owns the courts. And you won’t for at least 40 years. Repeat this 500 times. Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Blow it out your ass. man you guys are already whining at the thought of Democrats taking constitutional measures. Get use to it.

We're in pretty good shape for quite a while on the Supreme Court. Feeling good.

 

[jc456]

The SC nominations are treated differently, or were treated differently, in the Senate rules. Which is why McConnell had to change the rules in order to get the controversial judges confirmed in with a simple 50% +1 majority, Like the lower federal bench nominees can be confirmed with. That Senate rule is the one Reid changed

Stop yourself.

Reids own words, judicial nominees. You didn’t answer what a SCOTUS nominee is if not judiciary? Why, doesn’t fit your narrative. We get it blind, stay blind literally

If they were the same thing why did the Senate have separate rules concerning each? Are you trying to say the the rule Reid changed also effected the Supreme Court Nominees as well? I never took logic in school by I think you broke one of their rules with that word salad you just tried to play with.

The bottom line is you believe that Democrats should win every time and if they don't then there must be something crooked going on. Right?

Well said

 

[bendog]

Whoaaa, Coyote. Nice pick up there.

"Remind me...that vacancy Bork didn’t fill...who filled it? Which president?
"
Wish you were playing 2nd base for the dodger tonite. LOL

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

Republicans knew that their new rule of an opposition party does not confirm SCOTUS judges would someday bite them in the ass.......But they lived in the present and did it anyway.

Same thing with adding judges to the court. Dems will live in the present and expand the court. They are willing to bank that it may be decades before Republicans win the White House and all of Congress

It's not a new rule. In hte entire history of out country there have been only ten nominations when control of the Senate and White House were split during an election year and eight of those ten failed to be confirmed. The first nomination not to be confirmed under these circumstances happened in 1828.

Tell the rest of the story

Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?

Nope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.

He nominated.

He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a year

That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court

Actually the Constitution is moot on the subject of the size of the court. It doesn't address it at all. It merely says that there will be a Supreme Court.

Leaves it to Congress

Lets see if Congress thinks it must expand the court

Congress can't expand the court. They can change the judiciary act of 1869 l, that currently limits the number of SC justices to 9, but beyond that, only a president can increase the size of the SC.

Sorry, could you please explain that?

 

[BlindBoo]

The SC nominations are treated differently, or were treated differently, in the Senate rules. Which is why McConnell had to change the rules in order to get the controversial judges confirmed in with a simple 50% +1 majority, Like the lower federal bench nominees can be confirmed with. That Senate rule is the one Reid changed

Stop yourself.

Reids own words, judicial nominees. You didn’t answer what a SCOTUS nominee is if not judiciary? Why, doesn’t fit your narrative. We get it blind, stay blind literally

If they were the same thing why did the Senate have separate rules concerning each? Are you trying to say the the rule Reid changed also effected the Supreme Court Nominees as well? I never took logic in school by I think you broke one of their rules with that word salad you just tried to play with.

The bottom line is you believe that Democrats should win every time and if they don't then there must be something crooked going on. Right?

Like Vietnam? Like Invading Iraq, or giving GW the decider role? Like mandatory minimums and support for the war on Americans who uses non government approved recreational substances. Democrats deserved to loose. They deserve to have Roe v Wade overturned. They deserve to have the ACH taken away by the newly aligned SC court. They deserve to have the Voting Rights Act gutted. They deserve dirtier air and water.

Most of all though, they deserve to have to fight for these things again because apparently they took them for granted or they didn't know what they had till it's gone.......

 

[kaz]

Yes, and Biden's words are clear. You're liar. Like every other Democrat. You look at clear words and deny they say what they say.

I could be wrong but I think you didn't know what Joe actually said back in 1992. Do you know what he said prior to the selective quote you provided?

Biden in 1992: President Should Not Name Supreme Court Nominee Until After The November Election

Then-Senator Joe Biden addresses the Senate floor in 1992 to speak against then-President George H. W. Bush nominating a Supreme Court Justice should a vacancy occur. Then-Senator Joe Biden addresses the Senate floor in 1992 to speak out against the possibility of then-President George H. W...

www.realclearpolitics.com

Full transcript:

BIDEN: Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan's and Bush's last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year.

And you think in there somewhere Biden said that Democrats wouldn't have confirmed a Democrat president's nomination?

 

[kaz]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

Why not win the Senate and the White House and do it like Republicans did?

It can happen.

Then what about all those new precedents you lot set?

Like the judicial filibuster? No wait, that was you.
Ending the judicial filibuster? Oh, you again.

Why do you deliberately omit stuff?

Who ended the SCOTUS filibuster?

WHO blocked want was normally a pretty routine Presidential right to fill judicial vacancies in order to "save them" for their team (and no, I don't mean voting DOWN applicants).

WHO made up a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy before an election?

and WHO reversed that rule 2 weeks before an election?

Those are MAJOR precedents and don't deny it. You know. If they weren't that made up rule would have held for 2020 instead of creating yet another precedent.

SO why shouldn't the Dems pack the court given YOUR behavior?

It's very simple. Win the Senate and the White House. Duh!

So you'll be fine with it if they win it and do that? There has already been a lot of whining from you guys about the possibility.

Bad ideas are still bad ideas.

You can't name anything they did out of order or against the constitutional process.

Yet, the Rs did something wrong.

You not liking it doesn't make it wrong.

Coyote also can't list a single time Democrats didn't confirm a Democrat scotus pick and waited for an election as she demands the Republicans do

Dems never refused to fill a seat in an election year (10 months away) and then filled a seat days before the election when it favored them

Democrats never passed on confirming a Democrat nomination to the SCOTUS when they had the votes to confirm them

 

[The Original Tree]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.

Well...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.

If the Dems get the Senate and Executive, why shouldn't they take a page from your playbook and add justices? Any good reason not to now that you've set precedents?

The Republicans haven't added any Justices. There were nine justices when Obama was elected, nine justices when Trump was elected and there will still be nine justices on Inauguration Day 2021. If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

DemTards don't do math.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

STFU you stolen valor POS.

How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?

Blumenthal in Senate floor speech warns of 'consequences' if Barrett confirmed

Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.

www.foxnews.com

Elections have consequences.

Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.

Well...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.

If the Dems get the Senate and Executive, why shouldn't they take a page from your playbook and add justices? Any good reason not to now that you've set precedents?

The Republicans haven't added any Justices. There were nine justices when Obama was elected, nine justices when Trump was elected and there will still be nine justices on Inauguration Day 2021. If you and yours want to increase the number of justices IF you have the power, do it. But remember the worm always turns and someday, probably soon, the Republicans will control the White House and Senate again and two can play your game. Ending the judicial filibuster already bit you on the ass with Barret. Are you really sure that you want to double down on a losing hand?

DemTards don't do math.

Math is racisss!!!

 

[kaz]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

Why not win the Senate and the White House and do it like Republicans did?

It can happen.

Then what about all those new precedents you lot set?

Like the judicial filibuster? No wait, that was you.
Ending the judicial filibuster? Oh, you again.

Why do you deliberately omit stuff?

Who ended the SCOTUS filibuster?

WHO blocked want was normally a pretty routine Presidential right to fill judicial vacancies in order to "save them" for their team (and no, I don't mean voting DOWN applicants).

WHO made up a new rule to prevent a president from filling a vacancy before an election?

and WHO reversed that rule 2 weeks before an election?

Those are MAJOR precedents and don't deny it. You know. If they weren't that made up rule would have held for 2020 instead of creating yet another precedent.

SO why shouldn't the Dems pack the court given YOUR behavior?

It's very simple. Win the Senate and the White House. Duh!

So you'll be fine with it if they win it and do that? There has already been a lot of whining from you guys about the possibility.

Bad ideas are still bad ideas.

You can't name anything they did out of order or against the constitutional process.

Yet, the Rs did something wrong.

You not liking it doesn't make it wrong.

Coyote also can't list a single time Democrats didn't confirm a Democrat scotus pick and waited for an election as she demands the Republicans do

Dems never refused to fill a seat in an election year (10 months away) and then filled a seat days before the election when it favored them

We tend to forget that Reagan nominated "the other" Ginsburg who had to pull out cause he was still smoking pot after law school. Then Reagan nominated Kennedy. At the time, the dems thought they'd beat HW.

Kennedy filled a seat open one and a half years before the election

 

[Cecilie1200]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

When were Democrats “cooperating” with Republicans in the past 4 years?

Hell with the past 4 years. When were the Democrats "cooperating" with Republicans in my lifetime?

 

[hadit]

What did Trump do? McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Very True

Republicans won and there was nothing Democrat’s could do. Mitch McConnell trampled on years of Senate protocol and precedence to pack his court.

Stepped on a lot of toes and burnt all bridges of cooperation.

Democrats are in a mood to retaliate.
Packing the court and ending filibuster are likely retaliations

Lib please, like Democrats would have done anything different if the situation was reverses. In fact Dems already tried to replace a conservative justice with a liberal and would have if they had controlled the senate so enough with the faux rage.

No moron

You would have done the same thing is just a made up claim by Republicans to cover their guilt

Then of course the democrats will turn right around and do the same thing. In fact, you're cheering on to do it, so what have you gained with your faux outrage?

 

[rightwinger]

Elections have consequences.

If Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the Senate we can pack the court and Dems won't oppose it?

They will need the House also

If Dems take all three, why should they not use their power?

Because it would be stupid and appear to the centrists to be a open move to grasp political power at any cost. That would cost the Democrats in the next election in 2022.

Yo mean like the Republicans did?

No, because the Republicans didn't. However much you are butthurt by Republicans winning elections and using the power the Constitution gives them in that event, that doesn't make it "grasping power at any cost", nor does it justify your "In that case, we're going to burn everything down so that we're ALWAYS in control!"

I think it's long past time that you grow the hell up and learn to embrace the fact that you don't always get to win, no matter HOW entitled to it you've been taught to believe you are.

In 1936 or so, the Republicans hadn't manipulated rules just to elect an non-FDR court. If the Barret Court starts wiping out precedents to overturn dem laws that are popular. I'm not making predictions, but if it comes about, the dems aren't going to face a backlash for putting a partisan court back in it's place.

Thé public won’t care if Dems add judges to the court

Fox News will bitch like crazy but they only impact the conservative vote

I think the Barrett Court would have to do something even more egregious that reversing Roe for the dems not to suffer a backlash for packing the Court. In hindsite, I think Bork should have been confirmed.

Overturning Obamaare would maybe do it. Maybe saying states could not allow women to get the abortion bill via telemedine ... but telemedicine is really in its infancy.

The voters didn’t care that Mitch kept a court seat vacant for over a year. Why would they care if Dems add a few seats?

Most don’t even know how many seats there are

 

[rightwinger]

What did Trump do? McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Very True

Republicans won and there was nothing Democrat’s could do. Mitch McConnell trampled on years of Senate protocol and precedence to pack his court.

Stepped on a lot of toes and burnt all bridges of cooperation.

Democrats are in a mood to retaliate.
Packing the court and ending filibuster are likely retaliations

Lib please, like Democrats would have done anything different if the situation was reverses. In fact Dems already tried to replace a conservative justice with a liberal and would have if they had controlled the senate so enough with the faux rage.

No moron

You would have done the same thing is just a made up claim by Republicans to cover their guilt

Then of course the democrats will turn right around and do the same thing. In fact, you're cheering on to do it, so what have you gained with your faux outrage?

Now?

The McConnell Rule says an opposition party does not have to fill court seats.
Why would Dems do any differently?

 

[Nostra]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

After libs pack the courts, RS will remove them after four years, or pack another 50 in their favor. This is the idiotic thinking of the left. You will reap your rancid fruits.

Oh? By what process will they remove them?

Impeachment, unlikely or they could another 125,789 in their favor by simple vote. Don't try to act all coy.

Impeachment for what?

Doesn't matter. You clowns set the precedent you don't need a reason to impeach.

^^^ bullshit

You clowns tried to impeach Trump despite no charges of high crimes or misdemeanors, Asswipe.

You suck at this.

 

[Nostra]

Everything in life has Consequences

Those consequences could be adding judges to the court or ending the filibuster

Another consequence will be an end of cooperation with Republicans

Why not win the Senate and the White House and do it like Republicans did?

It can happen.

Then what about all those new precedents you lot set?

List those "precedents" Dummy.

I predict you can't

 

[iceberg]

What did Trump do? McConnell blocked Obama from filling seats and then packed the courts with young Conservatives

Very True

Republicans won and there was nothing Democrat’s could do. Mitch McConnell trampled on years of Senate protocol and precedence to pack his court.

Stepped on a lot of toes and burnt all bridges of cooperation.

Democrats are in a mood to retaliate.
Packing the court and ending filibuster are likely retaliations

Lib please, like Democrats would have done anything different if the situation was reverses. In fact Dems already tried to replace a conservative justice with a liberal and would have if they had controlled the senate so enough with the faux rage.

No moron

You would have done the same thing is just a made up claim by Republicans to cover their guilt

Then of course the democrats will turn right around and do the same thing. In fact, you're cheering on to do it, so what have you gained with your faux outrage?

Now?

The McConnell Rule says an opposition party does not have to fill court seats.
Why would Dems do any differently?

When did a rule become law and process again?