Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
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.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
Liar. McConnell said Obama would not get to replace Scalia's seat even before Obama nominated anyone.Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
Leaves it to CongressActually 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.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
Pizza face is a loser and a traitor.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
Wouldn’t have anything to say. Your Jihad against the English language is noted. Stupid Waste of Life.Liar. McConnell said Obama would not get to replace Scalia's seat even before Obama nominated anyone.Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.
Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
Hey jerk weed BO got most of his cabinet appointments in, most of his judges save Garland and a few others. Not as much in the last 2 years but that is what happens with you have divided government.REID: Well, let's look at what happened. Obama was president. He'd been elected by a large majority, but Republicans were filibustering everything. He couldn't get his cabinet officers confirmed, subcabinet. We had the D.C. Circuit, the second most important court in the country - had many vacancies. What were we to do? So that's the reason that I moved to change the rules.
Exactly what happened
<crickets>Oh? What's disastrous about it?Lol. End of cooperation with republicans??? Are you fucking kidding me?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
That statement alone demonstrates what a joke you are, but I’ll play along.
So, if a judge you don’t like is put on the bench, your solution is to then go down the path of adding judges (aka packing the court)? You don’t see that going down that path is disastrous?
Actually, he didn’tHey jerk weed BO got most of his cabinet appointments in, most of his judges save Garland and a few others. Not as much in the last 2 years but that is what happens with you have divided government.REID: Well, let's look at what happened. Obama was president. He'd been elected by a large majority, but Republicans were filibustering everything. He couldn't get his cabinet officers confirmed, subcabinet. We had the D.C. Circuit, the second most important court in the country - had many vacancies. What were we to do? So that's the reason that I moved to change the rules.
Exactly what happened
you don’t see the problem presented with packing the court each time power changes hands?Oh? What's disastrous about it?Lol. End of cooperation with republicans??? Are you fucking kidding me?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
That statement alone demonstrates what a joke you are, but I’ll play along.
So, if a judge you don’t like is put on the bench, your solution is to then go down the path of adding judges (aka packing the court)? You don’t see that going down that path is disastrous?
Because Obama wanted to change the "polarity" of the seat. Up until that point there had been a gentlemen's agreement to keep the court balanced to reduce the politicicalization of the court. That's why most justices were easily confirmed with near unanimity before the Democrats decided to legislate from the bench.Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
You might actually have a point if that is what happened
Mitch McConnell proclaimed he would not allow Obama to fill that seat before Scalias body was even cold
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.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
you don’t see the problem presented with packing the court each time power changes hands?
The court shouldn't be political. It is now that Republicans have declared if they have the power, they will not replace a seat with a Democrat president whereas they will under similar circumstances with a Republican president. That politicized the court. Now that it's politicized, get used to it. So where's the disaster?you don’t see the problem presented with packing the court each time power changes hands?Oh? What's disastrous about it?Lol. End of cooperation with republicans??? Are you fucking kidding me?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
That statement alone demonstrates what a joke you are, but I’ll play along.
So, if a judge you don’t like is put on the bench, your solution is to then go down the path of adding judges (aka packing the court)? You don’t see that going down that path is disastrous?
the court is supposed to provide stability, to Remain unaffected by the political changes. That was one of the reasons for the lifetime appointments. Adding judges every timea party takes power undercuts that.
Obama was President. He nominated someone. Republicans held the senate. They weren’t going to appoint anyone who wasn’t a conservative. That was the position they were in, based upon the rules. I get you don’t like it because it didn’t favor your side.Liar. McConnell said Obama would not get to replace Scalia's seat even before Obama nominated anyone.Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.
There's nothing wrong with my English, ShortBus. Want me to write it again for you in crayon? Maybe then you'll understand.Wouldn’t have anything to say. Your Jihad against the English language is noted. Stupid Waste of Life.Liar. McConnell said Obama would not get to replace Scalia's seat even before Obama nominated anyone.Obama had the ability to nominate any number of potential justices until he found one that was an acceptable compromise with the Senate. He simply chose not to do that. He's the one who left the seat open for nearly a year.He sure did and the Senate left the seat vacant for a yearNope. The President nominates. That’s where his power ends, Stupid.Tell the rest of the storyIt'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.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
Was the President ultimately allowed to fill the seat or not?
He nominated.
That same Constitution says Congress can decide the size of the court
Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.
The court shouldn't be political. It is now that Republicans have declared if they have the power, they will not replace a seat with a Democrat president whereas they will under similar circumstances with a Republican president. That politicized the court. Now that it's politicized, get used to it. So where's the disaster?
Won’t happen. Ha ha ha.The court shouldn't be political. It is now that Republicans have declared if they have the power, they will not replace a seat with a Democrat president whereas they will under similar circumstances with a Republican president. That politicized the court. Now that it's politicized, get used to it. So where's the disaster?
I don’t see why Republicans would be upset if Dems pack the court.
I guess they will eventually get used to it
