Confirmation hearings for Hon Amy Coney Barrett

[posty 2,296]

This is what I am afraid of now...

-----------

Republicans do this because they don’t believe Dems have the stones to play hardball like they do. And for a long time they’ve been correct. But do not let them bully the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal but a response isn’t. There is a legal process for expansion.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 27, 2020

Remember that Republicans have lost 6 of the last 7 popular votes, but have appointed 6 of the last 9 justices.

By expanding the court we fix this broken system and have the court better represent the values of the American people.
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) October 27, 2020

PELOSI: "Should we expand the court, lets take a look and see." pic.twitter.com/hVS5OaT9nW
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 27, 2020

I don't think the Republican Party understands what a radicalizing moment this is for Democrats.

Defend the freedom to marry, defend choice, defend the ACA, defend the constitution.

Expand the court.
— Mikel Jollett (@Mikel_Jollett) October 27, 2020

I believe Trump is going to lose in a landslide and leave in humiliation. The Senate with him. He will count the courts as his one success. We need to start organizing to make sure Biden acts to expand the Court immediately. If he wants a panel, the clock starts on Nov. 4.
— Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) October 27, 2020

What exactly is the incentive for democrats not to expand the Court at this point
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) October 27, 2020

6 of 9 don't represent me. Expand the court. Pass it on. #SCOTUS
— Angela Belcamino (@AngelaBelcamino) October 27, 2020

Whack the Court.
Pack it
Stack it
Frack it
Smack it.

Shellack it
Clack it
Knick-knack &
Paddy-whack it

Crack it
Open
Shack it
Up
Rack it!
Yes, it’s a RACKET.

Black it
Brown it
Green it
Blue it
Expand it!
Term limit it!
Fix it!
Now.
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) October 27, 2020

We are going to expand the Court. https://t.co/FPhcb42khG
— Zephyr Teachout (@ZephyrTeachout) October 27, 2020

[TheNewGirl 1,018]

If Trump wins, he should expand the court. 

[DonS 3,063]

3 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

If Trump wins, he should expand the court. 

That would be focking epic to watch the Dems explain why packing the court is suddenly a horrible idea. 

[porkbutt 860]

any dem with a shred of integrity vote for her? focking cowards

[RLLD 3,455]

14 minutes ago, DonS said:

That would be focking epic to watch the Dems explain why packing the court is suddenly a horrible idea. 

[Fireballer 2,367]

This is almost as good as election night 2016. Almost.  Is CBDS a thing now?

 

[Utilit99 4,099]

10 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

This is almost as good as election night 2016. Almost.  Is CBDS a thing now?

 

 This makes my vote for Trump feel that much better.

[jerryskids 5,165]

4 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

If Trump wins, he should expand the court. 

 

4 hours ago, DonS said:

That would be focking epic to watch the Dems explain why packing the court is suddenly a horrible idea. 

  That’s almost too easy of a troll for Grand Master Troll Trump.   

[5-Points 2,715]

5 hours ago, Herbivore said:

I don't believe that Garland would have been stonewalled if it was the other way around..as in if Garland was Coney, and it was Dem Senate.  

I don't think I follow. 

Are you saying the Reps, being in the minority, wouldn't have put up the same fight that the Dems have this time? 

I guarantee, had the Dems been in control of the process that Garland would have been confirmed and it's highly likely that he would have gotten several Republican votes in the process. 

And you wouldn't hear the Reps threatening to pack the court out of spite as a result. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1 hour ago, Fireballer said:

This is almost as good as election night 2016. Almost.  Is CBDS a thing now?

 

Scared that the poster child for everything a woman can be is confirmed. Why does the left hate women?

[Voltaire 4,552]

11 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

I don't think I follow. 

Are you saying the Reps, being in the minority, wouldn't have put up the same fight that the Dems have this time? 

I guarantee, had the Dems been in control of the process that Garland would have been confirmed and it's highly likely that he would have gotten several Republican votes in the process. 

And you wouldn't hear the Reps threatening to pack the court out of spite as a result. 

Whatever mix of president/senate you get R/R, R/D, D/R, D/D, in any of the four instances it's easy to predict what any would do in any cicumstance... they same thing they've both parties and prsidents do our entire lives.... whatever was in their own best interest at the time. Book it that any president would nominate in any cicumstance. Then if the Senate was controled by the same party they'd confirm and if not they wouldn't.

The reason they confirmed Barrett is that they wanted her and the reason the Senate didn't confirm Garland is that they didn't want him. They didn't vote on Garland because he was the least bad candidate they could have expected from a Dem president so had Hillary won, they could have confirmed him in the lameduck session as he'd be 100x better than some far left wing Potatomayor-clone that Hillary would have put forward as he's more Breyer-esque than rabid lunatic.

[5-Points 2,715]

1 hour ago, Fireballer said:

This is almost as good as election night 2016. Almost.  Is CBDS a thing now?

 

Do they not understand that behavior like this is precisely why it took them so long to be allowed to vote or be welcomed into the workplace? 

[5-Points 2,715]

6 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Whatever mix of president/senate you get R/R, R/D, D/R, D/D, in any of the four instances it's easy to predict what any would do in any cicumstance... they same thing they've both parties and prsidents do our entire lives.... whatever was in their own best interest at the time. Book it that any president would nominate in any cicumstance. Then if the Senate was controled by the same party they'd confirm and if not they wouldn't.

The reason they confirmed Barrett is that they wanted her and the reason the Senate didn't confirm Garland is that they didn't want him. They didn't vote on Garland because he was the least bad candidate they could have expected from a Dem president so had Hillary won, they could have confirmed him in the lameduck session as he'd be 100x better than some far left wing Potatomayor-clone that Hillary would have put forward as he's more Breyer-esque than rabid lunatic.

Agreed. However, if the Dems had control over the Garland confirmation, I don't think we would have seen the same behavior from the right as we've seen from the left in this instance. 

The left always wants go change the rules or move the goalposts when things don't go their way. The right typically sucks it up and goes on with business as usual. 

It's one of the things that drives me nuts about the Republican party. You have Marquess of Queensbury trying to win against the Viet Cong.

[Herbivore 904]

25 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

I don't think I follow. 

Are you saying the Reps, being in the minority, wouldn't have put up the same fight that the Dems have this time? 

I guarantee, had the Dems been in control of the process that Garland would have been confirmed and it's highly likely that he would have gotten several Republican votes in the process. 

And you wouldn't hear the Reps threatening to pack the court out of spite as a result. 

When Scalia died, Mitch refused to hold the senate hearing for Garland.  If a Repub was prez then, and nominated someone, I think a Dem Senate would have held the hearing.

[5-Points 2,715]

10 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

When Scalia died, Mitch refused to hold the senate hearing for Garland.  If a Repub was prez then, and nominated someone, I think a Dem Senate would have held the hearing.

Oh, now I'm with ya. 

I'm not too sure. If they had it would prolly only be to drag him through the mud before voting against confirmation. 

You could be right, though.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

11 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

When Scalia died, Mitch refused to hold the senate hearing for Garland.  If a Repub was prez then, and nominated someone, I think a Dem Senate would have held the hearing.

So? You think the Republican controlled senate would confirm him because  Chuck Schumer and his band of idiots would do such a great job of convincing the republicans to confirm? You wanted your dog and pony show? Why do that to the guy? It was never going to happen. Why must you people have to always search for ways to be butthurt? 

[Voltaire 4,552]

13 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

When Scalia died, Mitch refused to hold the senate hearing for Garland.  If a Repub was prez then, and nominated someone, I think a Dem Senate would have held the hearing.

They were looking at getting a Souter-Breyer type justice with Garland which was undesireable but not awful to the Senate GOP. Had they rejected him, they may have gotten a Potatomayor/RBG type instead which would have been worse, so they just didn't vote in the hopes Trump would win. iIf he'd lost they could confirm in the lame duck.

[Herbivore 904]

5 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Oh, now I'm with ya. 

I'm not too sure. If they had it would prolly only be to drag him through the mud before voting against confirmation. 

You could be right, though.  

yeah, maybe about voting against.  not sure offhand what the history is on appointees not being confirmed though, thought it was a high number.

[Herbivore 904]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So? You think the Republican controlled senate would confirm him because  Chuck Schumer and his band of idiots would do such a great job of convincing the republicans to confirm? You wanted your dog and pony show? Why do that to the guy? It was never going to happen. Why must you people have to always search for ways to be butthurt? 

Garland should be evaluated on his record.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

6 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

Garland should be evaluated on his record.

Like Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh were ? Your party starts all this stuff and then whine about it. McConnell was being a nice guy, unlike your classless crew. 

[Voltaire 4,552]

27 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

I think a Dem Senate would have held the hearing.

Dems never allowed Miguel Estrada a vote, they were entirely likely to do what was in their own best interest. What the GOP did to Garland was logical considering the circumstances. The Dems may have read the same tea leaves and followed the same logic to the same no-vote conclusion. Fillibustering Estrada was one of the triggers that escalated the whole situation since the Republicans had the votes to confirm him. If the Dems had run the Senate, rather than using a fillibuster, they'd have more options to work with. 

[Voltaire 4,552]

7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Like Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh were ? Your party starts all this stuff and then whine about it. McConnell was being a nice guy, unlike your classless crew. 

Don't forget Allito. They needed four Dems who didn't vote to confirm to agree vote to break the fillibuster or he wouldn't have made the court.

[Herbivore 904]

10 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Dems never allowed Miguel Estrada a vote, they were entirely likely to do what was in their own best interest. What the GOP did to Garland was logical considering the circumstances. The Dems may have read the same tea leaves and followed the same logic to the same no-vote conclusion. Fillibustering Estrada was one of the triggers that escalated the whole situation since the Republicans had the votes to confirm him. If the Dems had run the Senate, rather than using a fillibuster, they'd have more options to work with. 

Bush still nominated someone who was confirmed though, so quite different scenario.

[Fnord 1,119]

McConnell played dirty pool with the Garland nomination. I understand that there was zero chance the Republican Senate was going to confirm him, regardless of qualifications. But he really screwed the pooch with his rationale at that time, which of course he immediately reversed the moment he had the opportunity. He should have held the confirmation hearings and just shot Garland down. Instead, his actions will inspire partisan dogma for decades. He set a precedent, not just in the case of the SCOTUS nominations, but by refusing to confirm all of those Obama-nominated federal judges. Because of him, going forward it will be practically impossible for any judges to be confirmed unless the Senate majority and POTUS are from the same party. The hyper-partisanship will now forever be the norm. That's just flat-out bad for the country, regardless of your political leanings. The Judicial branch is the one that is supposed to be above all this sh!t. Now it's swimming in it. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

31 minutes ago, Fnord said:

McConnell played dirty pool with the Garland nomination. I understand that there was zero chance the Republican Senate was going to confirm him, regardless of qualifications. But he really screwed the pooch with his rationale at that time, which of course he immediately reversed the moment he had the opportunity. He should have held the confirmation hearings and just shot Garland down. Instead, his actions will inspire partisan dogma for decades. He set a precedent, not just in the case of the SCOTUS nominations, but by refusing to confirm all of those Obama-nominated federal judges. Because of him, going forward it will be practically impossible for any judges to be confirmed unless the Senate majority and POTUS are from the same party. The hyper-partisanship will now forever be the norm. That's just flat-out bad for the country, regardless of your political leanings. The Judicial branch is the one that is supposed to be above all this sh!t. Now it's swimming in it. 

There is a process, and the senate has as say, like it or not.  Maybe Obama shouldn’t have nominated so many far left judges? Maybe he should have , you know, compromised?  But he was cocky. He thought it was in the bag for the hag, so why should he? You guys are funny with him. He focked up so much shite yet it’s never his fault. Guess what? It is. 

[Fnord 1,119]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

There is a process, and the senate has as say, like it or not.  Maybe Obama shouldn’t have nominated so many far left judges? Maybe he should have , you know, compromised?  But he was cocky. He thought it was in the bag for the hag, so why should he? You guys are funny with him. He focked up so much shite yet it’s never his fault. Guess what? It is. 

Just stop. McConnell's philosophy for the entirety of his time as Majority Leader during Obama's presidency was obstruction of ANYTHING Obama wanted to get done. I'm not gonna defend Obama, but if you're gonna claim that was Obama's fault for not compromising, you're hopelessly partisan.

McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

That's a direct quote.

[FlyinHeadlock 459]

16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

There is a process, and the senate has as say, like it or not.  Maybe Obama shouldn’t have nominated so many far left judges? Maybe he should have , you know, compromised?  But he was cocky. He thought it was in the bag for the hag, so why should he? You guys are funny with him. He focked up so much shite yet it’s never his fault. Guess what? It is. 

He admitted that he was trying to push his agenda way too hard. I would take it a step further and say by force to a criminal level. He ruled three letter agencies with an iron fist, gagged reporters and went after all political enemies with anything he had in his arsenal. He finally met his match though in McConnell. McConnell had enough of his bs. The spying though on Trump was the last straw. We will never be the same again.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Just stop. McConnell's philosophy for the entirety of his time as Majority Leader during Obama's presidency was obstruction of ANYTHING Obama wanted to get done. I'm not gonna defend Obama, but if you're gonna claim that was Obama's fault for not compromising, you're hopelessly partisan.

McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

That's a direct quote.

Well, McConnell failed. Obama got re-elected and Reid started this in 2013,  because he thought it was in the bag as well and he promptly lost the Senate in 2014. You keep blaming McConnell for playing by the Democrats own rules. You stop with the the partisanship. Democrats have had the reigns of power plenty in the last fifty years. I’m old enough to remember Clinton having a split government and getting things done. With the same house of reps that impeached him, so don’t act like Obama was the only one who had a hostile opposition. He didn’t want to be a statesman so he took his ball and went home and started governing via executive orders. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

9 minutes ago, FlyinHeadlock said:

He admitted that he was trying to push his agenda way too hard. I would take it a step further and say by force to a criminal level. He ruled three letter agencies with an iron fist, gagged reporters and went after all political enemies with anything he had in his arsenal. He finally met his match though in McConnell. McConnell had enough of his bs. They spying though on Trump was the last straw. We will never be the same again.

Exactly right. Obama consistently went around congress to do what he wanted. He had no regard for the representatives elected by the people. 

[shorepatrol 1,735]

HT beat Herb over the head with Herbs own big floppy black trans  D!ldo

[FlyinHeadlock 459]

8 hours ago, Fnord said:

Just stop. McConnell's philosophy for the entirety of his time as Majority Leader during Obama's presidency was obstruction of ANYTHING Obama wanted to get done. I'm not gonna defend Obama, but if you're gonna claim that was Obama's fault for not compromising, you're hopelessly partisan.

McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

That's a direct quote.

Early on nobody could work with Obama. Take the XL pipeline. The pipeline was finished except for one stretch which we already paid for to complete on the Canadian border. We were actually getting sued by companies because it was already agreed upon. 

Obama held that card in his pocket since he had authority with anything involving the border. It was nonsense. He did a lot of stuff like that where it was either his way or no way. Before Obama, many members of both sides in Congress were good friends. They would have dinner, drinks and work stuff out. Obama killed that era and created Trump.   

[RLLD 3,455]

1 hour ago, FlyinHeadlock said:

Early on nobody could work with Obama. Take the XL pipeline. The pipeline was finished except for one stretch which we already paid for to complete on the Canadian border. We were actually getting sued by companies because it was already agreed upon. 

Obama held that card in his pocket since he had authority with anything involving the border. It was nonsense. He did a lot of stuff like that where it was either his way or no way. Before Obama, many members of both sides in Congress were good friends. They would have dinner, drinks and work stuff out. Obama killed that era and created Trump.   

 

This point is completely lost on so many people, perhaps out of some fear that pointing out any flaw in an AA will be seen as racism.  Therefore the problems in the AA community can never be resolved, because no one can allow there to be an actual problem.

[porkbutt 860]

was this bitter hag posted yet?

[RLLD 3,455]

22 minutes ago, porkbutt said:

what this bitter hag posted yet?

 

Women in the nation should be angry.  These clowns have elevated transgender-ism above them, and now they are elevating politics above them as well.

[Fireballer 2,367]

These fuking libtards pressured the Girl Scouts to remove a tweet congratulating ACB.  Way to show girls that bullies win.  I weep for this country.

 

[RLLD 3,455]

Submit or else is how leftists operate, I really wonder where this will end.

[Gladiators 1,900]

16 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

These fuking libtards pressured the Girl Scouts to remove a tweet congratulating ACB.  Way to show girls that bullies win.  I weep for this country.

 

Thank gawd.  That would be terrible if they supported her.

[DonS 3,063]

21 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

These fuking libtards pressured the Girl Scouts to remove a tweet congratulating ACB.  Way to show girls that bullies win.  I weep for this country.

 

I'm sure they would love the Girl Scouts to come out with a new cookie option honoring Ginsburg, though.  Yummy yummy RBG Abortion Clusters coming soon!