(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:07 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Too bad the filibuster gives minority parties unlimited veto power

So Dems are powerless is your play? Really?

Powerless against the filibuster? Yes. Or are you saying they gave away a Supreme Court nomination for funsies?

I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So Dems are powerless is your play? Really?

Powerless against the filibuster? Yes. Or are you saying they gave away a Supreme Court nomination for funsies?

I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

there's nothin' butter than watching Austin D whippin' the shite out of Case K ... again!

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So Dems are powerless is your play? Really?

Powerless against the filibuster? Yes. Or are you saying they gave away a Supreme Court nomination for funsies?

I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Powerless against the filibuster? Yes. Or are you saying they gave away a Supreme Court nomination for funsies?

I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

Compare that to the # of children murdered by Planned Parenthood and get back to us or just STFU with your virtue signaling hypocrisy

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Powerless against the filibuster? Yes. Or are you saying they gave away a Supreme Court nomination for funsies?

I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

At what point in their development do democrats care whether children die or not?

(09-26-2024 08:22 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

Compare that to the # of children murdered by Planned Parenthood and get back to us or just STFU with your virtue signaling hypocrisy

Yep, PP has literally helped murder well over 50 million babies.

And that clown has the gall to pretend he cares about children.

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Powerless against the filibuster? Yes. Or are you saying they gave away a Supreme Court nomination for funsies?

I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

Actually, here’s why Trump was able to push through textualists to the court:

https://youtu.be/qduJjDJnQfo?si=j5FoVG7qeCmOdGPv

If Harry Reid didn’t break the rules in 2013, there’s no way the court would be as it is today. Stop changing the rules and then complaining.

(09-26-2024 08:22 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

Compare that to the # of children murdered by Planned Parenthood and get back to us or just STFU with your virtue signaling hypocrisy

Why are clumps of cells more important than elementary school children? Why are guns more important than the lives of children? Why do you accept that Republican politicians take money from gun corporations to keep those gun laws that kill school children?

(09-26-2024 08:25 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

At what point in their development do democrats care whether children die or not?

When they can survive independently of the mother.

At what point do Republicans do anything at all to protect living children?

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Powerless against the filibuster? Yes. Or are you saying they gave away a Supreme Court nomination for funsies?

I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

And yet when the Dems had all the power they didn't do it... But I don't see you calling that out since that is a talking point of the Dems.. Nor did they codify any of the other hundred things they promise..

Open up Kamalaciff, it's coming back in.

But hey I'm twisted like a pretzel and you're pulling all these things up... If I'm a pretzel you're a squirrel in a round room looking for a corner.

(09-26-2024 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:22 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

Compare that to the # of children murdered by Planned Parenthood and get back to us or just STFU with your virtue signaling hypocrisy

Why are clumps of cells more important than elementary school children? Why are guns more important than the lives of children? Why do you accept that Republican politicians take money from gun corporations to keep those gun laws that kill school children?

"Clumps of cells" with a functioning heartbeat, function brain, functioning nervous systems that feel pain and fight to stay alive as they are slowly cut into pieces by you baby murdering butchering SOB's.

There have likely been 70 million babies murdered since 1973 (mostly minorities) and 99% of them had no medical need whatsoever. Pure birth control and nothing more. A literal genocide on an entire generation of African Americans and other minorities.

"Clumps of cells". There's a special place in hell for you people.

(09-26-2024 08:29 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

Actually, here’s why Trump was able to push through textualists to the court:

https://youtu.be/qduJjDJnQfo?si=j5FoVG7qeCmOdGPv

If Harry Reid didn’t break the rules in 2013, there’s no way the court would be as it is today. Stop changing the rules and then complaining.

To make a fine point —- Neither Gorsuch, Barret, or Kavanaugh seem to be ardent textualists. They are really more originalist with a textualist bent for the most part.

And you are spot on about Reid busting the filibuster for appellate appointments with the change in filibuster rule for them specifically.

And he was an idiot for wasting his powder on extending the break from the filibuster to SCOTUS on Gorsuch. Once that wall was breached there, he couldn’t use it on Kavanaugh. Which very well could have been a case that he could have salvaged the filibuster for.

Now all judicial appointments will be standard without the filibuster hurdle. He was an idiot to rip that hole first, and for the limited end he did it for. And all that followed with extending the no filibuster from all judicial appointments except SCOTUS to simply all judicial appointments pretty much all traceable to Reid opening up that feature in the first instance.

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Powerless against the filibuster? Yes. Or are you saying they gave away a Supreme Court nomination for funsies?

I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

You should write to Harry Reid thanking him for that......

Your side was warned they were going to do something stupid. They did it anyway.

(09-26-2024 08:31 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:25 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

At what point in their development do democrats care whether children die or not?

When they can survive independently of the mother.

At what point do Republicans do anything at all to protect living children?

And when would that be genius? You think a newborn can survive on it's own? Hell there are 20 year olds that can't.

Gun bans are not going to protect children regardless of what drivel you swallow. Guns were far more accessible in the past than they are now yet the problem is worse today than back then. It's doesn't take much common sense to see what has changed over the years.

(09-26-2024 08:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

And yet when the Dems had all the power they didn't do it... But I don't see you calling that out since that is a talking point of the Dems.. Nor did they codify any of the other hundred things they promise..

Open up Kamalaciff, it's coming back in.

And we come full circle, getting back to my original point: The Dems did not have all the power because as long as Republicans have 40 willing senators they have uncontested power to block anything and everything they want.

(09-26-2024 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To make a fine point —- Neither Gorsuch, Barret, or Kavanaugh seem to be ardent textualists. They are really more originalist with a textualist bent for the most part.

And you are spot on about Reid busting the filibuster for appellate appointments with the change in filibuster rule for them specifically.

And he was an idiot for wasting his powder on extending the break from the filibuster to SCOTUS on Gorsuch. Once that wall was breached there, he couldn’t use it on Kavanaugh. Which very well could have been a case that he could have salvaged the filibuster for.

Now all judicial appointments will be standard without the filibuster hurdle. He was an idiot to rip that hole first, and for the limited end he did it for.

I'll grant you that originalist is a better term than textualist.

The broader point is that chasing power grabs by changing the rules will absolutely continuously backfire on the Democrats.

(09-26-2024 08:52 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

And yet when the Dems had all the power they didn't do it... But I don't see you calling that out since that is a talking point of the Dems.. Nor did they codify any of the other hundred things they promise..

Open up Kamalaciff, it's coming back in.

And we come full circle, getting back to my original point: The Dems did not have all the power because as long as Republicans have 40 willing senators they have uncontested power to block anything and everything they want.

And conversely the Reps have never held all the power because as long as Dems have 40 willing senators the Dems have the equal uncontested power to block anything and everything they want.

Kind of an odd balance, eh?

(09-26-2024 08:52 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  And we come full circle, getting back to my original point: The Dems did not have all the power because as long as Republicans have 40 willing senators they have uncontested power to block anything and everything they want.

No, what he's saying is that the Dems could have eliminated the filibuster in 2021, but not even enough Democratic senators want it gone. Thankfully, they saw the danger of eliminating it while holding power.

(09-26-2024 08:22 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

Compare that to the # of children murdered by Planned Parenthood and get back to us or just STFU with your virtue signaling hypocrisy

This right here^^^^
Liberals do have the market cornered on hypocrisy. It’s who they are.

(09-26-2024 08:59 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To make a fine point —- Neither Gorsuch, Barret, or Kavanaugh seem to be ardent textualists. They are really more originalist with a textualist bent for the most part.

And you are spot on about Reid busting the filibuster for appellate appointments with the change in filibuster rule for them specifically.

And he was an idiot for wasting his powder on extending the break from the filibuster to SCOTUS on Gorsuch. Once that wall was breached there, he couldn’t use it on Kavanaugh. Which very well could have been a case that he could have salvaged the filibuster for.

Now all judicial appointments will be standard without the filibuster hurdle. He was an idiot to rip that hole first, and for the limited end he did it for.

I'll grant you that originalist is a better term than textualist.

The broader point is that chasing power grabs by changing the rules will absolutely continuously backfire on the Democrats.

And should Rs expand the current breach in the filibuster from solely judicial issues, I guarantee you that that will backfire on the Rs.

I guess we need to see who goes forward with the next set of rules changes.

Right now we stand in that regard as Ds doing the initial rule change, and Rs responded with an equal rule change in the exact same arena.