- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Democrats - Can't Win - Change the rules
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:43 pm
Enjoying the juicy and salty lib tears on Democratic Underground. The only hope they have is the threat of Biden to "Pack the court." So the 2016 change that they pushed through to get their way has blown up in their face twice now.
Today's new idea...change the rules again to get their way. In this case, keep adding more justices until they control everything.
They must be crushed. There is no other way.
Today's new idea...change the rules again to get their way. In this case, keep adding more justices until they control everything.
They must be crushed. There is no other way.
This post was edited on 9/18/20 at 9:44 pm
4
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:47 pm to RaginCajunz
quote:
Today's new idea...change the rules again to get their way. In this case, keep adding more justices until they control everything.
They must be crushed. There is no other way.
Yep. You get it. As long as they get what they want they are ok.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:49 pm to stickly
Isn't that exactly what the Republicans did?
Refused to vote on a justice, then changed the rules to only need a simple majority?
Refused to vote on a justice, then changed the rules to only need a simple majority?
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:49 pm to RaginCajunz
I think the left just gave Republicans in the Senate something to campaign on...
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:49 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Tigers0918
Apparently, you don’t know who Harry Reid is. Something about reaping...sowing...
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:52 pm to BugAC
Yes I do, and I think he was just as wrong to change rules like that.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:56 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Isn't that exactly what the Republicans did?
Refused to vote on a justice, then changed the rules to only need a simple majority?
No. Harry Reid changed that rule in 2016 to make it a simple majority at the warning of Republicans that such a change would be a bad idea and they would come to regret it.
He did it. Now they really regret it.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:58 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Refused to vote on a justice,
Followed precedent
Posted on 9/18/20 at 10:01 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Isn't that exactly what the Republicans did? Refused to vote on a justice, then changed the rules to only need a simple majority?
Negative, Ya boy Harry “blacked eye” Reid did that one.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 10:02 pm to roadGator
The Republicans control the Senate! The constitution is on their side. They have the right to do what the frick they want!
Posted on 9/18/20 at 10:31 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Yes I do, and I think he was just as wrong to change rules like that.
Who nominates an SC justice?
Who is the POTUS?
How long is a presidential term?
Who controls the Senate?
How long is their term?
This post was edited on 9/18/20 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 9/18/20 at 10:57 pm to honeybadger07
I think you need to do some research, Reid did change rules, which I disagree with, but he did not change the rules for number of votes needed for a Supreme Court justice, that was mitch
Posted on 9/18/20 at 10:59 pm to RaginCajunz
quote:This is the party of moving goalposts
Democrats - Can't Win - Change the rules
Never forget they weren't asking for homo marriage -- just civil unions
Posted on 9/18/20 at 10:59 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Isn't that exactly what the Republicans did? Refused to vote on a justice, then changed the rules to only need a simple majority?
No...Schumer changed the rules.
Cocaine Mitch told him that he would regret it someday.
LINK
Posted on 9/19/20 at 12:28 am to Eli Goldfinger
The link itself says justices below the Supreme Court.
Then Republicans went and changed the rules to include the Supreme Court.
Like I said, I think both changes are horrible as it takes all bi partisanship out of the judicial branch and that is a shame.
Then Republicans went and changed the rules to include the Supreme Court.
Like I said, I think both changes are horrible as it takes all bi partisanship out of the judicial branch and that is a shame.
Posted on 9/19/20 at 4:08 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
I think you need to do some research, Reid did change rules, which I disagree with, but he did not change the rules for number of votes needed for a Supreme Court justice, that was mitch
Okay whatever you say! Do you have a link for reference on Mitch changing vote to just simple majority? Would live to read it!
Posted on 9/19/20 at 4:15 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Isn't that exactly what the Republicans did?
Wait a minute. I mean, we can play, "Oh yeah, but what about ...?" forever, but the Dems removed 60 as the threshold to confirm cabinet appointments (Obama). So, all Mitch did was align the rule the Dems changed to also apply to SCOTUS justices (advice and consent, it's not legislation, after all - which was the argument).
As far as the opposing party (if majority in the Senate) not voting on a SCOTUS nominee in a Presidential election year, that rule was proposed by Joe Effing Biden many moons ago (1992, because they felt HW was vulnerable).
Now - what the Republicans could have done was take up Merrick Garland's nomination and then tried to utterly destroy him (like the Dems seem to do approximately every other Republican SCOTUS nominee going back to Robert Bork). The classier way was just to defer, as Mitch did in 2016.
If you're going to pout about it, pout about it accurately.
This post was edited on 9/19/20 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:17 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Wait a minute. I mean, we can play, "Oh yeah, but what about ...?" forever, but the Dems removed 60 as the threshold to confirm cabinet appointments (Obama). So, all Mitch did was align the rule the Dems changed to also apply to SCOTUS justices (advice and consent, it's not legislation, after all - which was the argument).
As far as the opposing party (if majority in the Senate) not voting on a SCOTUS nominee in a Presidential election year, that rule was proposed by Joe Effing Biden many moons ago (1992, because they felt HW was vulnerable).
Now - what the Republicans could have done was take up Merrick Garland's nomination and then tried to utterly destroy him (like the Dems seem to do approximately every other Republican SCOTUS nominee going back to Robert Bork). The classier way was just to defer, as Mitch did in 2016.
If you're going to pout about it, pout about it accurately.
Pretty much exactly all of that. Thanks.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:19 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Isn't that exactly what the Republicans did?
Refused to vote on a justice, then changed the rules to only need a simple majority?
This is exactly what they did
Posted on 9/20/20 at 5:22 pm to CenlaLowell
quote:
This is exactly what they did
The dems set the precedent by changing the rules for cabinet members. They were warned it was a bad idea to set that precedent. They made the shite sandwich that they will now have to eat.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News