Democrats about to take the supreme court

[dolphins4life]

This thread was reporting news, and wondering why Trump, or any president before didn't try this tactic. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

This thread was reporting news, and wondering why Trump, or any president before didn't try this tactic. 

False.

1 it wasn't reporting news.  It announced as a foregone conclusion something that was very doubtful to happen.

2 it is blatantly false that no president has attempted this.  A few have some have been successful some have not.

[pondwater]

Not super interested in these alligator tears about how terrible this idea would be, after the stunts Republicans pulled with Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett.

Mitch McConnell made it crystal clear that the only rule is: you pass whatever the hell you want if you can get the votes for it.  The filibuster did not stop McConnell from doing a single thing that he wanted to.

You should tell that to CF, who is over here whining about how "people on both sides know this is a bad idea."  But when Mitch McConnell was blocking Merrick Garland, or confirming Amy Coney Barrett 9 days before an election?  No worries at all from CF then.

It's crystal clear that the only rule now are you pass whatever you can pass; power is power.  This entire thread is a smokescreen, designed to try to distract from the power grabs by Senate Republicans that have already taken place.  I don't want to hear any more nonsense about "unprecedented actions."

No one knew beforehand that Trump would get to pick 3 justices, but the opportunity presented itself. If the situation was reversed the Dems would have done the exact same thing. And don't even try to argue that point. They're all hypocrites. So the only alligator tears are from the left, you guys started this shit.

McConnell and republicans used the same procedural tactics within the framework of the senate that the Democrats did in 2013. And McConnell specifically warned Reid about the consequences of using the nuclear option and that the Democrats would "regret it", but they still moved forward.

Now the Democrats do "regret it" and want to act like a petulant children. They blame everyone but but themselves and want to keep escalating the situation proposing passing legislation to fundamentally transform one of the branches of government. The SC is supposed to be non political and the left is trying to make it political to their benefit.

If they would have proposed picking 11 instead of 13, they might have an ounce of credibility. But it's no coincidence that the number 13 was picked to take control of the judicial system by any means. Democrats are just sad desperate people that will do ANYTHING to gain power. What they gonna do when this blows up in their face too and they regret it, launch the missiles?

[Spider-Dan]

I knew it: you're doing exactly the same whining as CF, while pretending that you're a realist.  The Democrats want to fundamentally transform one of the branches of government - so scary!  If they had only picked a useless number like 11 (that allowed us to retain the power we grabbed), maybe this wouldn't be so bad!  Dems are so sad and desperate that they'll do ANYTHING in their lust for power!

ALLIGATOR TEARS.

The only justification Mitch McConnell needed is, "I can do it, therefore I'm doing it."  The GOP attempted to repeal Obamacare - not with the same 60 votes it took to pass it, but with only 50.  And the only reason they failed is because they couldn't even count to 50.

I have no patience for any conservative that wants to whine and complain about Democrat power grabs.  You guys made it crystal clear: all bets are off, all options are on the table.  Reap what you sow.

[pondwater]

You guys made it crystal clear: all bets are off, all options are on the table.  Reap what you sow.

Yes, you Democrats made it clear in 2013 that all options are were on the table. You were warned not to do it or you would "regret it", but you did anyway and it came back to bite you in the ass. Yes, you're correct, you reap what you sow.

So when you get done changing your Kotex, let me know how "all bets are off, all options on the table" worked out for you last time you tried it. You should be thankful that it's only 6-3 and not 7-2 or 8-1.

[Spider-Dan]

Why are you citing 2013 as the start?  2013 was after 6 years of McConnell deciding to filibuster everything under the sun:

[pondwater]

Why are you citing 2013 as the start?  2013 was after 6 years of McConnell deciding to filibuster everything under the sun:

WTF you talking about? We're talking about the "Nuclear Option". You know the difference right?

Again, here come the liberals trying to CONFLATE terms to confuse people too ignorant to know the difference. I guess the "use of proper terminology" doesn't matter in this thread either 🙄🙄🤔🤔🤣🤣

[Spider-Dan]

The "nuclear option" was a response to greatly increased filibuster use by McConnell, as per the above linked graph.

You think you're talking about a cause, but you're actually talking about an effect.

[pondwater]

The "nuclear option" was a response to greatly increased filibuster use by McConnell, as per the above linked graph.

You think you're talking about a cause, but you're actually talking about an effect.

Using the filibuster is not the same thing as fundamentally changing the Senate rules to rig the game in your favor. There's a reason they call it the nuclear option. It's viewed as such a dramatic step in the procedural arms race that it’s been likened to nuclear warfare. The Democrats are the ones who escalated the situation. They were warned not to do it and proceeded to get their ass handed to them.

This is like a back and forth verbal argument. And then someone (Democrats) gets their feelings hurt because they're losing the verbal argument. Then proceeds to escalate to a physical fight and gets their ass beat beat down.

Now you crying about hijacking and stealing. The simple fact is that the Republicans did the same thing the Democrats were warned not to do in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less. You democrats lost at your own game, now you want to try and cheat again because you can't handle it? Go ahead and watch it blow up in your face again, I like watching you guys go into meltdown mode, LMFAO

[Spider-Dan]

The Senate rules are "fundamentally changed" all the time.  The Byrd Rule (which was created in 1985) was a "fundamental change," as was allowing Senators to filibuster without speaking.

More importantly, though: you're offering a false dilemma.  You say that the Democrats escalated the situation in 2013 by eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominees.  The alternative option would be to allow the filibuster to continue, resulting in zero Obama judges being confirmed.  And we're supposed to believe that had the Democrats not done this, a Republican-controlled Senate would have... allowed an Obama Supreme Court nominee to go through, after they filibustered every lower court nominee?  Yeah, that is the emptiest of promises.

Listen, I have no problem with the "Power is power" argument.  That's 100% fine with me.  My objection is to the fake outrage at the idea that the Democrats might exercise power that is legally available to them.

[pondwater]

The Senate rules are "fundamentally changed" all the time.  The Byrd Rule (which was created in 1985) was a "fundamental change," as was allowing Senators to filibuster without speaking.

More importantly, though: you're offering a false dilemma.  You say that the Democrats escalated the situation in 2013 by eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominees.  The alternative option would be to allow the filibuster to continue, resulting in zero Obama judges being confirmed.  And we're supposed to believe that had the Democrats not done this, a Republican-controlled Senate would have... allowed an Obama Supreme Court nominee to go through, after they filibustered every lower court nominee?  Yeah, that is the emptiest of promises.

Listen, I have no problem with the "Power is power" argument.  That's 100% fine with me.  My objection is to the fake outrage at the idea that the Democrats might exercise power that is legally available to them.

That's exactly what you're doing by saying that Trump and the republicans hijacked and stole 3 SC seats when all they did is use the same option the democrats they used in 2013? They didn't hijack or steal anything. You're just using that as an excuse to escalate again to tilt the odds in your favor. So what happens when the Republicans eventually gain control again and add even more seats to regain majority on the court?

Oh, and by the way, I'm not outraged or even worried about this because more than likely it's not going to happen anyhow. Just correcting "terminology" used in this thread. There were no SC seats hijacked or stolen. They were simply filled by Republicans instead of Democrats.

[Sunstroke]

It’s easy for you to say.  We got a seat stolen and now you just want us to take it.  I hope we pack the courts.  It would better reflect the electorate anyway.  Political norms are gone...just grab power any way you can if the other side is going to.  There’s no other choice. 

FUCK...YES!!

And the voice of reason is heard throughout the land...

[CF DolFan]

It’s easy for you to say.  We got a seat stolen and now you just want us to take it.  I hope we pack the courts.  It would better reflect the electorate anyway.  Political norms are gone...just grab power any way you can if the other side is going to.  There’s no other choice.

And that is why this country will fall in the next 20-30 years. Too many people like you that say f it if it gets me my way. As it stands ... you are in the minority but that is changing at a increasingly alarming rate.

If you think using politics to keep a seat open is the same as packing the courts then it's useless to argue. the next time Repub or any other members take control they would just add more seats until the whole thing was as useless as our political system.

[Sunstroke]

If you think using politics to keep a seat open is the same as packing the courts then it's useless to argue. the next time Repub or any other members take control they would just add more seats until the whole thing was as useless as our political system.

You're right...it's useless. Please feel free to not vote any more.  Just pretend you're in Georgia...with a tan.

[Spider-Dan]

That's exactly what you're doing by saying that Trump and the republicans hijacked and stole 3 SC seats when all they did is use the same option the democrats they used in 2013?

In 2013, Democrats eliminated the filibuster on judicial nominees outside of the Supreme Court.
In 2017, Republicans eliminated the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees to confirm Neil Gorsuch.  This is, indeed, comparable to what Dems did in 2013; it is expected and not what I'm referring to.

What I am referring to is in 2016 when Senate Republicans refused to even allow hearings for Merrick Garland (who was nominated 8 months before the election) under the premise that no nominee should be confirmed in an election year, and then in 2020 the same Senate Republicans not only held hearings in an election year, but confirmed a nominee 8 days before the election... after millions of Americans had already cast their votes for a new President.

That is not "the same option Democrats used in 2013."

So what happens when the Republicans eventually gain control again and add even more seats to regain majority on the court?

Then we'll have a situation better than the one we have now.  At least in that future, Democrats get to temporarily control the Supreme Court after a victory, instead of this BS "heads we win, tails you lose" game Republicans play now.

When it looked like Hillary was going to win, Senate Republicans were already saying that they would keep the Supreme Court at 8 until the vacancy could be filled by a Republican President.  Why would Democrats have any interest in playing this kind of game?  Making the Supreme Court a rubber stamp is preferable to a reality in which only Republicans are ever allowed to control it.