Rough week for lefties

[brenthutch 444]

Mr. REID. I raise a point of order that the vote on cloture under Rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the rules, the point of order is not sustained.
Mr. REID. I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.
(48–52 vote on upholding ruling of the chair)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The decision of the Chair is not sustained.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. *** Under the precedent set by the Senate today, November 21, 2013, the threshold for cloture on nominations is now a majority. That is the ruling of the Chair.^[7]

^{That Mr Reid would be Senate leader Harry Reid…Democrat} 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,559]

19 minutes ago, jakee said:

By contrast, the Republicans by their own admission worked against the will of the American people to ram through the fastest nomination in history, of an ultra-radical Justice, so they could overturn settled law that the large majority of the American people did not want overturned.

Let's not forget that it was done less than two months before a presidential election, when those same Republicans had used the upcoming election in 9 months as an excuse for NOT even addressing Merrick Garland in 2016. But I'm sure there's some reason conservatives can find to excuse that, other than "I agree with the result." I'd be interested in the mental gymnastics required to make that OK, and not an act of monumental hypocrisy and power-building.

Do they actually agree with the full tone of all of these decisions, or just with the fact that they piss off liberals?

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 444]

3 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Do they actually agree with the full tone of all of these decisions, or just with the fact that they piss off liberals?

Wendy P.

Are you fine with POTUS spending a half a trillion dollars by fiat? Bypassing congress? Ripping up contracts? 

[jakee 1,571]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

^{That Mr Reid would be Senate leader Harry Reid…Democrat} 

Yes indeed - that is a Democrat not changing the rules for Supreme Court confirmations. So when you have it there in black and white, why are you still lying about it?

[kallend 2,117]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

Yes indeed - that is a Democrat not changing the rules for Supreme Court confirmations. So when you have it there in black and white, why are you still lying about it?

He has no other option.

[brenthutch 444]

21 minutes ago, jakee said:

Yes indeed - that is a Democrat not changing the rules for Supreme Court confirmations. So when you have it there in black and white, why are you still lying about it?

 

21 minutes ago, jakee said:

Yes indeed - that is a Democrat not changing the rules for Supreme Court confirmations. So when you have it there in black and white, why are you still lying about it?

A distinction without a difference, the Ds changed what they needed to get what they wanted.  They eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees despite being warned of the consequences. They ignored the advice and suffered accordingly.  

[jakee 1,571]

26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

A distinction without a difference, the Ds changed what they needed to get what they wanted.  

Another lie, on several levels.

First, the Democrats changed what they needed to get a functioning government. Judges need to be confirmed, the judicial system can’t function without them. The Republican had pledged, out loud in public, to block all judicial nominees. 
 

Second, this is what you said. They couldn’t have done it had the Ds did not done away with the filibuster for judicial nominees. As your own source shows, the Democrats had no involvement with what the Republicans could or could not do. The Republicans’ decision to change the rules so they could, by their own admission, ram through Supreme Court appointments against the will of the American people was theirs and theirs alone.

 

Again, the fact that you feel the need to constantly lie about this just shows that you know how anti-democratic the Republican Senate and their radical justices really are.

Edited July 2, 2023 by jakee

[brenthutch 444]

18 minutes ago, jakee said:

Another lie, on several levels.

First, the Democrats changed what they needed to get a functioning government. Judges need to be confirmed, the judicial system can’t function without them. The Republican had pledged, out loud in public, to block all judicial nominees. 
 

Second, this is what you said. They couldn’t have done it had the Ds did not done away with the filibuster for judicial nominees. As your own source shows, the Democrats had no involvement with what the Republicans could or could not do. The Republicans’ decision to change the rules so they could, by their own admission, ram through Supreme Court appointments against the will of the American people was theirs and theirs alone.

 

Again, the fact that you feel the need to constantly lie about this just shows that you know how anti-democratic the Republican Senate and their radical justices really are.

https://rollcall.com/2020/10/15/if-you-dont-like-the-supreme-court-blame-harry-reid/

 

Eight years later in 2013, it would be Harry Reid and a Democratic majority that would do away with the filibuster for executive branch appointments and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court. Despite warnings from the minority that it was a decision they would live to regret, Reid and the Democrats deployed the nuclear option anyway. 

Their day of reckoning came on Jan. 20, 2017, with a Republican president and Senate in control of judicial nominations. For the past four years, President Donald Trump and Republicans have done their constitutional duty in nominating and confirming federal judges, including now three Supreme Court nominations. But don’t blame Trump or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Blame Harry Reid who put politics ahead of principle and opened the door for Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and soon Amy Coney Barrett. 

just like I said 

Edited July 2, 2023 by brenthutch

[jakee 1,571]

35 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

just like I said 

Yet another lie. You said the Republicans couldn’t have done it without the Dems actions. The above is yet another source which proves you wrong. Why can’t you just admit that instead of continuing to dig the hole deeper?

The claim that it’s somehow the Dems fault anyway is like the rest of what you said - a deeply disingenuous opinion that doesn’t hold up to the lowest level of scrutiny.

37 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

For the past four years, President Donald Trump and Republicans have done their constitutional duty in nominating and confirming federal judges,

So you and your source agree that Senate Republicans refused to do their constitutional duty throughout the whole of Obama’s presidency?

[wmw999 2,559]

And why did they deploy the nuclear option? Was it just out of pique, or was there a reason, like, for instance, increasing judicial caseloads that were being blocked by a Republican House that just didn't give a fuck about the functioning of the people who needed courts, as long as they got to hold their breaths?

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 444]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

 

So you and your source agree that Senate Republicans refused to do their constitutional duty throughout the whole of Obama’s presidency?

Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, gives the Senate the responsibility to advise the president about nominees and the authority to consent to (approve or reject) those nominations. 
 

“U.S. President Barack Obama nominated over 400 individuals for federal judgeships during his presidency. Of these nominations, Congress confirmed 329 judgeships, 173 during the 111th & 112th Congresses[1] and 156 during the 113th and 114th Congresses.[2]”

So it looks like Republicans approved the vast majority of Obama’s nominees, rejecting only far-left radical zealots. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

Yet another lie. You said the Republicans couldn’t have done it without the Dems actions. The above is yet another source which proves you wrong. Why can’t you just admit that instead of continuing to dig the hole deeper?

The claim that it’s somehow the Dems fault anyway is like the rest of what you said - a deeply disingenuous opinion that doesn’t hold up to the lowest level of scrutiny.

So you and your source agree that Senate Republicans refused to do their constitutional duty throughout the whole of Obama’s presidency?

Because lying and making counter accusations is what republicans do best. First its convenient. Second and most important for republicans its all about winner take all. Any compromise, any real or imagined interpretation of the constitution is something to be used to take and hold power.

So these court interpretations of the constitution and precedent are viewed as defeats of the enemy. Or in Brent's view a "bad week for non republicans". What goes unsaid is that this court has years and years of such rulings ahead of it. With judicial overreach thrown in at regular intervals.

[jakee 1,571]

33 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

So it looks like Republicans approved the vast majority of Obama’s nominees, rejecting only far-left radical zealots. 

I shouldn’t have said the whole of his Presidency, that was wrong. Shit - you see how easy that was? Why don’t you try it? 
 

But your conclusion is, once again, utterly absurd. 
 

Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland may be the most prominent casualty of the GOP-controlled Senate’s election-year resistance on the federal judiciary — but the pace of overall judicial confirmations under Mitch McConnell is on track to become the slowest in more than 60 years.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/mitch-mcconnell-judges-225455

[brenthutch 444]

14 minutes ago, jakee said:

I shouldn’t have said the whole of his Presidency, that was wrong. Shit - you see how easy that was? Why don’t you try it? 
 

But your conclusion is, once again, utterly absurd. 
 

Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland may be the most prominent casualty of the GOP-controlled Senate’s election-year resistance on the federal judiciary — but the pace of overall judicial confirmations under Mitch McConnell is on track to become the slowest in more than 60 years.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/mitch-mcconnell-judges-225455

So it was worse sixty years ago when Democrats were in charge?

Edited July 2, 2023 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,868]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Are you fine with POTUS spending a half a trillion dollars by fiat? Bypassing congress? Ripping up contracts? 

Are you seriously that twitterpated about a policy that on average would cost the US treasury about 20 Billion a year? Depending on which data set you prefer that's more or less the annual payback rate for $400 Billion in student loans. In the big scheme of things, and for our economy, that's just pinball money. So, yes, I am cool with the POTUS having that amount of power to make things better in America. 

[jakee 1,571]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

So it was worse sixty years ago when Democrats were in charge?

Those are the depths you have to sink to to support your argument here? “The Democrats did it first, 60 years ago”? And you seriously think that helps your cause?

[billvon 3,090]

35 minutes ago, jakee said:

Those are the depths you have to sink to to support your argument here? “The Democrats did it first, 60 years ago”? And you seriously think that helps your cause?

The republican three-step in action:

1) Republicans didn't do it
2) OK they did it but what they really meant was X
3) Democrats did it first

Every topic.  Every time.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Those are the depths you have to sink to to support your argument here? “The Democrats did it first, 60 years ago”? And you seriously think that helps your cause?

His 'cause' is trolling.

Anything that generates a response is considered a success. 

No need to actually 'support his argument'.

Post 28 - Asked a direct question by a 'known to be reasonable' person, responds by asking a question on a completely different subject.

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Those are the depths you have to sink to to support your argument here? “The Democrats did it first, 60 years ago”? And you seriously think that helps your cause?

Seems my cause is doing just fine

#winning

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Are you seriously that twitterpated about a policy that on average would cost the US treasury about 20 Billion a year? Depending on which data set you prefer that's more or less the annual payback rate for $400 Billion in student loans. In the big scheme of things, and for our economy, that's just pinball money. So, yes, I am cool with the POTUS having that amount of power to make things better in America. 

Two words….

moral hazard 

[JerryBaumchen 1,451]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

Another lie, on several levels.

First, the Democrats changed what they needed to get a functioning government. Judges need to be confirmed, the judicial system can’t function without them. The Republican had pledged, out loud in public, to block all judicial nominees. 
 

Second, this is what you said. They couldn’t have done it had the Ds did not done away with the filibuster for judicial nominees. As your own source shows, the Democrats had no involvement with what the Republicans could or could not do. The Republicans’ decision to change the rules so they could, by their own admission, ram through Supreme Court appointments against the will of the American people was theirs and theirs alone.

 

Again, the fact that you feel the need to constantly lie about this just shows that you know how anti-democratic the Republican Senate and their radical justices really are.

Hi jakee,

Well, it works for Trump; why won't it work for Brent?

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,571]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Seems my cause is doing just fine

#winning

If winning is all you care about, why do you feel the need to lie about how it was done?

[kallend 2,117]

37 minutes ago, jakee said:

If winning is all you care about, why do you feel the need to lie about how it was done?

I suspect he can't help himself.

[Phil1111 1,149]

56 minutes ago, jakee said:

If winning is all you care about, why do you feel the need to lie about how it was done?

 

18 minutes ago, kallend said:

I suspect he can't help himself.

Like other republicans.

[billvon 3,090]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Seems my cause is doing just fine

#winning

Sorry, your cause is failing fast.  You can support all the backlash and whitelash you like - but in the long term, your cause always loses.

The global push for gay rights around the world has been a long, slow struggle – in some Middle Eastern and African countries, for example, same-sex acts today can bring the death penalty. But public acceptance is increasing, even in culturally conservative countries, according to a global study released on Thursday.

People in the United States, India, South Africa, Japan, South Korea and Mexico have registered the largest gains in public acceptance with gay rights since 2002, according to findings released from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-06-25/lgbtq-acceptance-growing-in-us-and-other-countries-over-time

Ninety-four percent of U.S. adults now approve of marriages between Black people and White people, up from 87% in the prior reading from 2013. The current figure marks a new high in Gallup's trend, which spans more than six decades. Just 4% approved when Gallup first asked the question in 1958.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx