Democrats say Republicans will regret Barrett confirmation, slam 'manipulation' of Supreme Court

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By David Aaro | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/kylTTNyh.jpg

Shortly after Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Democrats warned Republicans that they would regret their decision to hold a vote so closely to an election.

"The Republican majority is lighting its credibility on fire ... The next time the American people give Democrats a majority in this chamber, you will have forfeited the right to tell us how to run that majority," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech Monday.

"My colleagues may regret this for a lot longer than they think," he added.

Nominees once needed 60 votes to be confirmed, but Sen. Mitch McConnell changed the standard in 2017 to allow for a simple majority. That move allowed for the confirmation of President Trump's previous two nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., first eliminated the 60-vote threshold in 2013 to overcome GOP stonewalling of President Obama's nominations to the lower courts and the executive branch. Known as invoking the "nuclear option" at the time, Reid kept the higher standard in place for the Supreme Court.

The comments by Schumer appeared to be similar to those made by McConnell back in 2013 after the Democratic-controlled chamber eliminated the 60-vote threshold.

“You’ll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think,” McConnell said in 2013, according to the Hill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also released a statement criticizing Trump and the GOP Senate for "committed an act of supreme desperation" so close to Election Day.

Pelosi argued the confirmation, which she called a manipulation, was made so Trump and Republicans could "achieve their years-long campaign to destroy Americans’ health care"

“The President’s Supreme Court manipulation threatens the very values and rights that define and distinguish our nation: a woman’s constitutional right to make her own medical decisions, the rights of LGBTQ Americans, the right of workers to organize and collectively bargain for fair wages, the future of our planet and environmental protections, voting rights and the right of every American to have a voice in our democracy," Pelosi wrote in a statement.

Democratic senators warned that Republicans have lost the right to complain if they win back the majority.

"Will Democrats go to new, extraordinary lengths to maximize their power given the extraordinary lengths Republicans have gone to maximize their power? This is not a conversation that is ripe enough yet, but what do Republicans expect?" said Sen. Chris Murphy D-Conn., as part of the chamber’s debate over Barrett.

"Do we just unilaterally stand down and not choose to use the same tools that Republicans did in the majority? ... I think there are now new rules in the Senate, and I think Republicans have set them," he continued, according to the paper.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., released a statement calling the confirmation a "sad day for the Senate and for the Court."

"My Republican colleagues put the rule of ‘because we can’ over the traditions and precedents of the Senate, the principles we hold dear as an institution, and the integrity of the federal judiciary," he said.

The Supreme Court said in a press release Monday that Barrett will be able to start her new role after Chief Justice John Roberts administers her judicial oath on Tuesday. Justice Clarence Thomas administered the constitutional oath at Monday's ceremony.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Edmund DeMarche | Fox News


Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, tried to immortalize her vote Monday night against the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court when she walked to a table on the floor of the Senate, pointed her thumbs down and said, “hell no” while casting her vote.

The vote did not affect the evening’s outcome but was seen as an encapsulation of the deep frustrations felt by Democrats that President Trump would be filling a court seat just a week from the November election.

Hirono was criticized over her treatment of Barrett during the confirmation hearings. She asked the judge if she ever “made unwanted requests for sexual favors, or committed any physical or verbal harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”

Barrett responded, “No,” and Hirono told her that she asks the question to all nominees who come before committees on which she sits.

Hirono also scolded the Trump appointee for saying "sexual preference" during the hearing.

"Let me make clear, 'sexual preference' is an offensive and outdated term," Hirono said. "It is used by the anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity... So if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a 'preference,' as you noted, then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you will uphold their constitutional right to marry."

Her decision on Monday to vote in such a dramatic fashion and then seem to exit the chamber was criticized by Republicans on social media who saw the move as theatrics that play for the Democrat base. Her office did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News seeking comment.
1320879291740114947
All Republicans, except for Sen. Susan Collins, voted in favor of the confirmation; every Democrat opposed it.

The Barrett nomination process brought new tension to Washington that seemed to culminate when Demand Justice, a left-wing organization, called on Sen. Dianne Feinstein to step down from the judiciary committee. The California Democrat also drew fire when she embraced Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at the end of the fourth and final day of testimony in Barrett’s confirmation hearing.

The Supreme Court said in a press release Monday that Barrett will be able to start her new role after Chief Justice John Roberts administers her judicial oath on Tuesday. Justice Clarence Thomas administered the constitutional oath at Monday's ceremony.

Barrett told the audience at the South Lawn of the White House Monday night, "It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges don't stand for election. Thus, they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people."

[lost in melb.]

Gloves are off now. No more nice Dem :)

[DemonGeminiX]

:wah:

[DemonGeminiX]

Gloves are off now. No more nice Dem :)

I guess you haven't really been paying attention, but there hasn't been a single nice Dem since Trump was elected.

And for the record, Trump has the Senate, and there's no Constitutional provision that limits the President's duty to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. Nor is there a Constitutional provision that limits the Senate's ability to confirm that judge to the Supreme Court. If it was the last day of his term and the last day the Republicans had a majority in the Senate and there was an open seat, then he could appoint a judge and the Senate could confirm him or her on that very last day.

The Democrats are just being crybabies, like usual.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I guess you haven't really been paying attention, but there hasn't been a single nice Dem since Trump was elected.

I dunno, Tulsi Gabbard isn't horrible and isn't mean or condescending when talking about Trump.

[DemonGeminiX]

I dunno, Tulsi Gabbard isn't horrible and isn't mean or condescending when talking about Trump.

Ok, there was one nice Democrat.

[lost in melb.]

I guess you haven't really been paying attention, but there hasn't been a single nice Dem since Trump was elected.

And for the record, Trump has the Senate, and there's no Constitutional provision that limits the President's duty to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. Nor is there a Constitutional provision that limits the Senate's ability to confirm that judge to the Supreme Court. If it was the last day of his term and the last day the Republicans had a majority in the Senate and there was an open seat, then he could appoint a judge and the Senate could confirm him or her on that very last day.

The Democrats are just being crybabies, like usual.

There's no Constitutional provision limiting the size of SCOTUS either :twisted:

[Muddy]

There's no Constitutional provision limiting the size of SCOTUS either :twisted:

Changing the rules because you don't like the outcome of the game isn't right.

[DemonGeminiX]

There's no Constitutional provision limiting the size of SCOTUS either :twisted:

No, but the Judiciary Act of 1869, a federal law that was passed to address multiple issues relating to the judicial system, limits the size of the Supreme Court at 9. And a Constitutional Amendment defining the size of the court could be drafted and passed.

[lost in melb.]

Changing the rules because you don't like the outcome of the game isn't right.

With a 6 to 3 leaning, Dems may consider it a matter of survival rather then a game

[lost in melb.]

Changing the rules because you don't like the outcome of the game isn't right.


No, but the Judiciary Act of 1869, a federal law that was passed to address multiple issues relating to the judicial system, limits the size of the Supreme Court at 9. And a Constitutional Amendment defining the size of the court could be drafted and passed.







In 1869 Republicans were in control ...and passed a new judiciary act that set the number of justices back to nine and required six justices present to form a quorum on decisions.


Which is exactly what the republicans did in 1869 :dunno:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

With a 6 to 3 leaning, Dems may consider it a matter of survival rather then a game

A matter of survival? :-s Because they don't have a court filled with judges that will greenlight all their bullshit ideas? Because the court won't be filled with judges who think it's their job to "interpret" what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution instead of reading it as-is, the law of the land, and basing their rulings that way?

[FBD]

With a 6 to 3 leaning, Dems may consider it a matter of survival rather then a game

the guilty will not survive the edification :villagers:

and the rest of them,

https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-08-2015/03TA57.gif

[lost in melb.]

A matter of survival? :-s Because they don't have a court filled with judges that will greenlight all their bullshit ideas? Because the court won't be filled with judges who think it's their job to "interpret" what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution instead of reading it as-is, the law of the land, and basing their rulings that way?

It'll be a steamroll.

I'm not in a position to judge which judgements are right or wrong, but it's not going to fall in the Democrats favour often. I bet you'd be screaming blue murder if the 6 to 3 was in the other direction :)

[Muddy]

With a 6 to 3 leaning, Dems may consider it a matter of survival rather then a game

I understand their sentiment, hopefully the SCOTUS can put aside their personal convictions and interpret the law without prejudice. In that position you would think and hope politics don't matter. John Roberts actions as of late seem show that people don't always work out of the bucket that the media has placed you in to.

[FBD]

It'll be a steamroll.

I'm not in a position to judge which judgements are right or wrong, but it's not going to fall in the Democrats favour often. I bet you'd be screaming blue murder if the 6 to 3 was in the other direction :)

yeah, because we wouldnt have a republic any longer, they would rubber stamp the finishing moves on the destruction of the USA

[lost in melb.]

I understand their sentiment, hopefully the SCOTUS can put aside their personal convictions and interpret the law without prejudice. In that position you would think and hope politics don't matter. John Roberts actions as of late seem show that people don't always work out of the bucket that the media has placed you in to.



Hopefully they have greater moral conviction than politicians. They seem to be doing an ok job so far.

No idea about the new bird. .

[lost in melb.]

yeah, because we wouldnt have a republic any longer, they would rubber stamp the finishing moves on the destruction of the USA

Right.

[FBD]

Right.

I cant wait until we find out what corruption Sotomayor and Kagan have on them, so that they can be removed, too :haha: The salt that will be emitted, my dear lord, it will be sweetly harvested :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

It'll be a steamroll.

I'm not in a position to judge which judgements are right or wrong, but it's not going to fall in the Democrats favour often. I bet you'd be screaming blue murder if the 6 to 3 was in the other direction :)

The SCOTUS has been more reliably liberal for more than 50 years now, even though (R) presidents have appointed more judges because of the democrat controlled senate. Here's an article to edumacate yourself (the article is a few years old but is still relevant): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/06/29/it-took-conservatives-50-years-to-get-a-reliable-majority-on-the-supreme-court-here-are-3-reasons-why/

[Muddy]

I know it probably contradicts what I said earlier but I do feel that we need to be able to evolve as a people. This isn't the same world we live in today than when this country was originally founded.

[FBD]

I know it probably contradicts what I said earlier but I do feel that we need to be able to evolve as a people.

what does this even mean, lol. sure, if everyone meditated and obtained significant above baseline energy potentials, the world would be a much calmer place, but...what's the meaning of this newspeak you are typing :razz:

https://i.imgur.com/N4z5o13.jpg

[KevinD]

Tha fug is that thing in the left side picture???

[FBD]

Tha fug is that thing in the left side picture???

images like that were amongst the materials that the nazis burned

[KevinD]

That really tells me nothing. I mean, where the hell did a picture of a pre teen girl (I think?) And a naked drag queen (I'm assuming full male genitalia) come from?
How is that not child porn as per the laws? What am I missing here?

[FBD]

That really tells me nothing. I mean, where the hell did a picture of a pre teen girl (I think?) And a naked drag queen (I'm assuming full male genitalia) come from?
How is that not child porn as per the laws? What am I missing here?

sorry, it was merely an illustration of where ruth bader ginsberg's ilk were going as a contrast to ACB & dems freaking out about it saying they will lose rights

[KevinD]

Do you know the source of the picture? I still don't understand how it could be published. Oh well.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Do you know the source of the picture? I still don't understand how it could be published. Oh well.

https://www.womenarehuman.com/public-backlash-over-drag-kid-who-hangs-out-with-killer-inspires-pedophiles-open-lust/

[Muddy]

This has nothing to do with gender identity and everything to do with sexual perversity and child exploitation.

[KevinD]

Thanks Lance. That clears things up. Fucking sick. Smdh.

[FBD]

This has nothing to do with gender identity and everything to do with sexual perversity and child exploitation.

we can also go back to RBG's writing that she believes the age of consent should be lowered to 12