Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Had you read the Constitution, you would realize that the number of justices is not set forth in the document. And if you anything at all about our history, you whold know that teh original number was six. It has been nine most of the time, but nor always.

For once I agree with you on this particular point: this would further the politicization of the court which I am against. But if it happens, you will have brought this on yourselves due to the brazen hypocrisy of the Garland stunt.

You had netter hope the election goes your way. If it does not, then prepare to be hoisted on your own petard. The payback will be swift and just.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

A couple of items. I never mentioned the Constitution at all. Yes I did know it has not always been nine.

Hypocrisy of the Garland decision my butt. We both know you Democrats would have done the very same thing then just as you would do exactly as Trump is doing now IF the roles were reversed.

Swift and Just my ass. Democrats have screwed Republicans in the past and you know it. Harry Reid invoked the Nuclear Option. Then when Republicans used it later on you were all whining and crying. Democrats screwed Reagan big time over amnesty. Harry Reid refused to bring forward Republican Bills. Now you whine and cry because McConnell is returning the favor. You will whine and cry like little pussies forever.

Time for you Liberals to man up.

Dennis

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

The Dems are really going to be pissed if Breyer, Thomas, and Alito retire during Trump's next term, LOL. It would be nice to pick some judges as good as the latter two that are about 50 years old.

scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

btbg

That's easy to respond to and I have multiple times in several threads. In 1992 Biden said that in a hypothetical situation that if one party held the presidency and the other party the senate than supreme court justices should not be confirmed in an election year.

In 2016 Biden no longer believed that saying that Garland should be confirmed. Now in 2020 Biden says that Coney Barrett should not be confirmed because it is an election year.

Meanwhile, in 2016 McConnell agreed with Biden's position in 1992 and held up the confirmation. Now, in 2020 Republicans hold both the presidency and the senate, therefore Biden's principal from 1992 does not apply and the Republicans are free to approve the nomination. Really pretty simple, isn't it? This will be the 11th time a supreme court justice was nominated in an election year. Only one was ever approved when one party had the presidency and the other held the senate. On the other hand all but one were approved when the same party had the presidency and the senate. This would just continue the pattern that has existed throughout our history.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

What nomination did McConnell hold in 1992 when he was't the majority leader and in fact, the Dems held the majority in the Chamber? To help you with your fact checking, please note the following link. I hope you find if helpful in cutting through the right wing blizzard of lies and noise machine:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

Your whole Biden argument is out of context and way overblown.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/sep/21/context-there-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Do you are wrong on basic, easily verifiable facts and you take things way out of context. I am sure that even you can see why your argument is not in the least persuasive.

btbg

You are not grasping what was said. There was no nomination in 1992. However, Biden was answering a hypothetical and said that if there were one it should not be acted on because there was a Republican president and a Democratic senate. In 2016 McConnell pointed out what Biden said in 1992 and said that he supported that position. Now, in 2020 one party controls both the presidency and the senate. That is not the same situation that would have existed in 1992 had there been a nomination and it is not the same situation that there was in 2016.

I never addressed who was the majority leader in 1992. It is not germane to the discussion. It is however, relevant that only once in history has a senate approved a supreme court nominee in an election year when a different party was in control of the senate than the presidency and only once when the same party held both was the nomination not approved.

Both 2016 and 2020 however, do follow historical precedent. That is easily verifiable. As far as the Biden thing being taken out of context it is not. Politifact only checks his speech on the subject and not his answers to questions in a subsequent press conference. In addition, that is a moot point because in 1992 he was against confirmations in an election year whether I took his statement out of context or not. In 2016 he was in favor of confirmation, and now he is against confirmation. So, regardless of context Biden has flipped his view three times, only supporting confirmation when it was a Democratic nominee.

McConnell on the other hand has applied the same policy both times. Graham and a bunch of other Republicans have flip flopped as have Schumer and most of the Democrats. McConnell however, is the one person being consistent.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

You said that McConnell held up a nomination in 1992. Your words, not mine. Maybe you misspoke and if so just admit it. But being a Trump Towner, that is probably just beyond your grasp.

The problem is not my inability to grasp what you said. Maybe the problem is your inability to say what you meant. Or the problem could be that someone in the Trump Town media/propaganda sphere said and you just barfed it out without minimus fact checking.

Either way, it's not on me. It's on you.