Democratic Party Senators voted 47 - 0 against confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett: Had 3 more Democrats won seats in 2018, Barrett would not be a Supre

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1cthlctrth

Guest
Grouped By State:

Alabama:
Jones (D-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea

Alaska:
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Sullivan (R-AK), Yea

Arizona:
McSally (R-AZ), Yea
Sinema (D-AZ), Nay

Arkansas:
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Cotton (R-AR), Yea

California:
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Harris (D-CA), Nay

Colorado:
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Gardner (R-CO), Yea

Connecticut:
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Murphy (D-CT), Nay

Delaware:
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Coons (D-DE), Nay

Florida:
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Scott (R-FL), Yea

Georgia:
Loeffler (R-GA), Yea
Perdue (R-GA), Yea

Hawaii:
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay

Idaho:
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea

Illinois:
Duckworth (D-IL), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay

Indiana:
Braun (R-IN), Yea
Young (R-IN), Yea

Iowa:
Ernst (R-IA), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea

Kansas:
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea

Kentucky:
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Yea

Louisiana:
Cassidy (R-LA), Yea
Kennedy (R-LA), Yea

Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay

Maryland:
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay

Massachusetts:
Markey (D-MA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay

Michigan:
Peters (D-MI), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay

Minnesota:
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Smith (D-MN), Nay

Mississippi:
Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea

Missouri:
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Hawley (R-MO), Yea

Montana:
Daines (R-MT), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay

Nebraska:
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Sasse (R-NE), Yea

Nevada:
Cortez Masto (D-NV), Nay
Rosen (D-NV), Nay

New Hampshire:
Hassan (D-NH), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay

New Jersey:
Booker (D-NJ), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay

New Mexico:
Heinrich (D-NM), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay

New York:
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay

North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Tillis (R-NC), Yea

North Dakota:
Cramer (R-ND), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea

Ohio:
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea

Oklahoma:
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Lankford (R-OK), Yea

Oregon:
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Pennsylvania:
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Toomey (R-PA), Yea

Rhode Island:
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay

South Carolina:
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Scott (R-SC), Yea

South Dakota:
Rounds (R-SD), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea

Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Blackburn (R-TN), Yea

Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea

Utah:
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Romney (R-UT), Yea

Vermont:
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay

Virginia:
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Nay

Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay

West Virginia:
Capito (R-WV), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Nay

Wisconsin:
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Johnson (R-WI), Yea

Wyoming:
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea

(source: Senate.gov)

What results in the 2020 Senate Elections?
 
Last edited:
If something that happened hadn’t, things would have been different.

In other news, water is wet.

My cautious prediction for next week, Trump wins, senate Republicans pick up a few seats but Dems keep the house and nothing really changed over the next 4 years.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
47 against, that’s pretty obscene and expected.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call it obscene…its merely political. What I would call obscene are the democrat portrayals of ACB’s nomination and confirmation. Biden called it unconstitutional, other’s called it a “power grab”. This kind of language appeals to an uninformed electorate who do not know this was entirely constitutional.
 
I think it is obscene though; Look how partisan this is.

I’m sure one of the most liberal members ever on SCOTUS is Elena Kagan:
On May 10, 2010, President Barack Obama announced his selection of Elena Kagan for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Kagan’s nomination was confirmed by a 63–37 vote of the United States Senate on August 5, 2010.
Click to expand...

How about Sotomayor?


A bit more divided but still some “Yea” votes.

Straight-forward, this kind of voting can easily appear as downright bigotry.
 
Good thing Mitch got rid of the 60-vote threshold for SC Justices and singlehandedly eliminated Garland.
 
Last edited:
Former Democratic Party Senate leader Harry Reid was the one who eliminated the 60-vote threshold for Federal Judicial appointments.
 
ProVobis said:
Good thing Mitch got rid of the 60-vote threshold for SC Justices and singlehandedly eliminated Garland.
Click to expand...
In a sense M.Mitch WAS and IS in the position to throw the spanner into the works and became a dictator of the judicial process. Hopefully in a week that will change.
 
The democrats are against everything the Republican is for.
Let’s ask Adam Schiff what his view is. This summaries the AOC and the other 3.
 
Victoria33 said:
I’m sure one of the most liberal members ever on SCOTUS is Elena Kagan:
Click to expand...
Victoria33 said:
Kagan’s nomination was confirmed by a 63–37 vote of the United States Senate
Click to expand...
Victoria33 said:
Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 6, 2009 by a 68–31 vote and was commissioned by President Obama the same day
Click to expand...
Excellent points. Several Republicans voted in favor of leftists Kagan and Sotomayor.

The 47 - 0 vote against Amy Coney Barrett confirms, once again, that there is no such thins as a “moderate” Democrat Senator. So, the next time the media tries to portray a Democratic Party Senatorial candidate as a “moderate”, we can keep in mind votes like 47 - 0 against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. Not even one Democrat had the courage to stand on their own.
 
Last edited:
Trump summed it up in the debate:

Elections have consequences.

If the liberal blow-hards owned the Whitehouse, they would most certainly have done the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Zake said:
In a sense M.Mitch WAS and IS in the position to throw the spanner into the works and became a dictator of the judicial process.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. He acted in accordance with his duties and authorities as specified in the Constitution.
 
MikeInVA said:
Nonsense. He acted in accordance with his duties and authorities as specified in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Well, not really. The Constitution says nothing about having ONE person with the power to allow or disallow even the debate and deliberation of an SC nominee. Just like it is silent about the number of SC justices. 🙂

But I am curious, what will you say if (and hopefully when) the Democrats will get into the position to extend the Court with freedom loving, aka liberal justices who will re-establish the concept of a woman having dominion over the her own body.

I am most disappointed that freedom, aka. liberty became almost cuss-words.
 
Last edited:
Zake said:
But I am curious, what will you say if (and hopefully when) the Democrats will get into the position to extend the Court with freedom loving , aka liberal justices who will re-establish the concept of a woman having dominion over the her own body.
Click to expand...
I really think you need to go back to civics class. The SCOTUS does not make laws - Congress passes bills that when signed by the president become laws. The purpose of the SCOTUS is to rule on whether those laws are in accordance with the Constitution.

The left’s fear with ACB is because Roe v Wade is bad law, and won’t survive scrutiny when viewed in light of what the Constitution actually says.

It’s sad that people actually hope for justices who will not perform their duty (to review laws in light of the Constitution).
Zake said:
I am most disappointed that freedom, aka. liberty became almost cuss-words.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the millions of people who were murdered because of the bad law that is Roe v Wade.
 
Once again, when the democrats don’t get their way they act like spoiled children!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top