McConnell Warns Against ‘Radical’ Supreme Court Pick

red/green hawk

HR Heisman
Oct 28, 2009
5,624
4,705
113
I'd like to think you're right about it not meaning much, but with the Garland nomination and then the Trump nominees it seems that playing games with Justices is now going to be super-political.
Oh it will be a circus more than likely. It's what we've come to expect unfortunately.
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
22,081
28,274
113
I think this is going to be a pretty calm confirmation compared to the last 2....that's my bet. Cons still have a 6-3 majority so it's really not worth going nuts over and they'll be more concerned with the mid-terms...don't want to go off the rails and give the Dems any ammo.

Joe already gave them their talking point on this for the mid-terms anyway.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,188
14,434
113
Dem president with rep senate majority is different circumstance than rep president and senate.
Why waste the time in the senate to turn garland down?

SC Justices have been confirmed many times in the past when the Senate was controlled by the other party. Don’t pretend what Mitch did was normal.

7 months before an election. Garland deserved his up or down vote. McConnell and Chuck created a new rule in order to keep Republicans from having to publicly vote down a qualified candidate for the SCOTUS. He also did it in a naked power play.
The result of McConnell's machinations is a public that increasingly sees the SCOTUS as political, a court that is eager to overturn settled law, and a court that is increasingly at odds with the opinions of the citizens.

Worse than that. Scalia died in February.
I don't understand why Mitch is making a big deal here. We all know he's going to vote to confirm no matter who it is. It will be one radical to replace another radical. The make up of the court won't change. This is really a big nothing burger. If anything it could give BiteMe a little momentum going into the midterms.

You know that Breyer was considered moderate, if liberal leaning Justice right? To call him a radical is laughable.
So you think he would have been confirmed?
Wow

Well he’d previously been easily confirmed to the District Court (DC?) and last year was comfortably confirmed as AG, so yeah. Especially since several of the GOP Senators were on record as publicly complimenting him.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,188
14,434
113

red/green hawk

HR Heisman
Oct 28, 2009
5,624
4,705
113
So the opposition party hasn’t previously refused to hold hearings when that’s happened before, thanks for confirming.
Now research when those seats came open. How many times a seat was held open for a year?

Mitch admitted as much after the fact that he was playing politics.
Yes he was playing politics. What's wrong with that? It's allowed. What he did was not unprecedented. Mitch was not obligated to get a nominee through before the election.

Ummm....only one time in 10 did the president get a nominee through. Obama knew he wasn't getting Garland through. Cry about it all you want. It happened. Deal with it.

What are you more butt hurt about? That Garland didn't get appointed or that the Dimocrats got played by the Turtle?
 

franklinman

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2011
2,594
2,778
113
I'm starting to wonder if Sinema isn't going to create another problem for the confirmation as she is likely bitter about being censured by the AZ Dem Party?

That said, it should put the spotlight on some GOP Senators up for reelection in contested States.
Around 5 cons will confirm the dem pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

TheCainer

HR Legend
Sep 23, 2003
23,199
16,726
113
That would be very good. Republicans win on this topic almost every time. No one wants more radical members of the courts whether it's appeals or the Supreme Court. We've seen the disastrous situations in court settings where a majority of judges have been appointed by democrat governors and Presidents.
Names of said democratic appointees?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,188
14,434
113
Yes he was playing politics. What's wrong with that? It's allowed. What he did was not unprecedented. Mitch was not obligated to get a nominee through before the election.

Ummm....only one time in 10 did the president get a nominee through. Obama knew he wasn't getting Garland through. Cry about it all you want. It happened. Deal with it.

What are you more butt hurt about? That Garland didn't get appointed or that the Dimocrats got played by the Turtle?
No, refusing to so much as hold a confirmation hearing was very much unprecedented. I’d have understood had this happened in late summer or fall, but Scalia died in February. blocking a nomination for an entire year WAS unprecedented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

red/green hawk

HR Heisman
Oct 28, 2009
5,624
4,705
113
No, refusing to so much as hold a confirmation hearing was very much unprecedented. I’d have understood had this happened in late summer or fall, but Scalia died in February. blocking a nomination for an entire year WAS unprecedented.
Remind me which Article in the Constitution spells out the time table that the Senate has to use to hold confirmation hearings. There has to be something in there that states when a SC seat comes up before a certain date in an election year the Senate must hold confirmation hearings in a timely manner.

Your answer is b) to my question btw, butt hurt because the Turtle outmaneuvered the Dumocrats on this one.

#separationofpowers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tfxchawk

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,188
14,434
113
Remind me which Article in the Constitution spells out the time table that the Senate has to use to hold confirmation hearings. There has to be something in there that states when a SC seat comes up before a certain date in an election year the Senate must hold confirmation hearings in a timely manner.

Your answer is b) to my question btw, butt hurt because the Turtle outmaneuvered the Dumocrats on this one.

#separationofpowers

Quit dodging the issue. The role of the Senate when presented with a judicial nominee is to “advice and consent”. They did neither in 2016.

And please, there was no maneuvering here. Mitch just refused to hold hearings, rolling the dice that a republican would win in November. Had Hillary won, Garland would have been confirmed by thanksgiving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992

butt force

Scout Team
Mar 30, 2020
118
82
28

McConnell warns to stay away from food dish; prepared to fight other turtles for last piece of celery​

 
  • Like
Reactions: DFSNOLE

red/green hawk

HR Heisman
Oct 28, 2009
5,624
4,705
113
Quit dodging the issue. The role of the Senate when presented with a judicial nominee is to “advice and consent”. They did neither in 2016.

And please, there was no maneuvering here. Mitch just refused to hold hearings, rolling the dice that a republican would win in November. Had Hillary won, Garland would have been confirmed by thanksgiving.
Advise and consent is exactly what the Turtle did. He advised the President not to submit a nomination before the general election because he would not consent until after. Maybe Hillary should've brought her A game that election instead of phoning it in.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,188
14,434
113
Advise and consent is exactly what the Turtle did. He advised the President not to submit a nomination before the general election because he would not consent until after. Maybe Hillary should've brought her A game that election instead of phoning it in.
So one man is allowed to torpedo a judicial nomination? That’s not how it’s supposed to work.
 

hawkifann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2001
37,211
14,793
113
Pretty sure the President only has to "consult" congress (someone more educated than me can expand). Why can't Biden simply send the name over and if Republicans refuse to give them a hearing say "ok, well you had your chance. This is the Justice now" ????
Because that’s not how it works. If it was, Garland would be on SCOTUS and one of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett wouldn’t be.
 

hawkifann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2001
37,211
14,793
113
Yes he was playing politics. What's wrong with that? It's allowed. What he did was not unprecedented. Mitch was not obligated to get a nominee through before the election.

Ummm....only one time in 10 did the president get a nominee through. Obama knew he wasn't getting Garland through. Cry about it all you want. It happened. Deal with it.

What are you more butt hurt about? That Garland didn't get appointed or that the Dimocrats got played by the Turtle?
I will say this for McConnell - it was a hell of a gamble. At the time Garland was nominated, Trump was strong, but not yet the candidate and most still expected him to lose to HRC. If that had panned out, I’m quite certain the next justice nominated would have been more left than Garland. It worked out, but it’s not like at the point Garland was nominated that Trump was a guarantee.
 

Jim Grizzly

HR Legend
Feb 24, 2010
11,790
4,597
113
Because that’s not how it works. If it was, Garland would be on SCOTUS and one of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett wouldn’t be.
No that's what it says...I'm curious if it could be pulled off.

You ask your consultant to give an opinion and they decline to hear you. At what point is that operating in bad faith?
 

hawkifann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2001
37,211
14,793
113
No that's what it says...I'm curious if it could be pulled off.

You ask your consultant to give an opinion and they decline to hear you. At what point is that operating in bad faith?
I guess it could be pursued, but I can’t imagine that it would fly to give a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court via basically exec order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tfxchawk

Jim Grizzly

HR Legend
Feb 24, 2010
11,790
4,597
113
I guess it could be pursued, but I can’t imagine that it would fly to give a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court via basically exec order.
Right but that's not what it would be. The nomination would be presented. If there is a refusal to consider and vote.... Anyway silly thought experiment. What do our local lawer say?
 

Huey Grey

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2013
47,206
66,031
113
I think this is going to be a pretty calm confirmation compared to the last 2....that's my bet. Cons still have a 6-3 majority so it's really not worth going nuts over and they'll be more concerned with the mid-terms...don't want to go off the rails and give the Dems any ammo.

Joe already gave them their talking point on this for the mid-terms anyway.
I hope you're right. But I suspect the Rs will manufacture all kinds of excuses to not even hold a vote. They will paint the next justice as the worst nominee ever. I hope I am wrong on this account.
 

Tfxchawk

HR MVP
Jun 22, 2021
1,892
1,656
113
Right but that's not what it would be. The nomination would be presented. If there is a refusal to consider and vote.... Anyway silly thought experiment. What do our local lawer say?
Yeah it wouldn't work. The senate has every ability to do exactly what Mitch did. The senate doesn't work for the president and that move by Mitch is the separation of powers working exactly the way it is supposed.to work

Sort of like the democrats in a hearing getting a crazy woman to make an unsubstantiated claim of rape and sexual abuse at a high school party decades ago to sink a nomination. Yes it is allowed but it sure as hell didn't work out for them
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
22,081
28,274
113
I hope you're right. But I suspect the Rs will manufacture all kinds of excuses to not even hold a vote. They will paint the next justice as the worst nominee ever. I hope I am wrong on this account.
Doesn’t make political sense with this nomination……but we’ll see.
 

HawkRCID

HR All-American
Nov 7, 2018
3,554
6,240
113
Yeah Moscow Mitch can take a hike on this one.
After the Garland and Trump fiascos I’m of the opinion the court should be elected, or term limits.

If they want to rule politically….fine….but then you’re subject to the will of the people….
 

mstp1992

HR Legend
Dec 10, 2011
32,125
32,388
113
Cedar Rapids -- Iowa City
faseb.org
Yeah it wouldn't work. The senate has every ability to do exactly what Mitch did. The senate doesn't work for the president and that move by Mitch is the separation of powers working exactly the way it is supposed.to work

Sort of like the democrats in a hearing getting a crazy woman to make an unsubstantiated claim of rape and sexual abuse at a high school party decades ago to sink a nomination. Yes it is allowed but it sure as hell didn't work out for them
Kavanaugh is a drunken sexual pervert, and you know it. It’s why Trump nominated him.
 

red/green hawk

HR Heisman
Oct 28, 2009
5,624
4,705
113
So one man is allowed to torpedo a judicial nomination? That’s not how it’s supposed to work.
If I may quote Obama. "Elections have consequences." Mitch was the majority Senate leader. That position carries a little bit of weight. There are rules the Senate adopts for parliamentary procedures. If what the Turtle did was so egregious the Chuckster should change them. But guess what, Schumer won't because he'd do the same thing if he were in the same position.
 

Latest posts