McConnell Warns Against ‘Radical’ Supreme Court Pick

red/green hawk

HR Heisman
Oct 28, 2009
5,624
4,705
113
It's amazing how blatantly incorrect your account of a clearly documented event has led you to projecting an opinion on to someone and then arguing against it.
Let's go over this again. Just because you accuse somebody of something doesn't make it so. You have yet to explain how the Turtle refusing to hold confirmation hearings is 1) changing Senate rules, 2) a naked power grab.

I wasn't bitching, what's done is done. I was illuminating how, quite often, dishonestly and exaggeration is used to justify unprecedented rules changes. They have the power to do so, but that doesn't change that it was a naked power grab.
What rules were changed? What is a naked power grab in your opinion?
 

mstp1992

HR Legend
Dec 10, 2011
32,125
32,388
113
Cedar Rapids -- Iowa City
faseb.org
Let's go over this again. Just because you accuse somebody of something doesn't make it so. You have yet to explain how the Turtle refusing to hold confirmation hearings is 1) changing Senate rules, 2) a naked power grab.


What rules were changed? What is a naked power grab in your opinion?
It was a power grab to put in a radical right wing Justice. Period.
 

Jerome Silberman

HR Legend
Oct 30, 2009
11,353
14,930
113
Let's go over this again. Just because you accuse somebody of something doesn't make it so. You have yet to explain how the Turtle refusing to hold confirmation hearings is 1) changing Senate rules, 2) a naked power grab.


What rules were changed? What is a naked power grab in your opinion?
The Republicans used the 'nuclear option' which is fun term for changing the rules(which is in their power). The "power grab" I was referring to is the unprecedented length of time that Sen McConnell used his power of the gavel to deny a hearing on a SCOTUS vacancy.

My opinion on the subject is that it was a damaging, but predictable, decision that was made to ensure short term power with little respect to the potential future instability it could help create. And issue is not with the brinkmanship in Washington, it's that too many GOP voters aren't giving their officials the credit they deserve. Mitch McConnell used his immense powers to do something nobody had ever been audacious enough to attempt, and succeeded in fundamentally changing the way that the government operates, fomenting political instability and who knows what else will come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

red/green hawk

HR Heisman
Oct 28, 2009
5,624
4,705
113
Your blinders are obvious. It was a move that violated 200 years of senate precedent.

Radical? Lulz.
Please elaborate on Senate procedure...I've already highlighted that only 1 time out of 10 that the opposition party when nominating a Justice in an election year had it put on the floor for consideration. The main issue most have is that it happened in March of an election year instead of closer to the actual election. It's not exactly breaking procedure.
 

red/green hawk

HR Heisman
Oct 28, 2009
5,624
4,705
113
The Republicans used the 'nuclear option' which is fun term for changing the rules(which is in their power). The "power grab" I was referring to is the unprecedented length of time that Sen McConnell used his power of the gavel to deny a hearing on a SCOTUS vacancy.

My opinion on the subject is that it was a damaging, but predictable, decision that was made to ensure short term power with little respect to the potential future instability it could help create. And issue is not with the brinkmanship in Washington, it's that too many GOP voters aren't giving their officials the credit they deserve. Mitch McConnell used his immense powers to do something nobody had ever been audacious enough to attempt, and succeeded in fundamentally changing the way that the government operates, fomenting political instability and who knows what else will come.
Thank you for elaborating. I understand. So how close to an election is close enough to not consider a nomination in your opinion? I believe Obama nominated Garland in March.
 

Jerome Silberman

HR Legend
Oct 30, 2009
11,353
14,930
113
Thank you for elaborating. I understand. So how close to an election is close enough to not consider a nomination in your opinion? I believe Obama nominated Garland in March.
My opinion on a length of time is irrelevant. The precedent is now that if a vacancy appears during a an election year where the Senate and POTUS are at odds it will not be filled.

We'll all just have to wait and see if that is a net positive for the health and well-being of the country.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,188
14,434
113
Everything was just hunky dory before ole Mitch refused to nominate Garland. Bipartisanship never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever existed in Washington before then. Impeaching Trump over a phone call to Ukraine was in the best interest of the country too I suppose. Calling in a fake witness to testify against Kavanaugh wasn't divisive at all, no, no, no, no, no. Making Thomas's confirmation about a pube on a Coke can was just par for the course...spare me your "can't we all just get along" while you sit upon a pedestal of righteous indignation BS whenever your side loses.

Here's some of your problems:
Mitch refused to at least have hearings Garland. (Obama nominated him)
Impeaching trump over a phone call.
Calling a fake witness to testify against Kavanaugh.
Making Thomas's confirmation about a pube on a Coke can.

Like all 4 of those were just that simple. Statements like you made in this thread is why you have no credibility.
Well, Susan Collins and a couple other GOP senators said afterwards that they found that fake witness “credible” so…
Thank you for elaborating. I understand. So how close to an election is close enough to not consider a nomination in your opinion? I believe Obama nominated Garland in March.
for me, the cutoff date would be roughly Labor Day. afterwards, a third of the Senate and possibly the POTUS is generally pretty focused on campaigning.

if nothing else, I wish Mitch had just been consistent and done the same thing with the RBG opening as he did with Scalia’s. The hypocrisy behind the whole thing is what pissed me off the most.
 

red/green hawk

HR Heisman
Oct 28, 2009
5,624
4,705
113
for me, the cutoff date would be roughly Labor Day. afterwards, a third of the Senate and possibly the POTUS is generally pretty focused on campaigning.
For the record I was okay with the Turtle doing what he did, and thankful if I have to be honest, but I would actually be okay with making a hard date to have to confirm by. I also would like to see the campaign periods cut short. It seems like POTUS starts the campaign process WAAAAY to early. IMO this is part of the reason for the divide. We are always so focused on what divides us that we can never really focus on things that can unite us. (Please excuse my "if the world could only share a Coke" BS.)
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,188
14,434
113
For the record I was okay with the Turtle doing what he did, and thankful if I have to be honest, but I would actually be okay with making a hard date to have to confirm by. I also would like to see the campaign periods cut short. It seems like POTUS starts the campaign process WAAAAY to early. IMO this is part of the reason for the divide. We are always so focused on what divides us that we can never really focus on things that can unite us. (Please excuse my "if the world could only share a Coke" BS.)
If nothing else, I feel like $$$ is the reason campaign season has gotten longer and longer. All other individual actions aside, Citizens United did a great deal of damage to how campaigns are funded now.
 

BGHAWK

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
17,414
9,923
113
McConnell played the horribly flawed game better than the Democrats did. But he played it within the rules the Democrats helped to construct, so deal with it. Either get better at the game or work to change the rules.
Personally, I thought it was a lame move on McConnell’s part, but it worked.

Please explain what rule the Democrats helped to construct regarding confirming a supreme court justice with 51 votes.
 

mstp1992

HR Legend
Dec 10, 2011
32,125
32,388
113
Cedar Rapids -- Iowa City
faseb.org
For the record I was okay with the Turtle doing what he did, and thankful if I have to be honest, but I would actually be okay with making a hard date to have to confirm by. I also would like to see the campaign periods cut short. It seems like POTUS starts the campaign process WAAAAY to early. IMO this is part of the reason for the divide. We are always so focused on what divides us that we can never really focus on things that can unite us. (Please excuse my "if the world could only share a Coke" BS.)
You lost credibility by being a Trump supporter and calling Garland ‘radical left.’
 

Latest posts