One of Trump’s worst legacies will be his transformation of the Supreme Court

[McIlraveysMullet]

justify their own actual court packing.

In the words of Mitch, "Elections have consequences." If the Biden Administration decides to "pack the courts,"
then @hawkedoff has some advise for you:

Then you disrespect the right if the Senate to handle things within their domain. That is their right and while I don't like how garland was handled it is well within the senate's power to decide what they decided.

 

[z_ape]

RBG intentionally passed on retiring during the Obama administration in anticipation of having the first woman president, Hillary Clinton, appoint her replacement,.. When that didn't pan out the plan changed to trying to outlive the Trump administration,.. Wouldn't be surprised to see Democrats pushing for some early retirements on the court so that they can reload with younger, more progressive talent...

Poor strategy, doesn't say much either way about the McConnell question

 

[Titanhawk2]

"His worst legacy is the ugly, racially tinged divisiveness that he stoked for four years, " Not stoked by him - none of you can post an incident - but stoked by the otherside

 

[Rifler]

Poor strategy, doesn't say much either way about the McConnell question

There is no McConnell question,.. The man is a genius at political strategy and Chuck Schumer wants to be just like him...

 

[z_ape]

There is no McConnell question,.. The man is a genius at political strategy and Chuck Schumer wants to be just like him...

I'm trying to settle the question of whether or not he violated norms -- to a significant degree -- in his handing of the Garland nomination

 

[sober_teacher]

I'm trying to settle the question of whether or not he violated norms -- to a significant degree -- in his handing of the Garland nomination

And unless you can find another example where the Senate refused to so much as even consider the President's SC nominee, the answer to your question is absolutely yes.

Mitch rolled the dice that he could block Obama's nominee, and then a GOP president would nominate a conservative judge instead. I guarantee had Hillary won, they would have gone full-speed ahead on confirming Garland to make sure they didn't end up with someone even more liberal once Hillary was in office.

 

[hawkedoff]

RBG intentionally passed on retiring during the Obama administration in anticipation of having the first woman president, Hillary Clinton, appoint her replacement,.. When that didn't pan out the plan changed to trying to outlive the Trump administration,.. Wouldn't be surprised to see Democrats pushing for some early retirements on the court so that they can reload with younger, more progressive talent...

Well shame on her then

 

[hawkedoff]

You’re a Trump supporter. Is that incorrect?

Yes you moron that is incorrect

 

[hawkedoff]

Yes I do. Just like I disrespect your right to spit on a sidewalk. I didn’t say they didn’t have the right, just that I think it was a terrible thing to do.

Except it isn't at all. The Senate is not a runner stamp for the President. They have the power they do deliberately. You may not agree with them but our power is out vote

The people have now changed leadership in the Senate and such the Democrats in power can exercise their role as well

 

[z_ape]

And unless you can find another example where the Senate refused to so much as even consider the President's SC nominee, the answer to your question is absolutely yes.

Mitch rolled the dice that he could block Obama's nominee, and then a GOP president would nominate a conservative judge instead. I guarantee had Hillary won, they would have gone full-speed ahead on confirming Garland to make sure they didn't end up with someone even more liberal once Hillary was in office.

I need to get back to the article I posted earlier. I thought they stated that a number of the 10 situations in the past that mirrored the Garland situation ended up with the nominee delayed in vote until the next president too office. At any rate, the information is out there somewhere.

But I need to return to that.

The other question I have.. would Garland have gotten the votes needed? (I understand that you're stating it's a problem he wasn't voted on at all)

 

[sober_teacher]

I need to get back to the article I posted earlier. I thought they stated that a number of the 10 situations in the past that mirrored the Garland situation ended up with the nominee delayed in vote until the next president too office. At any rate, the information is out there somewhere.

But I need to return to that.

The other question I have.. would Garland have gotten the votes needed? (I understand that you're stating it's a problem he wasn't voted on at all)

Well, on paper it would have been an interesting conundrum for the GOP. Many of them had voted to confirm him to the DC Circuit and had publicly spoken positively about him in the past.

But that's besides the point. Had they even just held hearings on Garland, and then voted to reject him for the SC, I'd have no qualms from a procedural/precedent standpoint when they then rushed through Barrett in '20. THAT'S what has me upset about what Mitch did back then.

The problem surrounding Garland for me, isn't that he wasn't confirmed, it's that the Senate never even considered him. I will never understand how the Senate can exercise their "advise and consent" function surrounding judicial nominees if they never even consider said nominee.

 

[Rifler]

I'm trying to settle the question of whether or not he violated norms -- to a significant degree -- in his handing of the Garland nomination

I don't see it,.. He definitely pushed the envelope but everything he did was within his realm of control. If it wasn't he wouldn't have been able to handle it in the fashion that he did...

 

[sober_teacher]

I don't see it,.. He definitely pushed the envelope but everything he did was within his realm of control. If it wasn't he wouldn't have been able to handle it in the fashion that he did...

Again, we're not arguing that what Mitch did was constitutional/legal. Unfortunately, it was. What we're arguing is that it wasn't right to do so.

 

[EasyHawk]

Honest question, is he leaving any good legacy??