ADVERTISEMENT

Pretty good opinion piece on long-term consequences of rushing SCOTUS nominee

I stopped at literally the first sentence:

jamming through a highly partisan justice

Like, any attempt to consider truth? Does anyone want to compare the partisanship of Republican SC appointments, versus Democratic ones? Republican nominees are as likely to be moderate or liberal as they are hardcore conservative. Who's the last Democratic nominee that didn't rule the liberal line completely?

17 of the last 21 justices nominated since 1969 have been nominated by Republicans. And yet Roe still stands, Obamacare stands, we got gay marriage and employment protections for homosexuals, etc. If we were going to be living in Handmaid's Tale because of Republican SC nominees, I think we'd be there already.

The chances of a moderate, non-partisan supreme court justice being nominated by a Republican is proven much greater than the chances of one being nominated by a Democrat. The "partisan justice" rhetoric is just a lie.
There's merit, and hope, in this post. That SC justices will follow the law rather than try to make law. The concern, of course, is that there is a gray area there and the republicans have not been happy with the relatively moderate views of their past appointments. Their efforts seem to be focused on getting even further right leaning ideology in place so that anything in the gray area goes their way rather than choosing the jurists best equipped to interpret the law.
 
Huh? The Republicans are doing whatever they want...except to the extent permissible by law. Democrats don’t like it so they cry foul and make up lies to justify it.

The democrats would do exactly the same thing the republicans are doing right now and since it‘s legal...that’s just the way the ball bounces.

Nip, I enjoy our discussions, but I've seen this assertion many times over the past week, and there's just no evidence to support that. Both parties have attempted to delay/block judicial appointments in the past, that part of this is nothing new. What IS new is that 4 years ago Mitch created his rule that you couldn't approve an SC nominee during an election year without letting the voters have their say. Now they're trying to act as though that's not what they did.

I invite everyone to research and tell me I'm wrong, but I've not found ANY other occasion where either party simply refused to hold even confirmation hearings for an SC nominee. And yes, Biden made that statement back in '92...but there was no opening at the time and it was never put to the test. On the other hand, we know what the GOP did in 2016.

Had they held a vote on Garland and denied him, I'd have zero complaints about pushing thru another nominee this year. But they didn't, and there's no whataboutism in this case.
 
Huh? The Republicans are doing whatever they want...except to the extent permissible by law. Democrats don’t like it so they cry foul and make up lies to justify it.

The democrats would do exactly the same thing the republicans are doing right now and since it‘s legal...that’s just the way the ball bounces.
Over the last couple days I have come to terms with the Republican flip flopping on this topic and welcome them to do what they think is the right thing. Actions have consequences of course and we will see how America responds in the upcoming election.

Will you be ok when (and if) the dems eventually gain control of the senate and presidency and do what they think is the right thing to the extent permissable under the law?

Just want to make sure we have you on record on this.
 
There are dozens of instances of precedence set by Republicans on why a SCOTUS pick shouldn't be made during an election year. Why shouldn't that matter this year?

"I proudly stand with my Republican colleagues in our shared belief -- our advice and consent -- that we should not vote on any nominee until the next president is sworn into office." Ted Cruz 2016
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
Over the last couple days I have come to terms with the Republican flip flopping on this topic and welcome them to do what they think is the right thing. Actions have consequences of course and we will see how America responds in the upcoming election.

Will you be ok when (and if) the dems eventually gain control of the senate and presidency and do what they think is the right thing to the extent permissable under the law?

Just want to make sure we have you on record on this.
Based on history, I doubt you will get an answer to that question.
 
The Dems don't take losing well.
LOL...what a moran. The article is premised on YOU losing, dumbass. And if you lose, I want to watch you "take it well". Not a word...not so much as a squeak...when all the blatant hypocrisy and cheating that you've cheered on is undone.
 
There's merit, and hope, in this post. That SC justices will follow the law rather than try to make law. The concern, of course, is that there is a gray area there and the republicans have not been happy with the relatively moderate views of their past appointments. Their efforts seem to be focused on getting even further right leaning ideology in place so that anything in the gray area goes their way rather than choosing the jurists best equipped to interpret the law.

Based on what? Goruch has ruled in favor of gays and Indians just recently.

A lot of conservatives were concerned about Kavanaugh's conservative reliability so that's definitely to be determined. Roberts is basically hated by many conservatives for being unreliable. If they're making a concerted effort all of a sudden, the results aren't any different.

You can tell yourself that conservatives are newly disappointed with the non-conservative performance of their judges, but that's just not true...it's been a complaint going back to Nixon's appointments.

Moderate justices are nominated by Republicans. Democrats nominate doctrinaire, 100% liberal activist justices. The supreme court pearl clutchers in the media don't want moderate justices or a balanced court, they want straight down the line liberal justices on every case, because to them that's what is "good". Any justice to the right of Sotamayor or Ginsburg is a radical conservative partisan in the media, but that bears no resemblance to the truth.

You've got two hard core conservatives in Alito and Thomas. You have dependable liberals in Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer. You've got moderates in Roberts and Gorusch. Kavanaugh is TBD. It's a pretty mixed court, and even if this seat slips from a liberal in Ginsburg to a conservative, it's just a perfectly typical move of one ideological peg, just like Obama wanted to do with Garland. It's not world shaking.

And that's if the nominee even turns out to be conservative, which history shows, it probably won't.
 
Nip, I enjoy our discussions, but I've seen this assertion many times over the past week, and there's just no evidence to support that. Both parties have attempted to delay/block judicial appointments in the past, that part of this is nothing new. What IS new is that 4 years ago Mitch created his rule that you couldn't approve an SC nominee during an election year without letting the voters have their say. Now they're trying to act as though that's not what they did.

I invite everyone to research and tell me I'm wrong, but I've not found ANY other occasion where either party simply refused to hold even confirmation hearings for an SC nominee. And yes, Biden made that statement back in '92...but there was no opening at the time and it was never put to the test. On the other hand, we know what the GOP did in 2016.

Had they held a vote on Garland and denied him, I'd have zero complaints about pushing thru another nominee this year. But they didn't, and there's no whataboutism in this case.

What Mitch said was he would not allow an appointment on an election year when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party. People are forgetting there are two conditions there (1) election year (2) senate controlled by the opposite party.
 
Over the last couple days I have come to terms with the Republican flip flopping on this topic and welcome them to do what they think is the right thing. Actions have consequences of course and we will see how America responds in the upcoming election.

Will you be ok when (and if) the dems eventually gain control of the senate and presidency and do what they think is the right thing to the extent permissable under the law?

Just want to make sure we have you on record on this.

Honestly...I accept what is permitted by law. I may or may like something but won’t lie or deceive myself into believing I’ve been victimized or cheated. You have me on record. I’m used to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler
In a presidential election year?
Furthermore, she was recommended by both Janet Reno and Orrin Hatch, and confirmed 96-3.
What difference does that make? The last time I looked, the Constitution doesn’t say a justice can’t be appointed during an election year. Numerous justices have been appointed in an election year, so that argument carries no weight.

If Dems vote on the nominees qualifications and not be partisan crybabies, there is no reason Trumps nominee can’t be approved 97-3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
This country will be in an even better place when women lose the right to choose and ACA is overturned. Nothing like forcing 800,000 women to have children without health insurance during an once in a century pandemic, economic crisis, and a growing wealth disparity. And people are worried about fatherless homes and crime, now. Just wait.
Hysterical, fear mongering nonsense. Always screaming Roe v Wade will be overturned. And yet it is still the law of the land 47 years later. Sycophant.
 
What Mitch said was he would not allow an appointment on an election year when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party. People are forgetting there are two conditions there (1) election year (2) senate controlled by the opposite party.

even if that were true, it still leaves out other SC openings have been filled under those very conditions, or at least got hearings. Even under your version of what he said, or the arguments here theyre using now, that doesn’t excuse no hearings at all for Garland.
 
What difference does that make? The last time I looked, the Constitution doesn’t say a justice can’t be appointed during an election year. Numerous justices have been appointed in an election year, so that argument carries no weight.

If Dems vote on the nominees qualifications and not be partisan crybabies, there is no reason Trumps nominee can’t be approved 97-3.
200.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
Which rule did the Republicans break and are you talking about?

Jesus Christ dude, at least own up to it. But why should I expect any kind of intelligent debate with you. Nevermind. Keep mouthing off your idiocy.
 
You want to change the entire conversation from Roe v Wade being overturned to abolishing abortion. Not the same.
I didn't change anything. I asked a question that makes you uncomfortable and now your spinning.
 
What Mitch said was he would not allow an appointment on an election year when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party. People are forgetting there are two conditions there (1) election year (2) senate controlled by the opposite party.
No. That's not what he said. That's patently untrue.
 
even if that were true, it still leaves out other SC openings have been filled under those very conditions, or at least got hearings. Even under your version of what he said, or the arguments here theyre using now, that doesn’t excuse no hearings at all for Garland.

1. My version is an accurate version.
2. There are only two exceptions to this, one was in the 19th century and the other was when the nomination was not in the election year but confirmed in one.
3. Garland was a different situation. Mitch explained it.
 
Jesus Christ dude, at least own up to it. But why should I expect any kind of intelligent debate with you. Nevermind. Keep mouthing off your idiocy.

This isn’t CNN where you get to pick your facts. See my post above.
 
I didn't change anything. I asked a question that makes you uncomfortable and now your spinning.

I’m not uncomfortable in the slightest. Apparently you aren’t familiar with my position on abortion.
Any indeed you did. The conversation was Roe v Wade and overturning it. Then you changed the entire scenario with a hypothetical about a complete ban. If you don’t understand how that changes the topic then you indeed don’t understand what overturning Roe v Wade means. Familiarize yourself with it.
 
1. My version is an accurate version.
2. There are only two exceptions to this, one was in the 19th century and the other was when the nomination was not in the election year but confirmed in one.
3. Garland was a different situation. Mitch explained it.
Here's what McConnell said in 2016:

February 13, statement on the day of Scalia's death: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

February 16, Washington Post op-ed with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

February 22, press statement: "[W]hile finding the right person to take the seat [Scalia] occupied will clearly be a monumental task, it's one we think the American people are more than equipped to tackle. Some disagree and would rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment from a president who's on his way out the door...I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision."

February 23, Senate floor speech: "The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they've already started making today....[Mr. Obama] could let the people decide and make this an actual legacy-building moment, rather than just another campaign roadshow."

February 23, press conference: "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be."

March 16, Senate floor speech after Mr. Obama nominated Garland: "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

March 20, "Fox News Sunday" interview: "We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential election, which is raging, is that American people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision."

March 20, "Meet the Press" interview: "The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

August 6, speech to supporters in Kentucky: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-vacancy-election-year-senate/
 
Here's what McConnell said in 2016:

February 13, statement on the day of Scalia's death: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

February 16, Washington Post op-ed with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

February 22, press statement: "[W]hile finding the right person to take the seat [Scalia] occupied will clearly be a monumental task, it's one we think the American people are more than equipped to tackle. Some disagree and would rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment from a president who's on his way out the door...I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision."

February 23, Senate floor speech: "The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they've already started making today....[Mr. Obama] could let the people decide and make this an actual legacy-building moment, rather than just another campaign roadshow."

February 23, press conference: "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be."

March 16, Senate floor speech after Mr. Obama nominated Garland: "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

March 20, "Fox News Sunday" interview: "We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential election, which is raging, is that American people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision."

March 20, "Meet the Press" interview: "The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

August 6, speech to supporters in Kentucky: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"

You’re welcome.

 
I’m not uncomfortable in the slightest. Apparently you aren’t familiar with my position on abortion.
Any indeed you did. The conversation was Roe v Wade and overturning it. Then you changed the entire scenario with a hypothetical about a complete ban. If you don’t understand how that changes the topic then you indeed don’t understand what overturning Roe v Wade means. Familiarize yourself with it.
Unsurprisingly, you are wrong again. Post # 10 introduces abortion into the conversation to which I asked him a question in a following post.

Abortion was not the popular opinion when Roe v Wade was passed. That was the minority agenda sped through the courts and shoved on the rest of us.

The USA stands out in the world when it comes to abortion. The rest of the world does not allow abortion so callously as we do. We are on the wrong side of history when it comes to ritually snuffing out human life by the millions.
Say abortion is abolished. What would you do to support the hundreds of thousands of unwanted children to ensure they are healthy and have equal opportunity for success as other children?

You're a hack.
 
You chg’d to total ban. The topic was R v W.
I asked a question related directly to the post I was responding to.

BTW, are you suggesting Roe vs. Wade has no relationship with abortion?

Again, you're wrong and too insecure to admit it.
 
Oh, and I notice neither you nor Phenomonally Frantastic answered the question posed. At least he had enough sense to quit while he was behind.
 
They take it every bit as well as Republicans do. Statements like this show your immaturity and lack of understanding human behavior Pablo. Are you about 22?

Since losing the 2016 election, the Dems have been having a nonstop tantrum. Maybe they should quit crying and win some elections. That's the way it works.
 
ADVERTISEMENT