Romney Sides With McConnell On SCOTUS

[ottumwan in tx]

Then why was the Amendment process baked into the Constitution so that changes could be made to it?



lol, no - more like Translation: rules are 250 years old and the game has since had new maps and characters added, so maybe we should recognize that rules should be updated to reflect that we're not playing the original game, but instead the expansion pack version.

This is what proves it is not a living document. not a Living and breathing document. The amendment process is very tough. It's almost as if you are Reviving something that is dead and bringing it back to life only to alter it. It is the exact opposite of something that is living and breathing

 

[z_ape]

Again, if it's true that 8 out of 10 times that the senate of the opposition party rejects the nominee in an election year, then there seems to be pretty good precedent.

And there is obviously good precedent that like party scenarios confirm in election years.

I had not thought this was true about the opposition party scenario.

Democrats need to show that there is an overriding precedent here. I'm not sure what that would be.

(Perhaps arguing that election year status shouldn't matter? Perhaps we haven't had a situation like 2016 for a long time and it somehow violated ... x?)

 

[noleclone2]

FYI they can just vote. It doesn’t need to go through judicial committee.

I hope they do just that.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

You have your issue I have mine. Romney did something I consider evil that should never be forgotten. Forgiveness requires contrition. Your flippant reply is disrespectful to the people Romney got killed.

Like that lady's husband he supposedly killed?

My point is that your probably very important issue that should have been the focus of attacks against him were all lost in the seas of "47%", "binders full of women", "Mitt killed my husband" and "dog in a cage on the car roof" attacks. So, yeah...the Dems had their chance to not cry wolf about everything he's done and chose to focus on all of the nonsense anyway.

 

[GOHOX69]

This was repealed in 1868 so I'm guessing you think Trump shall appoint a Justice who will overturn something from 1868?

I'm guessing he'll appoint another closeted racist yes. But he already appointed a guy who likes drinking beer and farting it out of his anus so he'll have to apply a kinky Catholic it appears.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Hey but the words are still in there, repeal or not. Besides, if this document were so sacrosant, why the f are there amendments?

amendments are the exact proof that it is not a living and breathing document because it takes so much to have an amendment

 

[naturalmwa]

Like that lady's husband he supposedly killed?

My point is that your probably very important issue that should have been the focus of attacks against him were all lost in the seas of "47%", "binders full of women", "Mitt killed my husband" and "dog in a cage on the car roof" attacks. So, yeah...the Dems had their chance to not cry wolf about everything he's done and chose to focus on all of the nonsense anyway.

It sounds like you chose to only listen to nonsense. You hear what you want to hear.

 

[hexumhawk]

Did the authors write their intent in the margins? How does one assess their intent without thinking?

Constitutional Precedent

 

[GOHOX69]

amendments are the exact proof that it is not a living and breathing document because it takes so much to have an amendment

No it actually implies change. If it were so inviolate there'd be 0 amendments. Zip. Zilch. Perfect document. Forever!

 

[Democratic Nole]

People are assuming all republicans will support the judge nominated for the seat by the president. This is not a guaranteed rubber stamp confirmation.

Yes it is. Even if the nominee is found to torture kittens, the Republicans will still vote for him/her. The Kavanaugh hearings were just a precursor to this. McConnell told Trump not to nominate Kavanaugh because he had too much baggage, but Trump did it anyway.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I'm guessing he'll appoint another closeted racist yes. But he already appointed a guy who likes drinking beer and farting it out of his anus so he'll have to apply a kinky Catholic it appears.

Trump is currently sitting at around 20% with blacks there is no way he is racist or at least blacks don't think he is. He may get 25 or 30% when it's all said and done

 

[Jimmy McGill]

This thread displays what Trump has done to this country with the help of foreign agents. Divide. Divide. Divide.

 

[hexumhawk]

I get the idea of following the intent of the Founding Fathers, I just think there needs to be wriggle room where they allow for the fact that the world/circumstances are different than they were in 1789. It never totally works for me that the Constitution, which was meant to be a living document, has to be set in stone and abide solely by what existed 250 years ago. Religious freedom for them meant primarily Christians and a small number of Jews. Totally different religious environment today. Weapons were single-shot devices that often weren't accurate past 20 feet. And so on.

I can agree with this which is why I think SC should be politics free and only interpret the law. I don't think SC members should be giving their opinion on sitting presidents for example as it has no bearing on what their position is.

 

[GOHOX69]

Trump is currently sitting at around 20% with blacks there is no way he is racist or at least blacks don't think he is. He may get 25 or 30% when it's all said and done

And you think 20 percent is good?

 

[FAUlty Gator]

Hey but the words are still in there, repeal or not. Besides, if this document were so sacrosant, why the f are there amendments?

Because an amendment process was built into it by the very smart men that wrote it, foreseeing the need for changes due to the ever-changing future.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

It sounds like you chose to only listen to nonsense. You hear what you want to hear.

No. The opposite. I hear everything,

 

[GOHOX69]

Because an amendment process was built into it by the very smart men that wrote it, foreseeing the need for changes due to the ever-changing future.

But if that is so, the garbage that is originalism cannot hold. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Yes it is. Even if the nominee is found to torture kittens, the Republicans will still vote for him/her. The Kavanaugh hearings were just a precursor to this. McConnell told Trump not to nominate Kavanaugh because he had too much baggage, but Trump did it anyway.

They will be even more in agreement this time because the election is upcoming. They are circling the wagons big time.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

But if that is so, the garbage that is originalism cannot hold. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

OK...and?

Marbury vs. Madison established very early on the concept of judicial review.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Bad news for Dems on RBG's replacement... great news for the November election.

It guarantees a trump Landslide win. It shows leadership

 

[biggreydogs]

Shut up

 

[Chishawk1425]

Delete your account.

 

[mstp1992]

By definition, the electoral college is rigged. It weights individual votes differently based solely on the state in which you live. Trump was selected because of a rigged election.

 

[BABiscuit]

Something doesn't feel right about Romney thinking the president that he voted to impeach due to his corruption should get to make a lifetime appointment to the SC five weeks before the election. Why would you want a guy that you believe abuses the power of the presidency for personal and political gain to make such an important decision?

You don't have to answer. We all know its because he wants the conservative judge and is only a man of principle once in a while.

And f this center right BS.

 

[biggreydogs]

By definition, the electoral college is rigged. It weights individual votes differently based solely on the state in which you live. Trump was selected because of a rigged election.

you win the dumb post of the day. Congrats

 

[sober_teacher]

Again, if it's true that 8 out of 10 times that the senate of the opposition party rejects the nominee in an election year, then there seems to be pretty good precedent.

And there is obviously good precedent that like party scenarios confirm in election years.

I had not thought this was true about the opposition party scenario.

Democrats need to show that there is an overriding precedent here. I'm not sure what that would be.

(Perhaps arguing that election year status shouldn't matter? Perhaps we haven't had a situation like 2016 for a long time and it somehow violated ... x?)

But reject implies actually having a vote. GOP set a new precedent in 2016 by not even having hearings for Garland before rejecting him.

 

[mstp1992]

you win the dumb post of the day. Congrats

Prove me wrong. Although, you're a Trump supporter and incapable of thinking rationally.

 

[Huey Grey]

I understand the frustration from the left with this issue with the timing but why would she stay on the court in poor to bad health? She could have stepped down in 12, 13, 14 ect and they could have replaced her.

No, they wouldn't. Mitch would have kept it empty.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

Did the authors write their intent in the margins? How does one assess their intent without thinking?

Yes, everything written or spoken requires interpretation. That's true of the Bible; it's true of the Constitution. There, as usual, are some ridiculous comments from the usual suspects.

 

[z_ape]

But reject implies actually having a vote. GOP set a new precedent in 2016 by not even having hearings for Garland before rejecting him.

That could be. Not sure. I'd have to see other instances of this scenario.

The other big question there: was it a forgone conclusion that the Republicans wouldn't have given the nominee the votes?

 

[SCHawkFan]

I think it is likely the confirmation process will not go as quickly as some think. Senators in close races will weigh how a vote before the election will impact their chances at winning. If McConnell believes pushing a nomination through before November hurts the GOP's chances of keeping a majority in the Senate, he will delay. They want to look like they are doing their jobs right up to the point where it damages their personal ambitions.

All the handwringing and talk about the process can be helpful to Trump. If CNN and other news outlets spend the next four weeks worried about RBG's replacement, it is possible the big problem, Covid 19, drops a little in coverage. If the Democrats appear to be attacking a reasonable, qualified female nominee, this could backfire on them. I understand the concern about a judge's past rulings and how that may impact future Supreme Court decisions, but the President and party in power hold the votes, and there is nothing that can be done about that.

There was talk about the long-term impact of changing the filibuster rules for judicial nominees in 2013 and now we are seeing it. The vote in November will really have a say in how the court looks for the next generation. You figure Thomas and Breyer will be replaced during the next presidential term. If Trump wins election and the Senate stays with a GOP majority, the court could be a 7-2 conservative majority by 2024 with just one judge being over the age of 70. It is conceivable that Alito might also retire and Sotomayor has had some medical issues, so if Trump gets a second term, 5-7 supreme court justices could be his nominees by the time his presidency ends.

Elections have consequences.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

There is no requirement to have hearings... the Senate can just vote

 

[mstp1992]

That could be. Not sure. I'd have to see other instances of this scenario.

The other big question there: was it a forgone conclusion that the Republicans wouldn't have given the nominee the votes?

I'm not concerned whether or not Garland would have been confirmed. It was their duty to actually vett him and have hearings, and put him up for a vote. However, McConnell said (in 2016) "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent." If that's the policy, then I'm fine with it. Just be consistent in how the policy is used.

 

[sober_teacher]

That could be. Not sure. I'd have to see other instances of this scenario.

The other big question there: was it a forgone conclusion that the Republicans wouldn't have given the nominee the votes?

As far as I know, Garland is the first SC nominee to not even receive a Senate hearing. Obviously the Senate has voted no on nominees in the past, but at least they got to that point. I've asked repeatedly this week and in 2016 to point out another time another nominee got the Garland treatment.

I'd actually be fine with McConnell applying that rule to this circumstance, given the short timeframe before the election. As @mstp1992 said, at least be consistent.

 

[Huey Grey]

Something doesn't feel right about Romney thinking the president that he voted to impeach due to his corruption should get to make a lifetime appointment to the SC five weeks before the election. Why would you want a guy that you believe abuses the power of the presidency for personal and political gain to make such an important decision?

You don't have to answer. We all know its because he wants the conservative judge and is only a man of principle once in a while.

And f this center right BS.

Utah has a 30 point Republican lean. He is safe for reelection against any Dem. In fact he might be doing this just to make sure he doesn't get primaried.

 

[MitchLL]

It guarantees a trump Landslide win. It shows leadership

You might be right... given Biden has pulled even in Georgia and Iowa... two States Trump won easily in 2016.

BTW: That's sarcasm.

 

[hexumhawk]

No, they wouldn't. Mitch would have kept it empty.

Not if Dems would have held the senate. You get the votes, you get the power. You know that.

 

[hexumhawk]

I'm not concerned whether or not Garland would have been confirmed. It was their duty to actually vett him and have hearings, and put him up for a vote. However, McConnell said (in 2016) "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent." If that's the policy, then I'm fine with it. Just be consistent in how the policy is used.

Harry Reid really gotcha good

 

[mstp1992]

Harry Reid really gotcha good

Reid’s an idiot.

 

[hexumhawk]

Reid’s an idiot.

Yes. He changed the rules of the nomination process because it benefited him and his party at that time. He had to of known that it would come around to haunt them eventually and now they are crying about it.