So What's The Response When Trump Nominates And They're Confirmed?

[BioHawk]

We all have a ticket on that train. And we ALL have an interest in seeing that it doesn't go off the rails.
Why and how did we get to such a division in this country? Why have we ALL allowed this to happen? Our country must survive.

Politically oriented "news", social media gullibility, and citizens united.

This crap is destroying this country and I don't see anyone on either side of the isle really interested in trying to do anything about it.

Full disclosure: I am not immune to these things either. It's part of the reason I enjoy debating topics on these boards.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

What an absolutely crazy question. Are you trying to argue that the Socialists who have co-opted the Democratic Party are moral in any way?

Just stop you clearly don't know what socialism even is.

Wow...sounds like we're going to be BORKED!
Where have I heard that before?

First of all Bork wasn't exactly a great candidate, he was after-all the man who helped Nixon carry out the Saturday Night Massacure.

Secondly if you look after Bork was defeated (with 6 Republicans voting against him BTW, the right couldn't even get all their ducks behind the man.), Reagan nominated Kennedy who was approved.

With Bork, at the very least he got a vote in the senate, he just lost. Garland didn't even get a vote.

 

[IAHawk2011]

We all have a ticket on that train. And we ALL have an interest in seeing that it doesn't go off the rails.
Why and how did we get to such a division in this country? Why have we ALL allowed this to happen? Our country must survive.

If Trump’s nominee is appointed, the division is only going to get worse. We are headed towards a situation where if the President and Senate are controlled by different parties, the Senate is not going to vote on the President’s judicial nominees, regardless of whether they are nominated in an election year. This “win at all costs” mentality is going to ensure that nothing ever gets done.

 

[naturalmwa]

Perhaps cons will be satiated by owning the libs now and won’t bother to show up in November. After they pack the court, there’s really no reason to vote GOP anymore.

 

[mnole03]

Just stop you clearly don't know what socialism even is.

First of all Bork wasn't exactly a great candidate, he was after-all the man who helped Nixon carry out the Saturday Night Massacure.
First of all Bork wasn't exactly a great candidate, he was after-all the man who helped Nixon carry out the Saturday Night Massacure.

Secondly if you look after Bork was defeated (with 6 Republicans voting against him BTW, the right couldn't even get all their ducks behind the man.), Reagan nominated Kennedy who was approved.

With Bork, at the very least he got a vote in the senate, he just lost. Garland didn't even get a vote.

Bork turned around and wrote a book saying that the Bill of Rights shouldn’t be incorporated.

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

Collins will vote yes in the end.

 

[sober_teacher]

Just stop you clearly don't know what socialism even is.



First of all Bork wasn't exactly a great candidate, he was after-all the man who helped Nixon carry out the Saturday Night Massacure.

Secondly if you look after Bork was defeated (with 6 Republicans voting against him BTW, the right couldn't even get all their ducks behind the man.), Reagan nominated Kennedy who was approved.

With Bork, at the very least he got a vote in the senate, he just lost. Garland didn't even get a vote.

Yeah, I don't get referencing the Bork nomination - that one failed for other reasons than simple partisan politics.

I asked in 2016 and have asked since Friday also - forget the vote; when has one party even just refused to hold confirmation hearings for an SJ nominee?

Every argument the GOP has made since Friday about filling the seat completely glosses over the fact that they made none of those arguments in 2016, they just kept repeating that the voters should have a say. Now, with 7 fewer months to decide, that argument has completely disappeared.

 

[brownd7949hawks]

Similar to a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum.

 

[naturalmwa]

What an absolutely crazy question. Are you trying to argue that the Socialists who have co-opted the Democratic Party are moral in any way?

Looks like you answered your own question.

 

[naturalmwa]

Collins will vote yes in the end.

Even moderates know the GOP lies.

 

[83Hawk]

It’s a sad day when one party threatens another party about doing something that is not only outlined in the Constitution, but is part of their job duties.

And don’t give me this “McConnell Rule” nonsense. There is no such thing. What was/wasn’t done 4 years ago is irrelevant today. Not to mention it was a different situation. It’s sour grapes from the Dems, pure and simple.

There used to be a “rule” about a President never serving more than 2 terms. FDR and the Democrats had no problem breaking THAT one, did they? Thankfully the Constitution has been modified to prevent that from happening again.

 

[sober_teacher]

It’s a sad day when one party threatens another party about doing something that is not only outlined in the Constitution, but is part of their job duties.

And don’t give me this “McConnell Rule” nonsense. There is no such thing. What was/wasn’t done 4 years ago is irrelevant today. Not to mention it was a different situation. It’s sour grapes from the Dems, pure and simple.

There used to be a “rule” about a President never serving more than 2 terms. FDR and the Democrats had no problem breaking THAT one, did they? Thankfully the Constitution has been modified to prevent that from happening again.

How is there not a "McConnell Rule"? He specifically said, 9 months out from the election no less, that in an election year they should let the voters have their say. Never mind that there was no precedent for that. Strangely, they're doing their best to forget they made that argument at all, and are now trying to point to historical precedent - which they ignored in 2016, for what they're doing now. You really don't see the hypocrisy there?

And LOL at trying to bring up FDR. I don't recall how much pushback he and Dems got for that in 1940, but please try not to pretend that there weren't extraordinary circumstances going on at the time as well.

 

[Nipigu]

There are millions of other people who are or will be directly harmed by the rulings from this court ...

If you are referring to Roe v Wade nothing will change for anyone is my bet. Some might have to travel to another state to get an abortion but that’s a minimal inconvenience.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

How is there not a "McConnell Rule"? He specifically said, 9 months out from the election no less, that in an election year they should let the voters have their say. Never mind that there was no precedent for that. Strangely, they're doing their best to forget they made that argument at all, and are now trying to point to historical precedent - which they ignored in 2016, for what they're doing now. You really don't see the hypocrisy there?

And LOL at trying to bring up FDR. I don't recall how much pushback he and Dems got for that in 1940, but please try not to pretend that there weren't extraordinary circumstances going on at the time as well.

And lets not forget that the Dem congress ultimately didn't go along with FDR's plan.

 

[torbee]

How Will the left and media react?

Hope you enjoy having to buy a new flag when Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. are granted statehood under a Democratic Congress and President Biden. 🙂

 

[sober_teacher]

If you are referring to Roe v Wade nothing will change for anyone is my bet. Some might have to travel to another state to get an abortion but that’s a minimal inconvenience.

Depending on the state, that's far more than a minimal inconvenience if, say Texas for example gets rid of its clinics. They're a tad thin on the ground in that region.

 

[Nipigu]

Depending on the state, that's far more than a minimal inconvenience if, say Texas for example gets rid of its clinics. They're a tad thin on the ground in that region.

Traveling to another state is a minimal inconvenience if one is desired.

 

[mcgrawfsu]

I have no problem with it. I think Mitch should have let a vote go down for Obama's pick, but he's a d-bag. I have zero doubt the left would do the same thing if they were in this position.

 

[William Bonney]

Perhaps cons will be satiated by owning the libs now and won’t bother to show up in November. After they pack the court, there’s really no reason to vote GOP anymore.

Trump will get 2 more nominations in his second term.

 

[William Bonney]

 

[hawkssox1]

Lol. Tough guy.

The Democrats have no other choice but to play the same type of political game the Republicans play so damn well. Then you and your ilk will whine and complain. Just remember...your side taught the Democrats how they have to play. No compromise. No playing nice. Push the agenda.

Aren't you supposed to be a Teacher?

 

[sober_teacher]

Traveling to another state is a minimal inconvenience if one is desired.

It is if you're from a low-income household and can't afford to take multiple days off of work, travel etc. On top of whatever restrictions/requirements for the particular state. We're not talking a couple of hours on the road here.

 

[Fijimn]

Traveling to another state is a minimal inconvenience if one is desired.

Unless the staTe law provides that the patient must be a resident. Similar to doctor assisted suicide laws.

 

[Nipigu]

Unless the staTe law provides that the patient must be a resident. Similar to doctor assisted suicide laws.

Indeed, so one will need to know the laws of that state and comply with the residency if necessary. Or better yet permanently reside in the state that supports your views/needs.

 

[83Hawk]

How is there not a "McConnell Rule"? He specifically said, 9 months out from the election no less, that in an election year they should let the voters have their say. Never mind that there was no precedent for that. Strangely, they're doing their best to forget they made that argument at all, and are now trying to point to historical precedent - which they ignored in 2016, for what they're doing now. You really don't see the hypocrisy there?

And LOL at trying to bring up FDR. I don't recall how much pushback he and Dems got for that in 1940, but please try not to pretend that there weren't extraordinary circumstances going on at the time as well.

So....are you saying that once something is done one way, one time, then it must always be done that same way forever? Is that what you are saying?

Please point to the section of the Constitution, or any law currently on the books, that says Supreme Court nominations cannot be made and confirmed in an election year. Show me.

Or shut up.

 

[mstp1992]

Collins will vote yes in the end.

And you'll still be jacking off to Ginsburg's obituary.

 

[mstp1992]

Traveling to another state is a minimal inconvenience if one is desired.

Says the person who will never be in such a situation.

 

[Nipigu]

Says the person who will never be in such a situation.

Irrelevant.

 

[pjhawk]

As has been mentioned before. Court pack.

If the GOP is going to take and say in 2016 that we need to wait an entire year to confirm a new justice because of the upcoming election, and then say in 2020 that we can't wait a couple months, than the response should just be to court pack.

If you arn't going to uphold your own rules that you made up than why should the other side operate as though there are any rules.

It needs to be pointed out that packing the court is definitively within the "rules" and is constitutionally acceptable, not doing so is just a norm that has been observed for the last 150 years.

But with the Trump Republican party gleefully trashing norms there isn't any reason why the Democrats can't follow suit, especially since any Democratic party legislative agenda is in peril with the Republican complete politicization of the federal courts.

The Roberts court has already trashed the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance laws, and nearly threw out Obamacare (with a 6th justice in the con majority it is finished). There are also indications another conservative justice might mean the end of the modern regulatory state (an end to federal depts and agencies engaging in the current form of rule making and regulation).

Abortion is almost a minor side issue for me when it comes to the implications of Ginsburg's replacement, it's the crippling of the powers of the Congress and the President to pass and implement laws/rules/regulations that concerns me the most.

 

[mstp1992]

Irrelevant.

 

[pjhawk]

Wow...sounds like we're going to be BORKED!
Where have I heard that before?

Bork went through the full confirmation process and had an up/down vote in the Senate on his nomination, with 6 Republicans joining the Democrats in rejecting him. Anthony Kennedy (also nominated by Reagan), who eventually took over the seat, was confirmed on a 97-0 vote.

 

[sober_teacher]

So....are you saying that once something is done one way, one time, then it must always be done that same way forever? Is that what you are saying?

Please point to the section of the Constitution, or any law currently on the books, that says Supreme Court nominations cannot be made and confirmed in an election year. Show me.

Or shut up.

Where did I say that? I'm just angry that after arguing 4 years ago that the voters should have a say, disregarding all precedent, the GOP refused to hold hearings for Garland; but now, they're arguing the exact opposite, attempting to invoke all those precedents they ignored 4 years ago.

Let me be blunt for you. They should have held hearings for Garland for years ago, and they probably should this year as well for whoever Trump nominates - I'd prefer to wait until after the election when things would normally calm down somewhat.

 

[pjhawk]

So....are you saying that once something is done one way, one time, then it must always be done that same way forever? Is that what you are saying?

Please point to the section of the Constitution, or any law currently on the books, that says Supreme Court nominations cannot be made and confirmed in an election year. Show me.

Or shut up.

We can't show you, it's a norm--established by Mitch McConnell in 2016. Along with the norms per the time it takes to do a normal confirmation process.

But also point to the section of the constitution or any law currently on the books that says the Democrats can't pack the courts when the shoe is on the other foot.

Or shut up.

You can win this election and then do as thou wilt. Try to ram through a Trump nomination in record time before the election or in a lame duck session after you've lost the Senate and the Presidency and reap the consequences.

And then STFU.

 

[BioHawk]

If you are referring to Roe v Wade nothing will change for anyone is my bet. Some might have to travel to another state to get an abortion but that’s a minimal inconvenience.

Which shouldn't be necessary, but there's a lot more impact than just Roe v. Wade.

 

[BioHawk]

Collins will vote yes in the end.

They all will, especially if this takes place during the lame duck session. However, that won't help Trump with the election though, which is what he really wants. I think there is a higher probability they vote no if the vote is before November 3.

 

[bunsen82]

It’s a sad day when one party threatens another party about doing something that is not only outlined in the Constitution, but is part of their job duties.

And don’t give me this “McConnell Rule” nonsense. There is no such thing. What was/wasn’t done 4 years ago is irrelevant today. Not to mention it was a different situation. It’s sour grapes from the Dems, pure and simple.

There used to be a “rule” about a President never serving more than 2 terms. FDR and the Democrats had no problem breaking THAT one, did they? Thankfully the Constitution has been modified to prevent that from happening again.

Then you should have no issues, if Democrats win the Senate and then pack the court. You are stating whoever is in power at the time, has the ability to work within the constitution and do what they please. Previous precedent no longer applies. Whoever is in power, will go to even greater depths to retain power.

 

[Fijimn]

Which shouldn't be necessary, but there's a lot more impact than just Roe v. Wade.

Indeed. First, Roe v. Wade was based on the finding of a privacy right under the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. We have already seen decisions eroding privacy rights, such as Thomas's recent opinion expanding "reasonable suspicion" standard for stop and frisk. These Federalist Society members have a desire to overturn Miranda, Gideon and find the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional.

Bork was "borked" because of his position on privacy rights, the Civil Rights Act and his participation in the Saturday Night Massacre, which the Senate was still raw about.

 

[Chishawk1425]

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

The response? An expanded SCOTUS and statehood of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. MAGAts would never gain control of Congress or the presidency again.

I'd go further than that and make every tiny inhabited island we own a state.

Don't just make American Somoa a state. . . American Somoa has 5 inhabited islands. Make each one a state.

Make Guam a state

Make Puerto Rico a state

Make DC a state

The Northern Mariana Islands has 3 inhabited islands. Make each of those islands a state

The US Virgin Islands has 3 inhabited islands, make each of them a state.

That's 14 new states, 18 new Democratic House reps, 28 new Democratic senators, and 46 democratic electoral votes. (I am assuming that PR would get 4 house reps)

 

[ConvenientParking]

How is there not a "McConnell Rule"? He specifically said, 9 months out from the election no less, that in an election year they should let the voters have their say. Never mind that there was no precedent for that. Strangely, they're doing their best to forget they made that argument at all, and are now trying to point to historical precedent - which they ignored in 2016, for what they're doing now. You really don't see the hypocrisy there?

And LOL at trying to bring up FDR. I don't recall how much pushback he and Dems got for that in 1940, but please try not to pretend that there weren't extraordinary circumstances going on at the time as well.

He's a puke (83Hawk). He's got me on ignore because I told him to rot in hell because he's a hypocrite. He realized Trump is about to get steamrolled and is terrified of liberals because he's a stupid old man.