The real reason Democrats don't want a SCOTUS vote before the election...

[coloradonoles]

I am just curious as to whether you felt the same way in 2016 when Mitch and Lindsey decided to not vote on Garland for nine months. Now they are trying to spin it that this is a completely different situation when called out on their hypocrisy.

I am not all that concerned about whether there is a Republican or Democrat nominates to to the Supreme Court, but I would like to see some integrity from the people making the decisions. It appears that this is too much to ask, but that does not mean I will stop trying.

I was on the record then and I will repeat it now. They owed him a vote and they should have had the balls to publically deny his nomination on the record and be held accountable by their constituents if needed.

He wasn't getting confirmed, no matter what. It is not the same scenario now. Both the President and the Senate are aligned politically.

 

[coloradonoles]

Again you say that but show no examples



It's not about that. What you are doing has more of an analogy to purposefully injuring the opposition because you can get away with it.

Congrats on being the political version of Vontaze Burfict.

Examples of what?? People having no honor? GTFO... both side speak out of the side of their mouths.

I'm not advocating breaking the rules. I'm not even saying change the rules because you can't win... like Reid did. Play the cards you have when you have them.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

After Obama put those two communist women in there I was absolutely thrilled when he was an able to get another one approved

 

[mooresville hawk]

If you were for a vote in 2016 for Garland shouldn't you be for a vote for the nominee who Trump puts up? I thought this was all about principle and norms? What has changed for you?

I never said I was for a vote for Garland in 2016. Mitch claimed in 2016 that a Supreme Court nomination had not taken place during an election year. Lindsey said two years ago that he would not vote on a nomination year if one came up. I would just like to see some consistency and not change the rules to justify actions.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Examples of what?? People having no honor? GTFO... both side speak out of the side of their mouths.

I'm not advocating breaking the rules. I'm not even saying change the rules because you can't win... like Reid did. Play the cards you have when you have them.

That is a formula to shut down our government. Reid only played those cards so that we would actually have federal judges on the bench since the right wanted to hold up every nomination.

 

[mooresville hawk]

I was on the record then and I will repeat it now. They owed him a vote and they should have had the balls to publically deny his nomination on the record and be held accountable by their constituents if needed.

He wasn't getting confirmed, no matter what. It is not the same scenario now. Both the President and the Senate are aligned politically.

I am glad that you are consistent. Unfortunately, Mitch and Lindsey are not. I do not agree that it is a different scenario now though. The question is around whether a vote should take place, not whether that nomination will be confirmed. Based on your response above, there was no reason for Mitch to not put the nomination of Garland up for a vote since it would not have passed anyway.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

If you were for a vote in 2016 for Garland shouldn't you be for a vote for the nominee who Trump puts up? I thought this was all about principle and norms? What has changed for you?

The problem is that we were not the ones to establish the precedent though. McConnell had the power and did not permit an up or down vote. So at this point what we want doesn't matter, it's what happened that matters.

If McConnell permits and up or down vote on Garland than I would not have the opposition to this vote. But I'm not about to be for party setting a precedent when it benefits them and then dropping that precedent when it doesn't benefit them.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I was on the record then and I will repeat it now. They owed him a vote and they should have had the balls to publically deny his nomination on the record and be held accountable by their constituents if needed.

He wasn't getting confirmed, no matter what. It is not the same scenario now. Both the President and the Senate are aligned politically.

That is not true at all. The moderate GOP senators probably would have confirmed him, they only needed a few. McCain was there, Collins was there, Murkowski, and others. That's why McConnell didn't allow a vote because he would have been confirmed.

It's also why the senate majority leader and the house speaker need to lose their de-facto veto power over everything.

 

[Fijimn]

If you were for a vote in 2016 for Garland shouldn't you be for a vote for the nominee who Trump puts up? I thought this was all about principle and norms? What has changed for you?

The democrats were in favor of a vote when Garland was nominated. Sen. McConnell informed us that the rule of the Senate was there was no vote for confirmation in an election year. Therefore, the McConnell rule should apply here because that was the rules of the game. Had there been a vote in 2016, then there should be a vote in 2020. Because there wasn't a vote in 2016, there shouldn't be a vote in 2020. The rules should be consistently applied.

 

[abby97]

The truth is ALL judges should be true constructionists. If someone doesn't like a law or feel one is outdated, then congress and the president should change it. If they can't agree, then the law stands. Because they haven't won as many elections as they would like, the left has used the judiciary to change or create laws. That is wrong and unconstitutional. You can't and shouldn't run a country like that. I've heard the left use the term "a living constitution." Come to my house and we'll play poker and we'll use "living rules", my house my rules bring a lot of money. How would you like to play baseball and the umpire changed the rules he didn't like? What would be the point of the umpire then?

If we had always chosen judges that only ruled based on the law then these court openings wouldn't be a big deal. Qualifications would be all that mattered, not political leanings.

 

[Democratic Nole]

Perhaps, and I concede there are relativity few "contested" Democratic seats (maybe 3,4) and many more contested Republican ones. (6-8).

I just don't happen to believe that high voter turn-out help dems... the people who were going to vote dem don't get riled up easy and wouldn't vote no matter what. Much more Rep get fed up with their party and simply refuse to vote thinking they are "teaching them a lesson" only to further their demise. If they thought they getting slighted, even if wrongly... they will go vote. Just My Opinion.

Historically, higher voter turnout has helped Democrats. This was also born out in the 2018 House races with record turnout. That's why historically Republicans have passed measures to make it more difficult to vote. I certainly can't rule out a boost in turnout of Trump supporters, but I think much like 2018, in the important swing states that is likely to be washed out by a significant increase in turnout of Democrats. Remember that part of the reason Trump won in 2016 was that African American turnout collapsed in urban areas in PA, MI, and WI. I don't think that happens again this time around.

 

[Jan Itor]

There is no other reason other than the Democrats wanting to name their own flavor of judge. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but they cry, whine, stamp their feet, and hold their breath like a child in a Walmart checkout when they don’t get their way. Example: the last four years.

How are you going to feel when the Dems add four new justices to the court making the total 13?

 

[naturalmwa]

But you are a leftist(a unique one because you are also pro life) but still a leftist at heart. Of course you aren't going to see your side do anything unethical or for political gain. You do realize the whole Russiagate and impeachment of Donald Trump can be seen by many as political in nature but you won't see that because it was your side playing the game of politics in that scenario. Get better at winning elections. If Republicans are as evil as you say, this should be easy. And looking at the polls the Dems are going to have every opportunity to pack the court and grant DC/Puerto Rico statehood starting in Jan. of 2021. I'm sure you will hold them to same standard when they start breaking norms.

Isn’t everything politicians do political? Even when the dogs something not obviously political they like to crow about how non political they are, which is political.

 

[83Hawk]

How are you going to feel when the Dems add four new justices to the court making the total 13?

Personally, I would feel the same as I would if Republicans tried adding four new justices.

Just think how those on here that fully support democrats adding 4 justices to pack the court would feel if republicans tried it.

Really.......people need to take a step back.

 

[Nipigu]

Evidently your middle school daughter is brighter than you. Do you know who her father is?

I do: my former wife’s exhusband.

As for her being bright...she is; but the comparison is to you...she stopped using FIFY in high school. You haven’t stopped yet.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

I do: my former wife’s exhusband.

As for her being bright...she is; but the comparison is to you...she stopped using FIFY in high school. You haven’t stopped yet.

Someone has to help you out. I do think she might be as bright or brighter than me if she doesn't have any of your genes.

 

[Nipigu]

How are you going to feel when the Dems add four new justices to the court making the total 13?

My life would go on. But I’d like to see them try to do it.

 

[Nipigu]

Someone has to help you out. I do think she might be as bright or brighter than me if she doesn't have any of your genes.

I’m set. I won’t deny that she has greater potential than me. She has great genes.

 

[Jan Itor]

My life would go on. But I’d like to see them try to do it.

Oh they can and will. Although it’s refreshing to see someone say their life will go on instead of having a meltdown and wishing people dead