Your thoughts of Mitch McConnell denying Merrick Garland of even having interviews for Scotus let alone a vote?

[uihawk82]

In the lates Mitch McConnell thread about him falling I am having a back and forth with a poster who really likes Mitch. My own thoughts is he has abused his position on occasion and the most egreious was not bringing Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee for a scotus seat and a very good jurist, to the Senate for Senate interviews, questioning in front of Grassley's Judiciary Committe, or to a vote. The other poster seems to think there are no "rules" or outlines in the Constitutioin for the Senate that they have to advise and consent. I say the text below from the Constituiton would tell any jurist that it is the Senate's duty to advise and consent. And to advise the president the Senate has to interview and question the nominee and vote in committe and maybe on the Senate floor to pass the nomination. Read below if you want but what are your thoughts about Mitch telling the REpub senators not to have a meeting to interview Garland and not to question and vote on Garland and his reasoning is that Feb. of 2024 was too close to the Pres Election. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

The president has the power to nominate supreme court justices. It is also stated that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate" Now back then recesses might be a month or two long so a strict reading of the Constitution should agree with a rather quick process to fill a scotus vacancy. I dont think anyone can argue that. There is no logical way on Earth that it would or should take 9 months for the Senate to interview and confirm a scotus nominee.

And just before the recess nomination part of Article Section 2 it states that He being the president "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,"

So the US Constitution states that the Senate's job is to advise and consent on the nominations of the president of people to the Supreme Court. So to do that job the Senate has to perform some sort of advise and consent as in voting for the nominee. Mitch McConnell held back and did neither of those things with the help of Grassley who was Judiciary Comm Chair. It was a terrible stain on them but of course they do not care that they evaded their duties.

But Mitch M stonewalled the process and the process of the rules of the Senate are they are supposed to confirm or deny the appointment, once again not doing their job and even blocking procedure.

 

[MilleGinja]

Mitch is a POS and I will dance naked in the streets when he’s dead

 

[ICWestfan]

I think McConnell saved the USA from the lackey that is Merrick Garland. He was a HUGE failure as the AG. He failed upward, like most democrats do.

 

[uihawk82]

I think McConnell saved the USA from the lackey that is Merrick Garland. He was a HUGE failure as the AG. He failed upward, like most democrats do.

You are calling GArland a lackey when you have Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Clarence "give me another million" Thomas on the bench. That is laughable and I think Garland was way too slow in prosecuting Trump and others but he was known as a very good district judge but he was not necessarily and very good AG

 

[BelemNole]

I’d like to see him fall down more steps.

 

[TJ8869]

My thoughts on the subject are three-fold:

1. Mitch should have held hearings and a floor vote for Garland. There was plenty of time. It was actually about 7 1/2 months, not the 9 months that OP keeps saying. More on that in a moment. But still, plenty of time for the process to take place. I said this at the time and I still believe it.

2. Even though I disagreed with stonewalling the nomination, most Democrats (and Biden in particular) were in no position to complain about it because Biden in his own words had previously promised to delay hearings for any nominee submitted “in the full throes of an election year”. President Obama formally submitted Garland’s nomination on March 16, fifteen days after Super Tuesday. By that time 26 states had already held their primary/caucus votes. By any objective definition we were already “in the full throes of an election year.”

3. Mitch was a blatant hypocrite for expediting ACB’s nomination just weeks before the 2020 election.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

I think McConnell saved the USA from the lackey that is Merrick Garland. He was a HUGE failure as the AG. He failed upward, like most democrats do.

Obama was POTUS and had not only the right but an obligation to nominate someone for the vacant SCOTUS seat. In turn, Congress should have voted on his pick.

Basic shit like that is how our democratic republic is supposed to work.

 

[Gus is dead]

I think a very similar thing is happening in regard to Elise Stepaniks House seat in NY. What do you all think of that?

They are holding it vacant so as to reduce the House margin.

 

[ICWestfan]

You are calling GArland a lackey when you have Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Clarence "give me another million" Thomas on the bench. That is laughable and I think Garland was way too slow in prosecuting Trump and others but he was known as a very good district judge but he was not necessarily and very good AG

 

[Moral]

I'm glad he didn't get on the supreme Court. I imagine stuff would be way worse. It would be like handing over the keys to Ketamine Ken and his band of incels. We dodged a real bullet there.

 

[ICWestfan]

Obama was POTUS and had not only the right but an obligation to nominate someone for the vacant SCOTUS seat. In turn, Congress should have voted on his pick.

Basic shit like that is how our democratic republic is supposed to work.

 

[Gus is dead]

Obama was POTUS and had not only the right but an obligation to nominate someone for the vacant SCOTUS seat. In turn, Congress should have voted on his pick.

Basic shit like that is how our democratic republic is supposed to work.

I think politics isnt for the meek.

"Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." Mao Tse Tung

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

My thoughts on the subject are three-fold:

1. Mitch should have held hearings and a floor vote for Garland. There was plenty of time. It was actually about 7 1/2 months, not the 9 months that OP keeps saying. More on that in a moment. But still, plenty of time for the process to take place. I said this at the time and I still believe it.

2. Even though I disagreed with stonewalling the nomination, most Democrats (and Biden in particular) were in no position to complain about it because Biden in his own words had previously promised to delay hearings for any nominee submitted “in the full throes of an election year”. President Obama formally submitted Garland’s nomination on March 16, fifteen days after Super Tuesday. By that time 26 states had already held their primary/caucus votes. By any objective definition we were already “in the full throes of an election year.”

3. Mitch was a blatant hypocrite for expediting ACB’s nomination just weeks before the 2020 election.

1. Agree
2. IIRC, Biden said during that same speech that even though it would be preferable to wait he would support voting on GHWB pick.
3. Agree

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

Okay. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Where did I go wrong?

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

Okay, so you don’t actually think for yourself. You just post gifs on shit you don’t like.

Duly noted.

 

[ICWestfan]

Okay. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Where did I go wrong?

You're wrong in that Scalia died as Obama was an outgoing President, and with weeks/months/days left in the admin. Now, had this been a known resignation, maybe he could have held sway.

Again, his choice of Garland was rightfully rejected.

 

[ICWestfan]

Okay, so you don’t actually think for yourself. You just post gifs on shit you don’t like.

Duly noted.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

You're wrong in that Scalia died as Obama was an outgoing President

Now it’s my turn to gif you.

Scalia died in February of 2016. Obama nominated Garland a month later.

I should have never given you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. Won’t happen again.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

That you’re an idiot and don’t know what you’re talking about?

Yep. You’re goddamn right about that.

Wish to keep digging?

 

[TJ8869]

2. IIRC, Biden said during that same speech that even though it would be preferable to wait he would support voting on GHWB pick.

I don’t recall him saying that. His intentions seemed pretty clear.

 

[redghost1974]

I think McConnell saved the USA from the lackey that is Merrick Garland. He was a HUGE failure as the AG. He failed upward, like most democrats do.

Nobody has failed upward more than Trump. He literally ruined every business he touched and had to be repeated bailed out by daddy's friends / Saudis. Only a sham TV show remade his image into a success.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

I don’t recall him saying that. His intentions seemed pretty clear.

View embedded media

Biden was talking about a hypothetical situation. He was stating what he believed should happen in the event of a SCOTUS vacancy.

FTR, I am in agreement with you regarding Biden’s purpose in delivering that speech. The point is that speech is not the first time Biden has said something stupid that most reasonable people would reject. Since reasonable people would agree there have been plenty of times Biden has spoken and inserted his foot in his mouth, you can’t pick and choose to adhere to something stupid Biden once said because it’s politically expedient at the time.

As a result, Mitch McConnell became the biggest hypocrite in history after rushing through the ACB pick in 2020.

 

[sabula]

I think McConnell saved the USA from the lackey that is Merrick Garland. He was a HUGE failure as the AG. He failed upward, like most democrats do.

Lackey... 🤣 Amy CB says hello.

 

[jonesy5960]

Mitch is a POS and I will dance naked in the streets when he’s dead

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

[Aardvark86]

In the lates Mitch McConnell thread about him falling I am having a back and forth with a poster who really likes Mitch. My own thoughts is he has abused his position on occasion and the most egreious was not bringing Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee for a scotus seat and a very good jurist, to the Senate for Senate interviews, questioning in front of Grassley's Judiciary Committe, or to a vote. The other poster seems to think there are no "rules" or outlines in the Constitutioin for the Senate that they have to advise and consent. I say the text below from the Constituiton would tell any jurist that it is the Senate's duty to advise and consent. And to advise the president the Senate has to interview and question the nominee and vote in committe and maybe on the Senate floor to pass the nomination. Read below if you want but what are your thoughts about Mitch telling the REpub senators not to have a meeting to interview Garland and not to question and vote on Garland and his reasoning is that Feb. of 2024 was too close to the Pres Election. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

The president has the power to nominate supreme court justices. It is also stated that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate" Now back then recesses might be a month or two long so a strict reading of the Constitution should agree with a rather quick process to fill a scotus vacancy. I dont think anyone can argue that. There is no logical way on Earth that it would or should take 9 months for the Senate to interview and confirm a scotus nominee.

And just before the recess nomination part of Article Section 2 it states that He being the president "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,"

So the US Constitution states that the Senate's job is to advise and consent on the nominations of the president of people to the Supreme Court. So to do that job the Senate has to perform some sort of advise and consent as in voting for the nominee. Mitch McConnell held back and did neither of those things with the help of Grassley who was Judiciary Comm Chair. It was a terrible stain on them but of course they do not care that they evaded their duties.

But Mitch M stonewalled the process and the process of the rules of the Senate are they are supposed to confirm or deny the appointment, once again not doing their job and even blocking procedure.

1. I tend to think you have the losing side of the constitutional question. As I’ve said before politics is not a dirty word in our structure. And the senate has its prerogatives too, which have become more political with direct election of senators. The constitution also provides that the houses determine their own process rules.
2. I think garland would have made a fine Justice (and I actually appeared before him years ago). It’s unfortunate he didn’t get a vote.
3. I think Mitch has actually been one of the stronger leaders in the history of the senate in terms of getting things done when he needed to for his party. And the reason for that is he’s been willing to take risks. The garland nomination was one of those situations where he took a big risk and won big.

 

[uihawk82]

I think a very similar thing is happening in regard to Elise Stepaniks House seat in NY. What do you all think of that?

They are holding it vacant so as to reduce the House margin.

Has Sefanik or whatever her name is already been approved as UN Sect, iirc

 

[uihawk82]

You're wrong in that Scalia died as Obama was an outgoing President, and with weeks/months/days left in the admin. Now, had this been a known resignation, maybe he could have held sway.

Again, his choice of Garland was rightfully rejected.

Are you kidding, Scalia died on Feb. 13th and Obama was Prez until the next Jan. 20th. That is 11 months and who cares about the election. I have been mentioning Feb and 9 months and I may have said 11 months one time. But it was 9 months until the election when Scalia died.

Give me a break about it wasnt a situatuon for Obama to nominate a replacement. The court still had their spring, fall and Dec sessions coming up, 3 friggin scotus sessions. So fill the seat

 

[uihawk82]

Biden was talking about a hypothetical situation. He was stating what he believed should happen in the event of a SCOTUS vacancy.

FTR, I am in agreement with you regarding Biden’s purpose in delivering that speech. The point is that speech is not the first time Biden has said something stupid that most reasonable people would reject. Since reasonable people would agree there have been plenty of times Biden has spoken and inserted his foot in his mouth, you can’t pick and choose to adhere to something stupid Biden once said because it’s politically expedient at the time.

As a result, Mitch McConnell became the biggest hypocrite in history after rushing through the ACB pick in 2020.

I still think Biden had an overall very good Senate career and I will argue with anybody about his good job as Prez getting infrastructure, Chips, better energy infratsturcture going, and improved drug pricing started.

But, he really could stick his foot in his mouth because some times he didnt know when to stop talking. Maybe because of his stutter when young he just needed to talk alot.

 

[dgordo]

Has Sefanik or whatever her name is already been approved as UN Sect, iirc

No and I don’t think she has even resigned from congress yet.

 

[TJ8869]

Has Sefanik or whatever her name is already been approved as UN Sect, iirc

Not yet. But Hakeem Jeffries has been meeting with Governor Hochul and state Democratic lawmakers to try to change the law before Stefanik officially resigns.

 

[tweeterhawk]

You are calling GArland a lackey when you have Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Clarence "give me another million" Thomas on the bench. That is laughable and I think Garland was way too slow in prosecuting Trump and others but he was known as a very good district judge but he was not necessarily and very good AG

Garland was a jug-eared political hack who repeatedly abused the law and the Constitution.
He did not uphold the oath he swore. As much as I dislike the Turtle, he saved America from the little puke.