Sinn Fein

***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Kavanaugh

10,403 posts in this topic

I just read on CNN that since 1975, no nominee has waited for a confirmation more than 108 days from the time he or she was selected.

Based on what I'm hearing today there's not even going to be a process. The Senate will not respond to anyone Obama nominates. They won't hold any hearings at all. There won't be any votes. They'll simply refuse to consider it.

Meh, let's see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats need 30 seats to re-take the House. Difficult, but not impossible with an energized base and Bernie at the top of the ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

I didn't think "sore loser" could be a legitimate job title in perpetuity, but you seem confident and are most likely smarter than I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats need 30 seats to re-take the House. Difficult, but not impossible with an energized base and Bernie at the top of the ticket.

Think you're getting your hopes up a little too high my man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats need 30 seats to re-take the House. Difficult, but not impossible with an energized base and Bernie at the top of the ticket.

Think you're getting your hopes up a little too high my man.
Yeah, looks like 4-5 Senate seats and maybe 15 House might be the best case scenario, but still, one can dream.

I have my Republican boss leaning Bernie if Trump is the nominee. Can't be the only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

The maniacs on the other side would do the same thing. In fact they are worse and more militant about it when it comes to the Supreme Court. Many Democrats and scholars were already plotting numerous tactics when Bush was president to prevent such an appointment and this was only based on hypotheticals.

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to carry this discussion further for a moment. Traditionally when the public votes, it's not about the Supreme Court. Its way down the list on issues: the economy is usually first, then national security, etc.

Now if, as expected, Obama nominates somebody, and if, as expected, the Senate does not confirm, will the public suddenly decide for perhaps the first time ever to vote on this issue? And could it be simplified on either side to having the public vote on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage? (I can absolutely see both sides do this: Hillary or Bernie would say, "Vote for me or you're going to lose your right to an abortion or your right to marry who you want, etc." and the Republican saying "Vote for me or you're going to lose your 2nd Amendment rights, etc." Will voters actually decide based on these issues?

It is a stronger argument for the GOP - because the Dems won't actually lose something here, the court won't get more conservative even if the GOP win, but it will get more liberal if the Dems win.

But, this will be the second most important issue, because both parties will make it a key issue. It's rather straightforward so voters will understand the differences quite easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read on CNN that since 1975, no nominee has waited for a confirmation more than 108 days from the time he or she was selected.

Based on what I'm hearing today there's not even going to be a process. The Senate will not respond to anyone Obama nominates. They won't hold any hearings at all. There won't be any votes. They'll simply refuse to consider it.

This would be an abdication of their constitutional duty. They apparently have no shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

The maniacs on the other side would do the same thing. In fact they are worse and more militant about it when it comes to the Supreme Court. Many Democrats and scholars were already plotting numerous tactics when Bush was president to prevent such an appointment and this was only based on hypotheticals.

You keep bringing this up as if it excuses things. Refusing to discharge your constitutional duties is shameful regardless of party. Chuck Shumer is a jerkwad, by the way, and not only for his statements to this effect during the Bush administration. Obama should not have voted for the failed filibuster, particularly because he criticized it publicly as s tactic. That is a black mark on his record.

Your turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lean Republican, but im sorry, I find it hilarious that some of the Republicans are talking nonsense about the nomination.

"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate,"

"I believe the Senate should not move forward with the confirmation process until the American people have spoken by electing a new president."

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice," McConnell said. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

My message to them? GTFO. You cant be serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

The maniacs on the other side would do the same thing. In fact they are worse and more militant about it when it comes to the Supreme Court. Many Democrats and scholars were already plotting numerous tactics when Bush was president to prevent such an appointment and this was only based on hypotheticals.
You keep bringing this up as if it excuses things. Refusing to discharge your constitutional duties is shameful regardless of party. Chuck Shumer is a jerkwad, by the way, and not only for his statements to this effect during the Bush administration. Obama should not have voted for the failed filibuster, particularly because he criticized it publicly as s tactic. That is a black mark on his record.

Your turn.

When one side gets on their high horse and acts shocked at the way the other side is acting, it is beyond silly especially when we know it is exactly what they would have done. Unfortunately, this is the state of politics. The media is about 90% liberals, so we already know who will win the spin war and there will be huge pressure to cave. The only real ace in the hole that will be tough to overcome is Obama's support of the filibuster and Obama's vote against two superbly qualified justices as a Senator. Obama made his partisan bed when he was Senator running for President, and it will come back to bite him, assuming the GOP can properly package the message. Right now they are failing miserably.

If I was the Senate, I would not announce my intentions. I would sit back and wait and see how Obama acts and who he nominates and then take action to try to defeat the nomination. The GOP needed to dial back their rhetoric, come up with a well-reasoned unified message, and then act on it.

This battle is the most important battle in politics since Reagan vs. Carter in terms of the impact it will have on the next several decades of how our government will either be restrained or allowed to grow endlessly. It is not a battle that will be won or lost on some highly hypocritical arguement trying to shame the other side into backing down. It is a battle which must be fought. Unfortunately for the side who supposedly are for limited government, the politicians on their side are clueless at how to act.

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because both sides do it - is not an excuse to keep doing it.

 

 

In my view, it is not acceptable when the Dems do it, and its not acceptable when the GOP does it.

 

Its time for everyone to grow up, and act responsibly, and do the job they were elected to do - or get out of the way and let someone else do it.  Both sides are guilty - so there should be no reason for finger pointing.

 

Federal Judges should be vetted for competence and extremism.  Other than that, Supreme Court Justices should be vetted for any preconceived notions.  (This is one area where I disagree with Sanders - I don't believe there should be a "litmus" test on any issue.  I want judges who will look at the facts of a given case, and interpret the constitution in light of those facts.  If ti was up to me, I would have 9 moderates, who might lean in any direction given the case, and issues involved.  Leave politics for the executive and legislative branches.)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These Republicans (politicians and pundits) that I've seen on FOX and at the Debates are idiots. Why bother trying to show the world how butthurt you still are about Obama winning by trying to deny or diminish his right as POTUS to nominate Judges?  Don't they realize how lame the whole "well...let's let the American people decide" rhetoric is? If you're telling me that Chuckie Shumer is a #### head and then you're using Shumer's rhetoric to validate your position....doesn't that make you a #### head as well?

Let the world know that he has every right to nominate someone, that you'll get right on it....and THEN FREEZE HIM OUT.  Play prevent.  Sorry POTUS, we've got a couple of recesses here....and then keep a few Senators in D.C. to readjourn if he wants to lay a recess appointment. The system gives you a perfectly valid and (persumably) legal way to skirt this issue.....why delegitimize the position that you are so desperately trying to win by saying he should wait?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jon_mx said:

 

 

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

The maniacs on the other side would do the same thing. In fact they are worse and more militant about it when it comes to the Supreme Court. Many Democrats and scholars were already plotting numerous tactics when Bush was president to prevent such an appointment and this was only based on hypotheticals.

You keep bringing this up as if it excuses things. Refusing to discharge your constitutional duties is shameful regardless of party. Chuck Shumer is a jerkwad, by the way, and not only for his statements to this effect during the Bush administration. Obama should not have voted for the failed filibuster, particularly because he criticized it publicly as s tactic. That is a black mark on his record.



Your turn.

When one side gets on their high horse and acts shocked at the way the other side is acting, it is beyond silly especially when we know it is exactly what they would have done. Unfortunately, this is the state of politics. The media is about 90% liberals, so we already know who will win the spin war and there will be huge pressure to cave. The only real ace in the hole that will be tough to overcome is Obama's support of the filibuster and Obama's vote against two superbly qualified justices as a Senator. Obama made his partisan bed when he was Senator running for President, and it will come back to bite him, assuming the GOP can properly package the message. Right now they are failing miserably.

If I was the Senate, I would not announce my intentions. I would sit back and wait and see how Obama acts and who he nominates and then take action to try to defeat the nomination. The GOP needed to dial back their rhetoric, come up with a well-reasoned unified message, and then act on it.

This battle is the most important battle in politics since Reagan vs. Carter in terms of the impact it will have on the next several decades of how our government will either be restrained or allowed to grow endlessly. It is not a battle that will be won or lost on some highly hypocritical arguement trying to shame the other side into backing down. It is a battle which must be fought. Unfortunately for the side who supposedly are for limited government, the politicians on their side are clueless at how to act.

I get what you're saying. And I agree with your advice at how the GOP should be handling the issue. But I can't agree that a vacancy that would shift the balance of the Court justifies doing everything in your power to stymie an otherwise qualified appointee from an opposition President. Let's say Cruz wins the presidency but the Dems regain the Senate in '18. Ginsburg passes away shortly thereafter. I see no justification whatsoever for the Dems to (1) refuse to consider Cruz's appointee and keep the appointee from going to hearing (which is their Constitutional obligation); (2) take the position that they will reject whatever nominee Cruz selects regardless of that person's qualifications; or (3) take the position that Cruz should not nominate a replacement, and instead let the 2020 election decide who makes the nomination. Would you actually support any of those positions in that instance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2016 at 11:44 AM, Rirruto said:

I'm kind of surprised the Republicans are handling this so poorly.

Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomination for Kanye West here, guy is a genius and belongs in this conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the argument "the American people should have a say in this, so lets wait until after the election". The American people did have a say, they re-elected Obama in 2012. That is literally the American peoples' will for 2012-2016. Where is the threshold where you need to wait until the next election? If he died 6 months ago, would the senate approve someone? A year ago? I am pretty sure presidents are elected to serve 4 year terms, not 3 years and whatever the opposition deems fair.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Nomination for Kanye West here, guy is a genius and belongs in this conversation.

I second. Maybe it means he'll stop making #### music. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, huthut said:

I don't get the argument "the American people should have a say in this, so lets wait until after the election". The American people did have a say, they re-elected Obama in 2012. That is literally the American peoples' will for 2012-2016. Where is the threshold where you need to wait until the next election? If he died 6 months ago, would the senate approve someone? A year ago? I am pretty sure presidents are elected to serve 4 year terms, not 3 years and whatever the opposition deems fair.

Basically this argument is just an excuse, but it seems to be an excuse the Republicans are going to use. Because we all know what's going on here: replace Scalia with a liberal or moderate and the Supreme Court changes. Obama's last two appointments didn't change the court- they were liberals replacing liberals. This time it's a liberal replacing a conservative in a court that has 5-4 decisions. Do you really think Republicans are going to allow this if they can stop it? They'll never allow it. They'll use any excuse, any reason to stop it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter which lawyer-politician in a black dress replaces Scalia. 

The Supreme Court is just there for show, a mere rubber-stamp of the tyranny of the other branches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jack White said:

It doesn't matter which lawyer-politician in a black dress replaces Scalia. 

The Supreme Court is just there for show, a mere rubber-stamp of the tyranny of the other branches. 

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Nomination for Kanye West here, guy is a genius and belongs in this conversation.

Plus, he needs the money. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has never been a bigger hypocrite than Chuck Schumer.  It's sad.  Typical DC politics.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dschuler said:

There has never been a bigger hypocrite than Chuck Schumer.  It's sad.  Typical DC politics.

 

 

How did you link YouTube :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics in this country may be at their alltime worst.  Certainly the worst since I've been alive, I can't speak to 19th century as well.

It is absolutely in Obama's power to nominate the next Justice and the Senate needs to work with him to confirm.

I really can't even believe what I am hearing, it's only February, McConnell has no basis to stand upon.

I hope there is a backlash here and it hurts the GOP, they are coming off about as terrible as I have remembered and we aren't even talking about their Presidential candidates.  They are at a low point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of Chuck, but it wasn't hypocritical. When he made that speech, there were 7 months left in Bush's presidency. There is a big difference between 7 and 11 months. 

Don't get me wrong, I still disagree with Schumer. But as I pointed out on Saturday, there has to be SOME point during the last year of a Presidency when  it's reasonable that the Senate should hold off. If, for example, Scalia had died in September of 2016, I don't think anybody would object to waiting. What the exact period is acceptable, I have no idea. But I do know that, at least IMO, we're not at that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt the DNC would be pulling the same crap if things were reversed. Career pols suck. 

Follow the rules , let Obama nominate and let it go its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I'm no fan of Chuck, but it wasn't hypocritical. When he made that speech, there were 7 months left in Bush's presidency. There is a big difference between 7 and 11 months. 

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Christo said:

:lmao:

Why is this funny? You really don't see that 7 months might be a reasonable period to wait (though I would disagree) but that 11 isn't? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Why is this funny? You really don't see that 7 months might be a reasonable period to wait (though I would disagree) but that 11 isn't? 

I agree with Christo.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

I agree with Christo.

Fair enough. Do you agree that at SOME point it becomes reasonable to wait? For example I offered September. If Scalia died in September, is it reasonable to wait? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when a President nominates somebody (after due consideration -- not in a one-day rush job), even if it's on his last day of office after his successor was elected several months ago, the Senate should consider the nomination and vote to confirm or reject on the nominee's merits.

I would understand (but disagree) if someone thought a President shouldn't nominate someone after his successor had already been elected. Until then, I don't think there's any good argument for tribalistic obstructionism.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Chuck talking about a Justice who had passed away - or just one that was contemplating retirement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I'm no fan of Chuck, but it wasn't hypocritical. When he made that speech, there were 7 months left in Bush's presidency.

So you think if we wait four months, Chuck will agree that the Senate should not consider anyone that Obama nominates? If not, I don't see how Schumer isn't being hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think when a President nominates somebody, even if it's on his last day of office after his successor was elected several months ago, the Senate should consider the nomination and vote to confirm or reject on the nominee's merits.

I would understand (but disagree) if someone thought a President shouldn't nominate someone after his successor had already been elected. Until then, I don't think there's any good argument for tribalistic obstructionism.

OK. I think that's a little too absolutist for me. 

 

If a Republican President is elected this year, and if in December someone on the SC dies and Obama nominates a liberal, I have no problem whatsoever with the Senate saying no. I do, however, have a big problem with it right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Christo said:
17 minutes ago, Christo said:

:lmao:

:lmao:

 

Gotta side with Christo here and it's not close.  Even if it's one month there is a duty and responsibility and mandated process... and yes, a few tricks to play as nuke options.  But can you argue this with one month? I guess you could.

 

 

7 months? Come on.  It's MORE than enough time. So much so, an argument that finds the defining line between 7-11 seems a bit ludicrous, sorry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now