Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

******Official SCOTUS Thread******

Recommended Posts

On 9/18/2020 at 9:10 PM, Widbil83 said:

How is his comment insincere? Did Obama not nominate Garland?

Widbill, the comment was insincere because he pretended to not know the precedent set just 4 years ago and because of the plain language of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, squistion said:

The Hill @thehill 2h

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are calling on GOP chair Lindsey Graham not to bring a vote on a Supreme Court nominee until next year: "There cannot be one set of rules for a Republican President and one set for a Democratic President"

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517233-judiciary-dems-urge-graham-to-delay-supreme-court-nominee-until-next-year

Senate Dems don't want Trump to get a SCOTUS judge confirmed?  Color me shocked.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2020 at 5:56 PM, BladeRunner said:

The line is where the US Constitution draws it.  So, from a legal perspective that is exactly where the GOP needs to stop.

I think Mitch really screwed things up by not putting Obama's nominee to a vote.  Trump of course will get his next appointee in, and the SC swings to the Conservative side.  Perfectly within the Constitution.

Then if the Dems win the presidency and the senate, Congress will increase the Supreme Court from 9 to 13.  And the SC swings back to Democrat. Perfectly within the Constitution.

This process will continue for the foreseeable future.  Mitch will go down as the guys that ####ed things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Widbill, the comment was insincere because he pretended to not know the precedent set just 4 years ago and because of the plain language of the Constitution.

Why would the Senate, led by the same party as the President, oppose the President’s nomination?  There’s not a precedent here. When has that happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerseydevil20 said:

Why would the Senate, led by the same party as the President, oppose the President’s nomination?  There’s not a precedent here. When has that happened?

Reagan, Democratic Senate, Justice Kennedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also think of how preposterous that result would be - you could go 20 years with the Senate in one party’s hands, the WH in another’s, and no new SC Justice nominated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Also think of how preposterous that result would be - you could go 20 years with the Senate in one party’s hands, the WH in another’s, and no new SC Justice nominated.

Maybe it would result in moderate justices?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Also think of how preposterous that result would be - you could go 20 years with the Senate in one party’s hands, the WH in another’s, and no new SC Justice nominated.

Yeah, that's stupid and obviously not how this is supposed to work.

My preference -- which I've believed going back to the Reagan administration -- is that the senate should confirm whoever the president nominates unless there is some obvious, glaring reason to do otherwise, and "I don't like how this person is likely to vote" isn't a good reason to vote no.  The senate's role should be to weed out obviously unqualified or curveball nominees.  That means that Reagan gets Bork on the court, Clinton gets RBG, Obama gets Garland, and things even out over time as various parties win and lose presidential elections.

This is a vastly better norm than whatever it is that we're currently doing.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jerseydevil20 said:

Maybe it would result in moderate justices?  

The Founding Fathers didn’t envision parties or even moderates/wingers. It’s our fault that we have done this to ourselves and we should fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jerseydevil20 said:

Reagan was most definitely not a Democrat 

That’s the point. McConnell’s ludicrous claim is that Garland could not be voted on because the President and the Senate were different parties. That was a lie.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Yeah, that's stupid and obviously not how this is supposed to work.

My preference -- which I've believed going back to the Reagan administration -- is that the senate should confirm whoever the president nominates unless there is some obvious, glaring reason to do otherwise, and "I don't like how this person is likely to vote" isn't a good reason to vote no.  The senate's role should be to weed out obviously unqualified or curveball nominees.  That means that Reagan gets Bork on the court, Clinton gets RBG, Obama gets Garland, and things even out over time as various parties win and lose presidential elections.

This is a vastly better norm than whatever it is that we're currently doing.

Thanks, this requires adherence to duty, tradition and the Constitution. Precisely the problem, and the fact that bofesidez have been circuitously legislating through the courts is a chunk of where we’ve arrived.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jerseydevil20 said:

Why would the Senate, led by the same party as the President, oppose the President’s nomination?  There’s not a precedent here. When has that happened?

Harriet Miers, 2005.
John J. Parker, 1930.
Caleb Cushing, 1874.
Ebenezer Hoar, 1869.
Jeremiah Black, 1861.
Edward Bradford, 1852.
George Badger, 1852.
William Micou, 1852.
John Read, 1845.
John Spencer, 1844.
Reuben Walworth, 1844.
Edward King, 1844.

Also, 6 Republicans voted No on Robert Bork, but perhaps they would have voted Yes if Republicans held the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1307714897715834881

BREAKING.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski: "For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed ... the same standard must apply."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, squistion said:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1307714897715834881

BREAKING.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski: "For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed ... the same standard must apply."

Similar to the impeachment, the GOP has 3 votes to "give".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1307746364072382466

Speaker Pelosi won't rule out impeaching Trump or Barr to delay a SCOTUS vote in a lame-suck session if Biden wins.

"Well, we have our options," Pelosi said. "We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-won-t-rule-out-new-impeachment-delay-scotus-vote-n1240568

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Yeah, that's stupid and obviously not how this is supposed to work.

My preference -- which I've believed going back to the Reagan administration -- is that the senate should confirm whoever the president nominates unless there is some obvious, glaring reason to do otherwise, and "I don't like how this person is likely to vote" isn't a good reason to vote no.  The senate's role should be to weed out obviously unqualified or curveball nominees.  That means that Reagan gets Bork on the court, Clinton gets RBG, Obama gets Garland, and things even out over time as various parties win and lose presidential elections.

This is a vastly better norm than whatever it is that we're currently doing.

Bork complied with Nixon’s wishes in the Saturday Night Massacre in exchange for being promised a Supreme Court seat Nixon then couldn’t deliver. That was properly disqualifying from an ethical standpoint. But I’m with you on your reasoning generally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, squistion said:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1307714897715834881

BREAKING.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski: "For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed ... the same standard must apply."

That is, of course, NOT a statement that she won't do it in the lame duck session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

Harriet Miers, 2005.
John J. Parker, 1930.
Caleb Cushing, 1874.
Ebenezer Hoar, 1869.
Jeremiah Black, 1861.
Edward Bradford, 1852.
George Badger, 1852.
William Micou, 1852.
John Read, 1845.
John Spencer, 1844.
Reuben Walworth, 1844.
Edward King, 1844.

Also, 6 Republicans voted No on Robert Bork, but perhaps they would have voted Yes if Republicans held the majority.

Looks like things were contentious in the 1800s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jerseydevil20 said:

Looks like things were contentious in the 1800s

In the lead-up to the 1860s? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that the judicial branch can't be non-partisan.  We were warned this would occur over 30 years ago and that the executive and legislative branch should not defermto the judicial as they have.  We have made our own bed.  I really hope the SC isn't expanded for any reason.  It's counter-productive and just further illustrates the partisanship, just with larger numbers on each side.  Nobody wants to end upmwoth 50+ justices 30 years down the line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2016, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Senator David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Thom (Thomas Roland) Tillis for U. S. Senate from North Carolina (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Senator Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “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.”

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Senator Mitch McConnell, March 2016

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cap'n grunge said:

2016, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Senator David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Thom (Thomas Roland) Tillis for U. S. Senate from North Carolina (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Senator Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “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.”

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Senator Mitch McConnell, March 2016

 

2016 wasn't that long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, squistion said:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1307746364072382466

Speaker Pelosi won't rule out impeaching Trump or Barr to delay a SCOTUS vote in a lame-suck session if Biden wins.

"Well, we have our options," Pelosi said. "We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-won-t-rule-out-new-impeachment-delay-scotus-vote-n1240568

 

I think she is probably referring to increasing the size of the SC to 13.  The only chance you get to increase the SC and add judges of your political ilk is when you control congress, the senate, and the White House.

This is a real possibility.  If Trump rushes through a nominee and the Dems win the elections, I guarantee this will happen.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I think she is probably referring to increasing the size of the SC to 13.  The only chance you get to increase the SC and add judges of your political ilk is when you control congress, the senate, and the White House.

This is a real possibility.  If Trump rushes through a nominee and the Dems win the elections, I guarantee this will happen.

What role does the House play in all this?  I thought this was a Senate/President thing.

Share this post


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

What role does the House play in all this?  I thought this was a Senate/President thing.

I believe that increasing the number of SCOTUS justices would require legislation, which would need to pass the House and Senate.

Share this post


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

I believe that increasing the number of SCOTUS justices would require legislation, which would need to pass the House and Senate.

Thanks :thumbup: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Pelosi is as big of piece of human garbage as Trump.  If ever there was a case for term limits.

So you can't call the President stupid, but you can call Nancy a piece of human garbage?

Ok, sure. Makes sense.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I believe that increasing the number of SCOTUS justices would require legislation, which would need to pass the House and Senate.

Correct.  That's why you need to control all 3.  With Mitch playing hardball against Obama's nominee 4 years ago, the Dems will not feel constrained by any moral obligation to keep the SC at the numbers they are at right now.  I really think McConnel's decision 4 year ago will go down in history as the start of a whole Supreme Court nomination fiasco where vacated seats are left open for years, and the supreme court grows on the rare occasion when one party holds all three branches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Commish said:

What role does the House play in all this?  I thought this was a Senate/President thing.

They have no assigned role, but Pelosi apparently thinks that firing off an impeachment inquiry (in the house) against either AG Barr or the President is an appropriate reaction to a vacancy on the Supreme Court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chaz McNulty said:
19 hours ago, squistion said:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1307746364072382466

Speaker Pelosi won't rule out impeaching Trump or Barr to delay a SCOTUS vote in a lame-suck session if Biden wins.

"Well, we have our options," Pelosi said. "We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-won-t-rule-out-new-impeachment-delay-scotus-vote-n1240568

 

I think she is probably referring to increasing the size of the SC to 13.  The only chance you get to increase the SC and add judges of your political ilk is when you control congress, the senate, and the White House.

This is a real possibility.  If Trump rushes through a nominee and the Dems win the elections, I guarantee this will happen.

Isn't she saying the House could start another impeachment proceeding, which I understand would take precedent over a SCOTUS confirmation hearing?  Its essentially a delay tactic to get to the inauguration date in the event Biden wins.  Admittedly, I've read almost nothing about this, but saw this suggested on twitter a few days ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spodog said:

They have no assigned role, but Pelosi apparently thinks that firing off an impeachment inquiry (in the house) against either AG Barr or the President is an appropriate reaction to a vacancy on the Supreme Court. 

After reading a bit more on Rich's comment, this isn't true.  An act of some sort is required to change the number of appointments.  That has to go through both the House and Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Isn't she saying the House could start another impeachment proceeding, which I understand would take precedent over a SCOTUS confirmation hearing?  Its essentially a delay tactic to get to the inauguration date in the event Biden wins.  Admittedly, I've read almost nothing about this, but saw this suggested on twitter a few days ago.

 

I don't see how this would do anything.  The House doesn't have any say in the appointment process, right?  So they'd be doing their dog/pony show while the President and Senate continue to work against the precedent they set less than four years ago.  And yes, I get that their actions are completely within the framework of what the Constitution allows, but if you're strongest argument is essentially, "Hey, we didn't want to do our job a few years ago, but now we do" the "reasons" ring pretty hollow to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I really think McConnel's decision 4 year ago will go down in history as the start of a whole Supreme Court nomination fiasco 

McConnell's decision not to approve Garland was atrocious and indefensible, but he's hardly the person who started this whole thing.  One consistent part of the judiciary wars is that Party A cites previous atrocities committed by Party B as justification for committing a new, even worse atrocity.  

If the Democrats actually packed the court (very unlikely IMO), then in a few years Republicans will point to that as the great moment of reckoning and use that a justification for whatever toolery they come up with next.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skoo said:

So you can't call the President stupid, but you can call Nancy a piece of human garbage?

Ok, sure. Makes sense.

What would make sense would be to whine less and use the report button like we've asked repeatedly.

We see a tiny bit of what's posted. 

Because something is posted doesn't mean it's ok. If you see something that's way over the line, like this was, report it. 

Someone did and this poster is suspended. We realize that's not as fun as complaining about some sort of perceived double standard but it would make the board tons better if you did. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't see how this would do anything.  The House doesn't have any say in the appointment process, right?  So they'd be doing their dog/pony show while the President and Senate continue to work against the precedent they set less than four years ago.  And yes, I get that their actions are completely within the framework of what the Constitution allows, but if you're strongest argument is essentially, "Hey, we didn't want to do our job a few years ago, but now we do" the "reasons" ring pretty hollow to me.

In theory, if impeachment proceedings really do take precedence, Pelosi and the House could send up articles of impeachment one after another, thereby requiring that the Senate deal with each one prior to confirming a nominee.  In practice, I suspect McConnell would simply ignore it and move forward on the confirmation.  One possible exception there is if Trump actually nominates Lagoa, the House might very well impeach Lagoa herself for violating ethics standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, The Commish said:

After reading a bit more on Rich's comment, this isn't true.  An act of some sort is required to change the number of appointments.  That has to go through both the House and Senate.

Here is the entire process as defined in the constitution:

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

8 Steps

- 1 owned by the President

- 4 owned by the Senate Judiciary Committee

- 3 owned by the entirety of the Senate

What act are you referring to?   The house plays no formal role in this process, other than to talk to the media and attempt to wield influence.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Here is the entire process as defined in the constitution:

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

8 Steps

- 1 owned by the President

- 4 owned by the Senate Judiciary Committee

- 3 owned by the entirety of the Senate

What act are you referring to?   The house plays no formal role in this process, other than to talk to the media and attempt to wield influence.  

Fwiw this isn't the Constitution. It reminds me of the impeachment process where - although impeachment itself is set out in the Constitution - there were minute, granular rules built out over decades and even a century, but they're Senate rules. It'd be interesting to see these at some point for the SC nomination process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example:

Quote

From the Supreme Court nomination of Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to be Associate Justice in 2017, a median of 27 days elapsed between Senate receipt and first day of confirmation hearings.

We have ~45 days to the election.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


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

Here is the entire process as defined in the constitution:

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

8 Steps

- 1 owned by the President

- 4 owned by the Senate Judiciary Committee

- 3 owned by the entirety of the Senate

What act are you referring to?   The house plays no formal role in this process, other than to talk to the media and attempt to wield influence.  

We are talking about the process of adding more justices to the court....I understand the nomination and confirmation process fine.  That wasn't the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

For example:

Quote

From the Supreme Court nomination of Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to be Associate Justice in 2017, a median of 27 days elapsed between Senate receipt and first day of confirmation hearings.

We have ~45 days to the election.

Seems that Garland and the infinite # of days until he got his hearing should skew those #s a bit more

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

In theory, if impeachment proceedings really do take precedence, Pelosi and the House could send up articles of impeachment one after another, thereby requiring that the Senate deal with each one prior to confirming a nominee.  In practice, I suspect McConnell would simply ignore it and move forward on the confirmation.  One possible exception there is if Trump actually nominates Lagoa, the House might very well impeach Lagoa herself for violating ethics standards.

I can assure you that unless this first bold statement isn't specifically stated in the Constitution that the second bold thing is absolutely what will happen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

McConnell's decision not to approve Garland was atrocious and indefensible, but he's hardly the person who started this whole thing.  One consistent part of the judiciary wars is that Party A cites previous atrocities committed by Party B as justification for committing a new, even worse atrocity.  

If the Democrats actually packed the court (very unlikely IMO), then in a few years Republicans will point to that as the great moment of reckoning and use that a justification for whatever toolery they come up with next.

This situation certainly didn't start with the Garland nomination. 

To understand the roots and to understand McConnell's actions, spend 60 minutes with the PBS Frontline doc Supreme Revenge.    The street fight and sewer tactics effectively were started by Ted Kennedy during the Robert Bork nomination hearings. 

If you won't or can't spend the 60 minutes needed for the in depth story as prepared by Frontline, you can get a 4 minute version here

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

McConnell's decision not to approve Garland was atrocious and indefensible, but he's hardly the person who started this whole thing.  One consistent part of the judiciary wars is that Party A cites previous atrocities committed by Party B as justification for committing a new, even worse atrocity.  

Harry Reid was a big part of this.  Certainly not the only one, but his machinations accelerated this devolution significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Commish said:

We are talking about the process of adding more justices to the court....I understand the nomination and confirmation process fine.  That wasn't the question.

Fair enough. 

Somewhat amazing that so many are holding out hope that moving the number away from the 9 that have occupied the SC bench since 1869 is somehow going to happen and is justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Nancy actually say they would bring impeachment....or was it asked of her and she just didn't say no to it or rule it out...but didn't actually suggest it herself?  I think that is an important distinction if she never even brought it up at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The Commish said:
2 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Isn't she saying the House could start another impeachment proceeding, which I understand would take precedent over a SCOTUS confirmation hearing?  Its essentially a delay tactic to get to the inauguration date in the event Biden wins.  Admittedly, I've read almost nothing about this, but saw this suggested on twitter a few days ago.

 

I don't see how this would do anything.  The House doesn't have any say in the appointment process, right?  So they'd be doing their dog/pony show while the President and Senate continue to work against the precedent they set less than four years ago.  And yes, I get that their actions are completely within the framework of what the Constitution allows, but if you're strongest argument is essentially, "Hey, we didn't want to do our job a few years ago, but now we do" the "reasons" ring pretty hollow to me.

Its all 100% hollow.  Its a complete waste of everyone's time to try to justify anything either party is doing on the basis of what's happened before, who started it, or notions of fairness.  The theory, and again I have no idea how likely it is, is that the House could send articles of impeachment up to the senate, and the senate would have to consider them prior to taking up a judicial appointment.  This would allow the democrat senators to essentially filibuster the impeachment proceeding until January 21.  This is only relevant if Biden wins.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, spodog said:

Fair enough. 

Somewhat amazing that so many are holding out hope that moving the number away from the 9 that have occupied the SC bench since 1869 is somehow going to happen and is justified.

I agree with you on this, and I think this danger should be something that McConnell should and would take into account if he was considering the stability of the Senate and the republic.

Share this post


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

Fair enough. 

Somewhat amazing that so many are holding out hope that moving the number away from the 9 that have occupied the SC bench since 1869 is somehow going to happen and is justified.

But this is what it has gotten too.  As long as it's legal and in the framework of the Constitution, both parties will ignore the history and any moral arguments.  The Dems are still pissed about Merrick Garland, and will do whatever it takes to restore balance in the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.