Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

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

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

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.

 

And if it's written into law.  RC said something similar.  I don't expect "tradition" to be meaningful in any way to this Senate leader if it's standing in the way of his power.  So this many have been the case since the creation of this country and the precedent clear, but it's also pretty clear none of that matters at this moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 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.

Not sure why it's "amazing".  After all, there are no rules against it and even if there were, do they really matter anymore?  I don't think it happens, but if it does, it does.  Afterall, that's part of their function :shrug: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices, I think this is where the Dems justify doing so by saying something like “the GOP would do the same thing if the roles were reversed.”  After all, you can apparently justify anything if you claim that the other side would hypothetically act similarly. 

Share this post


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

When it comes to increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices, I think this is where the Dems justify doing so by saying something like “the GOP would do the same thing if the roles were reversed.”  After all, you can apparently justify anything if you claim that the other side would hypothetically act similarly. 

Agreed.  And when a SC justice dies in the first year of a presidents 4 year term, will the opposing senate allow the nomination to get to the senate floor?  Unless a complete moderate is nominated, I don't see it happening.

Share this post


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

When it comes to increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices, I think this is where the Dems justify doing so by saying something like “the GOP would do the same thing if the roles were reversed.”  After all, you can apparently justify anything if you claim that the other side would hypothetically act similarly. 

What "roles" would we hypothetically be talking about here? Because the GOP had a triple majority in 2017, didn't they? Couldn't they have used their powers to expand the SC at that time?

Share this post


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

What "roles" would we hypothetically be talking about here? Because the GOP had a triple majority in 2017, didn't they? Couldn't they have used their powers to expand the SC at that time?

But they hadn’t had a Supreme Court stolen at that point. Now, of course the Republicans would do it. Which is why it’s completely fine for the Dems to do it (at least that’s the basic argument I’ve been hearing over the last couple days). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver lining. The discussion about Democrats possibly increasing the number of Justices makes me feel a bit less dejected about the prospect of a Trump reelection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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'm not particularly for it.

Whether or not it is justified is moot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Obamacare gets struck down in January and with it go preexisting coverage protections, bans on lifetime coverage caps (which could really hurt cancer patients), keeping your kid on your plan until age 26, etc. couldn’t this really backfire on Republicans?

 

edit:  American Cancer Society on The Affordable Care Act - How it Helps People with Cancer and their Families:

https://www.cancer.org/treatment/finding-and-paying-for-treatment/understanding-health-insurance/health-insurance-laws/the-health-care-law.html

Edited by bigbottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we end the rhetoric about how the Republicans stole a seat? That's not what McConnell did. If McConnell had done exactly what he was supposed to do by scheduling hearings and a vote for Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court would look exactly the same.

Garland was not going to be confirmed. Numerous Senators were going to vote to disconfirm a qualified candidate from the opposing party just like Obama did when he was a Senator.

The only difference would be that Garland would have lost 55-45 or whatever instead of simply "N/A."

The "stolen seat" rhetoric is bad not only because it's false, but also because it's going to be used to justify ruining democracy even more.

Hasn't democracy been ruined enough lately? Maybe we should reverse that trend instead of continuing it?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

 

The only difference would be that Garland would have lost 55-45 or whatever instead of simply "N/A."

This is a pretty big difference though, right? I do agree that the stolen seat thing is a bit of an oversell though

Share this post


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

Can we end the rhetoric about how the Republicans stole a seat? That's not what McConnell did. If McConnell had done exactly what he was supposed to do by scheduling hearings and a vote for Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court would look exactly the same.

Garland was not going to be confirmed. Numerous Senators were going to vote to disconfirm a qualified candidate from the opposing party just like Obama did when he was a Senator.

The only difference would be that Garland would have lost 55-45 or whatever instead of simply "N/A."

The "stolen seat" rhetoric is bad not only because it's false, but also because it's going to be used to justify ruining democracy even more.

Hasn't democracy been ruined enough lately? Maybe we should reverse that trend instead of continuing it?

I'm not much on history.  Has the senate ever kicked the can down the road for 10 months in anticipation of an election before?  

Share this post


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

Can we end the rhetoric about how the Republicans stole a seat? That's not what McConnell did. If McConnell had done exactly what he was supposed to do by scheduling hearings and a vote for Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court would look exactly the same.

Garland was not going to be confirmed. Numerous Senators were going to vote to disconfirm a qualified candidate from the opposing party just like Obama did when he was a Senator.

The only difference would be that Garland would have lost 55-45 or whatever instead of simply "N/A."

The "stolen seat" rhetoric is bad not only because it's false, but also because it's going to be used to justify ruining democracy even more.

Hasn't democracy been ruined enough lately? Maybe we should reverse that trend instead of continuing it?

Except that is not how it has worked historically. Garland was seen as a very moderate pick. Historically the Senate has set aside their political leanings and approved justices from both sides of the aisle. Mitch should have allowed the vote and Garland should have been approved. And then Trump should have had his pick approved now as well, assuming he didn't nominate some extreme candidate. That's how it is supposed to work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The only difference would be that Garland would have lost 55-45 or whatever instead of simply "N/A."

Mitch offered political cover to every Republican by doing this.  There could have been consequences had they voted against a moderate justice.

Share this post


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

Mitch should have allowed the vote and Garland should have been approved.

The tradition of voting against qualified candidates for ideological reasons would not have started with Garland if he'd been put to a vote. Senator Obama voted against Alito and Roberts, for example, which deprives him of standing to complain about it happening to his own nominee. The most famous example is still Bork.

Share this post


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

Can we end the rhetoric about how the Republicans stole a seat? That's not what McConnell did. If McConnell had done exactly what he was supposed to do by scheduling hearings and a vote for Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court would look exactly the same.

Garland was not going to be confirmed. Numerous Senators were going to vote to disconfirm a qualified candidate from the opposing party just like Obama did when he was a Senator.

The only difference would be that Garland would have lost 55-45 or whatever instead of simply "N/A."

The "stolen seat" rhetoric is bad not only because it's false, but also because it's going to be used to justify ruining democracy even more.

Hasn't democracy been ruined enough lately? Maybe we should reverse that trend instead of continuing it?

To the extent you are referring to me (maybe you’re not), that isn’t my point at all. I’m on record that I think Trump should nominate his candidate and the current Senate should move ahead with holding hearings and a confirmation vote. What I was criticizing is the current justification of the obvious hypocrisy of certain Republican senators that it’s okay because the Dems would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. I think that’s a lame argument. And because it leads to further escalation I’m pretty sure you think it’s lame as well. My example of the Dems justifying expanding the number of Justices because “hey the Republicans stole a seat and they would do the same thing if the roles were reversed” is designed to show the fallacy of such a justification, not to support it. And I used the stole a seat phrase as part of the fallacious argument that would be made.

As an aside, I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusion that Garland would have been voted down had hearings been held. I think there was a real risk that he could have been confirmed, which is why Mitch did what he did and a whole bunch of Senators made the arguments that they did about why Garland should be denied a hearing. 

Edited by bigbottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 9/20/2020 at 11:55 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

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.

It was more than that.  Here's what he said: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court...It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

In 2014, the voters flipped control of the Senate previously in favor of the Democrats to the Republicans by 9 seats.  If that's not an indication from voters wanted Obama checked, I don't know what is.  Conversely, Trump isn't a lame-duck President and in the most recent National Election the voters added 2 seats to the Senate Republicans.  The context here isn't the same.

Share this post


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

I'm not much on history.  Has the senate ever kicked the can down the road for 10 months in anticipation of an election before?  

Mitch indicated at the time he was prepared to kick the can down the road for an entire Hillary Clinton 4 year term if she won.

 

Share this post


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

Can we end the rhetoric about how the Republicans stole a seat? That's not what McConnell did. If McConnell had done exactly what he was supposed to do by scheduling hearings and a vote for Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court would look exactly the same.

Garland was not going to be confirmed. Numerous Senators were going to vote to disconfirm a qualified candidate from the opposing party just like Obama did when he was a Senator.

The only difference would be that Garland would have lost 55-45 or whatever instead of simply "N/A."

The "stolen seat" rhetoric is bad not only because it's false, but also because it's going to be used to justify ruining democracy even more.

Hasn't democracy been ruined enough lately? Maybe we should reverse that trend instead of continuing it?

:goodposting: 

Share this post


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

Mitch offered political cover to every Republican by doing this.  There could have been consequences had they voted against a moderate justice.

You seem to be changing the subject. My point isn't that what McConnell did was right and proper; it's that it didn't amount to stealing a seat.

Share this post


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

You seem to be changing the subject. My point isn't that what McConnell did was right and proper; it's that it didn't amount to stealing a seat.

So you think the senate would have voted against every nomination bought forward over the next 10 months?  Has this been done in the past in order to get to the next election?

Share this post


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

To the extent you are referring to me (maybe you’re not), that isn’t my point at all. I’m on record that I think Trump should nominate his candidate and the current Senate should move ahead with holding hearings and a confirmation vote. What I was criticizing is the current justification of the obvious hypocrisy of certain Republican senators that it’s okay because the Dems would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. I think that’s a lame argument. And because it leads to further escalation I’m pretty sure you think it’s lame as well. My example of the Dems justifying expanding the number of Justices because “hey the Republicans stole a seat and they would do the same thing if the roles were reversed” is designed to show the fallacy of such a justification, not to support it. 

It wasn't in response to you, and I agree with all of that.

5 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

As an aside, I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusion that Garland would have been voted down had hearings been held. I think there was a real risk that he could have been confirmed, which is why Mitch did what he did and a whole bunch of Senators made the arguments that they did about why Garland should be denied a hearing. 

My gut feeling is that, given the political climate at the time (which has only gotten worse since then), no Obama nominee was going to be confirmed by a Republican Senate in 2016. I haven't tried to quantify what odds I'd have to be offered in order to take the other side of that bet, but at even odds I'd feel pretty good betting on the nays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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 don't think impeachment is a good option.  They can't just make up charges.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

It was more than that.  Here's what he said: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court...It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

In 2014, the voters flipped control of the Senate previously in favor of the Democrats to the Republicans by 9 seats.  If that's not an indication from voters wanted Obama checked, I don't know what is.  Conversely, Trump isn't a lame-duck President and in the most recent National Election the voters added 2 seats to the Senate Republicans.  The context here isn't the same.

These mental gymnastics are unnecessary.  McConnell didn't want Garland voted on because he was a non-conservative choice and he thought (correctly) that he could hold off through the election.  We both know that's true. None of this other stuff really matters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't think impeachment is a good option.  They can't just make up charges.

It's a political process and the standard by which impeachment is initiated and decided is fully in the hands of the House.

In other words, they can absolutely just make up charges if they chose to do so.

Edited by Sand

Share this post


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

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.

There is no "restoring balance" to the court - it's not out of balance.  Have a good read here on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Democrats want to start impeachment, they don't have to make up stuff.  They held over stuff from last time.

(Not that I'm in favor of that play because I'm not.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I'm not much on history.  Has the senate ever kicked the can down the road for 10 months in anticipation of an election before?  

One better.  In 1866, President Andrew Johnson nominated Stanbery for a seat on the United States Supreme Court.  The Republicans who controlled Congress were at odds with Johnson over post-Civil War Reconstruction, and rather than confirm Stanbery, they passed a law reducing the size of the court.

Share this post


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

It's a political process and the standard by which impeachment is initiated and decided is fully in the hands of the House.

In other words, they can absolutely just make up charges if they chose to do so.

Can they?  Yes.

Do we the people want the house to use Impeachment for this?  I mean holy hell, I can’t imagine the bad optics on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

To be fair, the confusion was over different people speculating on what Pelosi's "arrows in the quiver" comment referenced, and that ended up starting two parallel discussions, one regarding what Pelosi/Democrats could do to prevent the confirmation of a nominee and another regarding whether Pelosi/Democrats meant packing the court next year.  When reading any specific quote without going back through that portion of the conversation, it was easy to misconstrue a comment on one of those two discussions as applying to the other.

Share this post


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

 

It was more than that.  Here's what he said: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court...It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

In 2014, the voters flipped control of the Senate previously in favor of the Democrats to the Republicans by 9 seats.  If that's not an indication from voters wanted Obama checked, I don't know what is.  Conversely, Trump isn't a lame-duck President and in the most recent National Election the voters added 2 seats to the Senate Republicans.  The context here isn't the same.

You’re proposing that the Founding Fathers imagined that the ability to choose USSC justices would be predicated on the most preceding Senate election, as much as 2 years prior? 

That’s worse that tenuous, and it also has never been applied. That’s worse than McConnell’s (as it turns out fraudulent) claim that the selection should be paused for the next President.

But even *if you accept that, it’s just redundant because it presumes the whole =>Senate<= gets the choice, not that of a singular Senator forming less than half of the full delegation from his rural state.

Tell Madison, Hamilton & Jay’s ghosts that they were surreptitiously ceding Control of the Supreme Court to a single Senator from say Georgia in 1789 & they’d likely throw a poltergeist.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


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

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.

She was asked about the possibility towards the president and the Attorney General and her response was that they "have weapons/options" in their arsenal and she was not going to discuss those with the interviewer.  I think people kind of put words in her mouth there.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulling this from another thread on the SC since there seems to be several posts regarding Mitch McConnell's support now vs. his non-support in 2016 of a nomination. There are lots of words being thrown around that suggest its a hypocritical move, its heinous, its a precedent being set, etc. 

So, the idea that is a precedent isn't really one at all. I, myself, had said to someone mentioning this as a Mitch McConnell thing that it was more of a Strom Thurmond thing, then Joe Biden thing, then Mitch but it goes farther back than that. All the way back to the beginning, in fact.  

So, in the history of our United States:

-There have been 29 times in which a vacancy came up during an election year.

Of those 29 times, the sitting president has nominated a replacement 29 times.  That's batting 1000 for us sports fans playing at home. Every single time, the sitting president has made a nomination.

-Of those 29 times, the parties between the sitting president and the senate has been split (e.g., Dem president and republican controlled senate) 10 times. 

Of those 10 times, 6 nominations were made before the election and 4 were made after but before the inauguration (the lame duck scenario). 

Of those 10 nominations, 1 was confirmed (Cleveland administration).

-Of those 29 times, 19 nominations were made when the White House and the Senate were controlled by the same party.

Of those, 10 were nominated before the election with 9 confirmed. The other 9 were in the lame duck period.

So, it's not really unprecedented at all. It just happens to be much more magnified right now as we live in this hyper-partisan environment and the results are very much what you expect in that the parties in power, when unified, succeed and the when not, they typically don't.  No one would be shocked by that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

I don't think impeachment is a good option.  They can't just make up charges.

Just to be clear, I didn't say it was a good option.  I was merely responding to the question of what the House could (theoretically) do to slow down or prevent the confirmation of a nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

 

Conversely, Trump isn't a lame-duck President and in the most recent National Election the voters added 2 seats to the Senate Republicans. 

The most recent national election was in 2016, wasn't it? In that same election that Trump won, the dems gained 2 seats in the senate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Can they?  Yes.

Do we the people want the house to use Impeachment for this?  I mean holy hell, I can’t imagine the bad optics on that.

Oh, I agree completely.  Just noting that it is a completely political process - "high crimes and misdemeanors" is what the House says it is. 

Share this post


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

Just to be clear, I didn't say it was a good option.  I was merely responding to the question of what the House could (theoretically) do to slow down or prevent the confirmation of a nominee.

With the ending of the Fiscal year at the end of the month, they could also choose to force a government shutdown and stall the process.  Or, senators could simply fail to show and force the hand of the Sergeant at arms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking this morning how things might have been different if the dates that Justices Ginsberg and Scalia died were swapped. Maybe it would be the same but I think things could be different. 
 

No doubt those on the right didn’t want Obama replacing Scalia anymore than the left wants Trump replacing Ginsberg. I think had Ginsberg died in early 2016 there would be much less backing for McConnell to block a Garland nomination to replace Ginsberg. Granted Obama may well have gone with another more liberal nominee in that circumstance. However, I think it’s very possible Garland could have been approved and if so, there would be much less opposition to Trump replacing Scalia had he just died in 2020.  
 

Both Scalia and Ginsberg were admired by those who shared their philosophies. It just so happens each died late in the term of a President from the party philosophically opposed to their views. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The most recent national election was in 2016, wasn't it? In that same election that Trump won, the dems gained 2 seats in the senate

think he meant 2018 when the senate changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

You’re proposing that the Founding Fathers imagined that the ability to choose USSC justices would be predicated on the most preceding Senate election, as much as 2 years prior? 

That’s worse that tenuous, and it also has never been applied. That’s worse than McConnell’s (as it turns out fraudulent) claim that the selection should be paused for the next President.

But even *if you accept that, it’s just redundant because it presumes the whole =>Senate<= gets the choice, not that of a singular Senator forming less than half of the full delegation from his rural state.

Tell Madison, Hamilton & Jay’s ghosts that they were surreptitiously ceding Control of the Supreme Court to a single Senator from day Georgia in 1789 & they’d likely throw a poltergeist.

The Founding Fathers said that the President nominates a SC Justice with advice and consent of the Senate.  The rule isn't the President nominates a SC Justice and the Senate must confirm.  Elections have consequences and the 2014 mid-term elections allowed the Republican Senate to gain control of the confirmation process.  The Senate could have gone through a sham meetings with Garland, a sham proceeding and then a sham vote to not confirmed Garland.  Sure, the Republicans would now look better in that situation, but the Garland results would have been the same.  You can agree or disagree on the reasoning, but the reasoning isn't really all that important.

Share this post


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

The most recent national election was in 2016, wasn't it? In that same election that Trump won, the dems gained 2 seats in the senate

There were mid-term elections in 2018.    

Share this post


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

There were mid-term elections in 2018.    

Just confused by your word choice. Aren't our only national elections the presidential kind?

Share this post


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

think he meant 2018 when the senate changed.

Senate didn't change. It was republican held before and after

Share this post


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

Senate didn't change. It was republican held before and after

ok, just saw that as i was skimming through. I probably didn't read enough to see what you guys were digging into.  Please disregard. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can we end the rhetoric about how the Republicans stole a seat? That's not what McConnell did. If McConnell had done exactly what he was supposed to do by scheduling hearings and a vote for Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court would look exactly the same.

Garland was not going to be confirmed. Numerous Senators were going to vote to disconfirm a qualified candidate from the opposing party just like Obama did when he was a Senator.

The only difference would be that Garland would have lost 55-45 or whatever instead of simply "N/A."

The "stolen seat" rhetoric is bad not only because it's false, but also because it's going to be used to justify ruining democracy even more.

Hasn't democracy been ruined enough lately? Maybe we should reverse that trend instead of continuing it?

To counter this, if they had voted and denied Garland a seat, Obama could still have nominated another candidate that may have been more suited to pass through.  But he was never given that opportunity.  So you could still argue the "stolen seat" rhetoric from that standpoint, no?

Share this post


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

To counter this, if they had voted and denied Garland a seat, Obama could still have nominated another candidate that may have been more suited to pass through.  But he was never given that opportunity.  So you could still argue the "stolen seat" rhetoric from that standpoint, no?

No, because Obama had that same option in 2016. He could have withdrawn Garland's name and submitted a more moderate (or more conservative) judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

No, because Obama had that same option in 2016. He could have withdrawn Garland's name and submitted a more moderate (or more conservative) judge.

Well, except the Republicans were on record stating that Garland wasn't given a vote because it was an election year, not because they had reservations about his qualifications (or moderacy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

I was thinking this morning how things might have been different if the dates that Justices Ginsberg and Scalia died were swapped. Maybe it would be the same but I think things could be different. 
 

No doubt those on the right didn’t want Obama replacing Scalia anymore than the left wants Trump replacing Ginsberg. I think had Ginsberg died in early 2016 there would be much less backing for McConnell to block a Garland nomination to replace Ginsberg. Granted Obama may well have gone with another more liberal nominee in that circumstance. However, I think it’s very possible Garland could have been approved and if so, there would be much less opposition to Trump replacing Scalia had he just died in 2020.  
 

Both Scalia and Ginsberg were admired by those who shared their philosophies. It just so happens each died late in the term of a President from the party philosophically opposed to their views. 

Guess I am just a pessimist....I don't think there is a chance McConnell brings to the floor a confirmation of ANYONE Obama nominated unless it was someone squarely in the "conservative" camp which was never going to happen.  McConnell made crystal clear his desire to work with the Obama administration on ANYTHING just days after Obama won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

There were mid-term elections in 2018.    

Yes, the people of Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota have spoken!

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Guess I am just a pessimist....I don't think there is a chance McConnell brings to the floor a confirmation of ANYONE Obama nominated unless it was someone squarely in the "conservative" camp which was never going to happen.  McConnell made crystal clear his desire to work with the Obama administration on ANYTHING just days after Obama won.

I was considering the context of where we were in 2016 at that time.  The vast majority of people thought Clinton was going to win.  I think the justice he was replacing had lots to do with it.  Sure, Hillary could have gone further left with a nominee, but to replace Scalia, McConnell had very little to lose.  Had it been Ginsberg's seat and what was at the time a likely Clinton win, I think the calculus could have been different.  Just my opinion though and something nobody can know for sure.

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.