What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (3 Viewers)

Bruce Dickinson said:
Do you think McConnell’s previous unethical behavior regarding SCOTUS nominations fuels resistance to Kavanaugh’s nomination?  

If Merrick Garland is on the Supreme Court today, do you think we would see the same level of resistance to Kavanaugh’s nomination today?  (Feel free to substitute Gorsuch for Kavanaugh, given Gorsuch would probably have been nominated to replace Kennedy had he not replaced Scalia.)
Click to expand...
Of course, and it was unethical as hell.  And it should always be a stain that he and his party should have to wear going forward and in all analysis in the history books of the future.  They will get their's in the future, no doubt. 

I have this argument with my brother all the time and it really is what so many issues (and threads in the PSF) come down to.  I think the Dems should continue to do the "right" thing governing wise (the grown-ups argument) and he thinks like you and a lot of folks here...that the Dems need to match things, underhandedly as much as possible.  whatever it takes.  I'm sympathetic to the suggestion and the frustrating feeling, but I want to think long term.  The Repubs won the battle, but the Dems can win the war going forward.  I argue if the Dems stoop to Trumpian levels they become a poor choice in elections going forward.  And, not to mention, we all lose as a functioning democracy going forward.  I prefer this period to be a zit...a temporary thing.  Not the beginning of a downward spiral.  Whatevs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan said:
If one was working with the administration to fix the next SCOTUS pick what would be the best way to avoid detection - agreeing with everything the administration does or picking a high profile policy to oppose?

ETA - I'm not saying I believe there was a fix. I'm merely posing a hypothetical in response to the NBC report and Saints' post. 
Click to expand...
Well if you’re a USSC Justice trying to cement in your apprentice as the heir to your seat, giving the boot to the president’s signature policy would probably not be a smart way to do that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Dickinson said:
Do you think McConnell’s previous unethical behavior regarding SCOTUS nominations fuels resistance to Kavanaugh’s nomination?  

If Merrick Garland is on the Supreme Court today, do you think we would see the same level of resistance to Kavanaugh’s nomination today?  (Feel free to substitute Gorsuch for Kavanaugh, given Gorsuch would probably have been nominated to replace Kennedy had he not replaced Scalia.)
Click to expand...
McConnell didn’t start this.  Reid started this when he went nuclear with judicial nominations.

I would like to go back to the old rules, but I suspect that ship has sailed.  I don’t think it’s going to get better any time soon.

 
jonessed said:
McConnell didn’t start this.  Reid started this when he went nuclear with judicial nominations.

I would like to go back to the old rules, but I suspect that ship has sailed.  I don’t think it’s going to get better any time soon.
Click to expand...
And technically Reid did it because the GOP was holding up Obama’s nominees. I agree with you generally but let’s not imagine Reid while yes a genuine hardass just woke up deciding to break Senate tradition one day. People talk about Garland a lot but the real score was the Obama nominations that never got filled which have now been filled under Trump.

 
And Trumpites L.O.V.E. Dear Leader for Gorsuch and the judicial seats getting pushed through but truth is that victory belongs to McConnell, the cuckservative old line Party Guy they hate. (judgements on the sheer unethical and unconstitutional behavior implicit here excluded).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed said:
McConnell didn’t start this.  Reid started this when he went nuclear with judicial nominations.

I would like to go back to the old rules, but I suspect that ship has sailed.  I don’t think it’s going to get better any time soon.
Click to expand...
Do you think Merrick Garland would be on the Supreme Court today had Reid not taken action to try to get justices in lower courts confirmed?

 
Hugh Jass said:
Of course, and it was unethical as hell.  And it should always be a stain that he and his party should have to wear going forward and in all analysis in the history books of the future.  They will get their's in the future, no doubt. 
Click to expand...
Under what circumstances and in what way?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
And Trumpites L.O.V.E. Dear Leader for Gorsuch and the judicial seats getting pushed through but truth is that victory belongs to McConnell, the cuckservative old line Party Guy they hate. (judgements on the sheer unethical and unconstitutional behavior implicit here excluded).
Click to expand...
It seemed the point of putting up with Trump was to get those vacant justice seats filled with proper conservatives.  That’s why Cruz set aside how he was treated during primary season and was making campaigning for Trump down the stretch.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
It seemed the point of putting up with Trump was to get those vacant justice seats filled with proper conservatives.  That’s why Cruz set aside how he was treated during primary season and was making campaigning for Trump down the stretch.
Click to expand...
And I guess Trump made that deal too because his list appears to be their list and it was originally dialed up during the campaign.

 
packersfan said:
Ryan? C'mon.

As far as the other two what votes did they cast against Trump (McCain did obviously) and what policies have they insisted he discontinue?
Click to expand...
Perhaps both are disillusion with what the party has become and they want no part of it anymore. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
And I guess Trump made that deal too because his list appears to be their list and it was originally dialed up during the campaign.
Click to expand...
Federalist Society helped Trump position his lack of knowledge of how the judicial system works and what judges do by letting Trump appear as the great delegator, outsourcing his choice to experts the way the best CEOs do when faced with a decision outside their expertise.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
Under what circumstances and in what way?
Click to expand...
Being out in the political wilderness as demographics change and especially how many normally middle-right, and rule-of-law folks they pissed of during this era. As long as the Dems keep their heads, imo. You wouldn't be the first to say I'm being naive, but I believe it whole-heartedly.  There's a drubbin' coming....as long as the Dems don't nominate foolishly again or step on their own shvantz getting too much in the SJW weeds.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Dickinson said:
It seemed the point of putting up with Trump was to get those vacant justice seats filled with proper conservatives.  That’s why Cruz set aside how he was treated during primary season and was making campaigning for Trump down the stretch.
Click to expand...
With Rubio or Kasich, there would've been a popular vote victory in 2016, a 50+% approval rating, holding the house in 2018, almost a shoe-in for 2020 and a great possibility of 1 or more SC replacements.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
jonessed said:
McConnell didn’t start this.  Reid started this when he went nuclear with judicial nominations.

I would like to go back to the old rules, but I suspect that ship has sailed.  I don’t think it’s going to get better any time soon.
Click to expand...
And technically Reid did it because the GOP was holding up Obama’s nominees.
Click to expand...
Right. Reid didn't start it. It goes back to at least the Bork nomination. It's been escalating step by step since then. And will likely continue to.

 
Would be something if McCain held on long enough/found a way to show up for the vote.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
But not that republicans did it over immigration.

so it’s not about the economy and it’s effect...it’s about feelings.

thanks...I figured as much
Click to expand...
It is about the economic impact by shutting down the gov't and perception it throw off.   Right or wrong, IMHO some people equate shutting down the gov't as having a negative impact. 

 
SoBeDad said:
With Rubio or Kasich, there would've been a popular vote victory in 2016, a 50+% approval rating, holding the house in 2018, almost a shoe-in for 2020 and a great possibility of 1 or more SC replacements.  
Click to expand...
There also wouldn’t be all the self-dealing, selling out our democracy-based allies to cozy up with dictators, or thousands of families separated from their children at the border with no plan or process to reunite them.  I’d even go so far to suggest Puerto Rico would have electricity and like Flint’s chances of having clean drinking water again.  

Gosh, it’s almost like there wouldn’t be a long series of impeachable offenses and bad decisions that would risk the country’s future for decades.  Is it possible that Trump has created a unique set of circumstances beyond the normal partisan bickering?

ETA: I bet Comey would still be running the FBI and Mueller would still be in private practice.  So the “don’t confirm a SCOTUS Justice while POTUS is under a Special Counsel investigation” argument wouldn’t exist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Yeah, where did they ever get the idea of amending existing rules and even fabricating nonexistent ones to serve blatantly partisan interests on Court appointments. I can't imagine.
Click to expand...
Harry Reid?

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
There also wouldn’t be all the self-dealing, selling out our democracy-based allies to cozy up with dictators, or thousands of families separated from their children at the border with no plan or process to reunite them.  I’d even go so far to suggest Puerto Rico would have electricity and like Flint’s chances of having clean drinking water again.  

Gosh, it’s almost like there wouldn’t be a long series of impeachable offenses and bad decisions that would risk the country’s future for decades.  Is it possible that Trump has created a unique set of circumstances beyond the normal partisan bickering?

ETA: I bet Comey would still be running the FBI and Mueller would still be in private practice.  So the “don’t confirm a SCOTUS Justice while POTUS is under a Special Counsel investigation” argument wouldn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Yawn. Give it a rest. If you don't like how the country is being run maybe you should go out and vote.

 
jonessed said:
Why would Republicans agree to do that? Mueller has been stringing that investigation out for over a year.  He could easily string it out another one or two.  In the meantime, the world continues to spin.

Trump is President and the Congress is Republican.  If you don’t like it, beat them at the polls.  Until then, suck it up.
Click to expand...
He has been stringing it out?  Link?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Right. Reid didn't start it. It goes back to at least the Bork nomination. It's been escalating step by step since then. And will likely continue to.
Click to expand...
Why would the Bork nomination even be in this?  Didn't governmental procedure work as intended for that one?  IIRC....it was just an up or down vote.

 
Weebs210 said:
Yawn. Give it a rest. If you don't like how the country is being run maybe you should go out and vote.
Click to expand...
You're in year 2.

If we get 6 more years of Trump, you'll have an idea of what us lefties just went through with all the whining and moaning about Obama.

....and his scandals weren't even real.

 
knowledge dropper said:
The “I’m going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until I get a Justice I want” crowd is in rare form today. 
Click to expand...
Good to see you on board with contempt for McConnel and the GOP.  It’s a good start.

 
Skoo said:
You're in year 2.

If we get 6 more years of Trump, you'll have an idea of what us lefties just went through with all the whining and moaning about Obama.

....and his scandals weren't even real.
Click to expand...
I'm looking forward to it. 

 
Bucky86 said:
To turn his thumb down and watch Trump cry again. :lol:  
Click to expand...
If there is one thing (may be the only thing currently) that unites Republican's, its a conservative SCOTUS nominee. McCain has already voiced his support for Kavanaugh. Someone was even speculating he could resign his seat to have someone take over and vote for Kavanaugh. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Reid amended existing rules, he didn't fabricate new ones like McConnell did with Garland. And he was also responding to an unprecedented blockade of judicial appointments during the Obama era spearheaded by McConnell, one that legitimately hampered the judiciary's ability to do its job.
Click to expand...
... and which has led Trump to openly question why Obama let so many judicial seats sit vacant.

 
Weebs210 said:
Yawn. Give it a rest. If you don't like how the country is being run maybe you should go out and vote.
Click to expand...
Yo, yo! Homies, check it! There's something messed up with this place. We keep fighting with each other, none of the TVs get the NFL RedZone channel, my soulmate doesn't even know who Blake Bortles is. I know this sounds crazy, but I think we're in the bad place.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
Do you think McConnell’s previous unethical behavior regarding SCOTUS nominations fuels resistance to Kavanaugh’s nomination?  

If Merrick Garland is on the Supreme Court today, do you think we would see the same level of resistance to Kavanaugh’s nomination today?  (Feel free to substitute Gorsuch for Kavanaugh, given Gorsuch would probably have been nominated to replace Kennedy had he not replaced Scalia.)
Click to expand...
Yes.

No.

That being said......the Left/Liberals/Democrats should have resisted better on 11/08/16. Democratic politicans (including Obama) should have done everything possible to make sure the Scalia seat was an Obama appointee the moment Scalia croaked. 

 
Thunderlips said:
Why would the Bork nomination even be in this?  Didn't governmental procedure work as intended for that one?  IIRC....it was just an up or down vote.
Click to expand...
The Ugliness Started With Bork

ETA: The thing with Bork wasn't nearly as bad as the thing with Garland, but that's the point: it was a single step down a long staircase. Each step descends lower than the last.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thunderlips said:
Yes.

No.

That being said......the Left/Liberals/Democrats should have resisted better on 11/08/16. Democratic politicans (including Obama) should have done everything possible to make sure the Scalia seat was an Obama appointee the moment Scalia croaked. 
Click to expand...
Did you see what they were wearing? They were asking for it. 

 
Thunderlips said:
He still got the vote though....regardless of whether or not people felt he was unfairly portrayed.  There's nothing in government that says that the Senate HAS to confirm an appointee.
Click to expand...
Nobody's saying that what happened to Bork is exactly the same as what happened to Miguel Estrada, which is also not the same as what happened to Merrick Garland.  The point is that Bork was the first norm-breaking step that led us inexorably to where we are today.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Ugliness Started With Bork
Click to expand...
I think there's some truth to that. But any article that discusses Robert Bork and doesn't even mention "Richard Nixon" or "Saturday Night Massacre" is giving a pretty weak account of how problematic he was.  The guy rose to prominence in part because he was willing to do something so obviously egregious that his two superiors resigned rather than doing it themselves.  IMO someone like that shouldn't be an ALJ, let alone a Supreme Court Justice.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Nobody's saying that what happened to Bork is exactly the same as what happened to Miguel Estrada, which is also not the same as what happened to Merrick Garland.  The point is that Bork was the first norm-breaking step that led us inexorably to where we are today.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't see legitimate procedure as "norm-breaking". 

 
Thunderlips said:
He still got the vote though....regardless of whether or not people felt he was unfairly portrayed.  There's nothing in government that says that the Senate HAS to confirm an appointee.
Click to expand...
See my edit. No step is equal to the next one, so I'm not equating the steps. I'm pointing to one step that preceded progressively worse ones.

If the Democrats pack the court with 13 judges in 2020, people will defend McConnell's treatment of Garland as being tame by comparison (and, of course, perfectly legal -- there's nothing in government that says the Senate HAS to prioritize giving a vote to a judicial appointee). That doesn't mean that McConnell's treatment of Garland didn't constitute a step along the continuing descent.

 
Thunderlips said:
I guess I don't see legitimate procedure as "norm-breaking". 
Click to expand...
I was just a kid at the time but I remember it being a pretty huge deal, judicial appointments generally were confirmed as a matter of courtesy unless there was some obvious scandal or problem uncovered.

That said, the Saturday Night Massacre was certainly norm-breaking. Bork getting Bork'ed was at least in part a response to that.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I was just a kid at the time but I remember it being a pretty huge deal, judicial appointments generally were confirmed as a matter of courtesy unless there was some obvious scandal or problem uncovered.

That said, the Saturday Night Massacre was certainly norm-breaking. Bork getting Bork'ed was at least in part a response to that.
Click to expand...
I didn't pay a lot of attention to such things at the time, but I don't remember the Saturday Night Massacre playing a big role in the opposition to Bork's confirmation. I remember people focusing on his judicial philosophy and ideology.

I've also seen a decent defense of Bork's role in the Saturday Night Massacre, though I don't remember where, arguing that firing Cox and appointing Jaworski as the new special prosecutor was actually a good move, or at least a less bad one than his other options.* But I was an infant at the time, so I have no personal recollection of those events.

___
*In fact, it may not seem that different, in a way, from Rosenstein's recommendation to fire Comey, followed by his appointment of Mueller.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I didn't pay a lot of attention to such things at the time, but I don't remember the Saturday Night Massacre playing a big role in the opposition to Bork's confirmation. I remember people focusing on his judicial philosophy and ideology.

I've also seen a decent defense of Bork's actions in the Saturday Night Massacre, though I don't remember where, arguing that firing Cox and appointing Jaworski as the new special prosecutor was actually a good move, or at least a less bad one than his other options. But I was an infant at the time, so I have no personal recollection of those events.
Click to expand...
Yeah my very vague recollection was that it was mostly about ideology, but like I said I was a kid and the Wikipedia entry on the hearings mentions it:

A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued, partly fueled by strong opposition by civil and women's rights groups concerned with Bork's stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts, and his opposition to the federal government's right to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states. Bork is one of only three Supreme Court nominees to ever be opposed by the ACLU.[11] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy,"[12] as demonstrated by his role in the "Saturday Night Massacre" during Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal.
Click to expand...
Also my own opinion of things might be influencing my take; I remember learning about the Massacre at some point, realizing it was the same Bork guy, and being amazed that he even got nominated.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top