Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Sad news with obvious political implications.
Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year.Sad news with obvious political implications.
Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year.
No way is he following that.Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year.
I mean......that SHOULD be the precedent.........
But if Trump doesn't publicly announce the name of his nominee and push for a confirmation hearing by this time next week, I'll be SHOCKED.
Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year.
He doesn’t care about anything more than installing judges. He’ll do it even if 150 million people show up at his house.Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year.
Lame duck year is different than just an election yearYes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year.
aaaaand THAT will be the argument that the republicans make.....probably by 10 AM on Monday.Lame duck year is different than just an election year
He better! Amy Coney BarrettI mean......that SHOULD be the precedent.........
But if Trump doesn't publicly announce the name of his nominee and push for a confirmation hearing by this time next week, I'll be SHOCKED.
That was the whole idea at the time. Hasn’t changedaaaaand THAT will be the argument that the republicans make.....probably by 10 AM on Monday.
What if Trump loses before the confirmation?Lame duck year is different than just an election year
I think Mitch said earlier this year that the 2016 precedent only applied where the President and majority of the Senate were of different parties.aaaaand THAT will be the argument that the republicans make.....probably by 10 AM on Monday.
Nothing matters anymoreYes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year.
They could just make up another Russian scandal, no?Is there any political tactic in play that would enable the house from prolonging the confirmation?
NoIs there any political tactic in play that would enable the house from prolonging the confirmation?
Then they will confirm the next S.Ct. justice on 1/10/21.What if Trump loses before the confirmation?
Is there something in the Constitution about the President losing his USSC nomination powers in the last year of his term?Lame duck year is different than just an election year
Maybe the lame duck session after the election. (Regardless of who wins.)Then they will confirm the next S.Ct. justice on 1/10/21.
According to Joe Biden and the Democrats there is. Not sure where it is, though.Is there something in the Constitution about the President losing his USSC nomination powers in the last year of his term?
Nope. But there is something in the constitution that says the senate confirms appointees. Since the senate was republicans controlled when Obama was president, garland wasn’t going to be confirmed, so they saved themselves time by not voting. Elections have consequences, if I recall correctlyIs there something in the Constitution about the President losing his USSC nomination powers in the last year of his term?
My question was directed toward the distinction being that Obama was a lame duck and that justified refusing to hold hearings on his nominee. If Trump loses the election he will be a lame duck.Then they will confirm the next S.Ct. justice on 1/10/21.
So you support not filling vacant Supreme Court seats if the president and senate majority are from different political parties?Nope. But there is something in the constitution that says the senate confirms appointees. Since the senate was republicans controlled when Obama was president, garland wasn’t going to be confirmed, so they saved themselves time by not voting. Elections have consequences, if I recall correctly
Nope.So you support not filling vacant Supreme Court seats if the president and senate majority are from different political parties?
I'm not sure that really matters these days.This is nothing like 2016. Having a SC confirmation this close to the election is unprecedented.
I don't think there is any time limits at all. They could nominate and vote in a week if they wanted too.Is there even time and enough votes to get it done before the election? Look how long it took to get Kavanaugh through.
Which is even more reason to just wait for before putting a new Justice in placeLame duck year is different than just an election year
I say take a vote regardless. I think McConnell should have taken a vote and denied Garland as we all expect they would have. The outcome was essentially the same as it would have been anyways, but that’s my positionSo you support not filling vacant Supreme Court seats if the president and senate majority are from different political parties?
Yes but that’s never how it actually plays out. It’s typically been pretty messy. Kavanaugh barely got through.Senate goes to recess Oct 9 until after the election.I don't think there is any time limits at all. They could nominate and vote in a week if they wanted too.
Great. Let’s nominate and confirm in a week or soYes but that’s never how it actually plays out. It’s typically been pretty messy. Kavanaugh barely got through. I think the Senate goes on recess in a week or so.
Someone on twitter noted that impeachment trials are privileged over judicial nominations in Senate proceedings. That’s a pretty extreme measure and probably wouldn’t even work, but that’s about all the House can do.Is there any political tactic in play that would enable the house from prolonging the confirmation?
The senate could adopt Nancy Pelosi’s proxy rule. Allow senators to vote for up to 11 of their peers. Only 5 would need to be present. Liberals don’t seem to have a problem with that rule. Should allow Senators to go home and vote by proxyIs there even time and enough votes to get it done before the election? Look how long it took to get Kavanaugh through.
But do they have the votes? Again Kavanaugh was a tough sell and with the election right here, some of the GOP Senators in danger might not be so quick to jump on board.The senate could adopt Nancy Pelosi’s proxy rule. Allow senators to vote for up to 11 of their peers. Only 5 would need to be present.