SCOTUS Appointment

[Westwood Bengal]

(03-16-2016, 03:07 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: From what I know so far, putting up a fight here would be just plain stupid. For one thing, it will obviously continue to make the GOP seem petty and obstructionist which will play right into the hands of HRC in the election. And secondly, the chances of HRC not being the next President are slim-to-none at this point and if the GOP blocks this guy, she will have the ability to say "well, you had your chance" when she nominates Karl Marx next year.

I am okay with them not going forward for that exact reason. We will take back the senate and get a liberal lion in there.

[Benton]

This may have already been mentioned, but McConnell keeps saying they need to hold it up so that the people can have a say by voting.

Didn't they? Twice? 2008, 2012.

[Belsnickel]

(03-18-2016, 01:45 AM)Westwood Bengal Wrote: I am okay with them not going forward for that exact reason. We will take back the senate and get a liberal lion in there.

Garland is the best man for the job.

(03-18-2016, 11:17 AM)Benton Wrote: This may have already been mentioned, but McConnell keeps saying they need to hold it up so that the people can have a say by voting.

Didn't they? Twice? 2008, 2012.

Well, then there are the polls that show two-thirds of Americans want the Senate to hold the hearings and a vote.

But that doesn't jive with their talking points.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-18-2016, 01:45 AM)Westwood Bengal Wrote: I am okay with them not going forward for that exact reason. We will take back the senate and get a liberal lion in there.

Hopefully another class act like Teddy.

[Benton]

(03-18-2016, 11:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Garland is the best man for the job.


Well, then there are the polls that show two-thirds of Americans want the Senate to hold the hearings and a vote.

But that doesn't jive with their talking points.

And the dumberest was when McConnell said Obama was trying to politicize it by making nomination... then went on to say he wouldn't support it and encouraged people to vote for a Republican president.



It's that kind of petty stuff that will make people vote for a Democrat. And what's he going to do when Clinton puts up someone more liberal?

[Belsnickel]

(03-18-2016, 12:01 PM)Benton Wrote: And the dumberest was when McConnell said Obama was trying to politicize it by making nomination... then went on to say he wouldn't support it and encouraged people to vote for a Republican president.



It's that kind of petty stuff that will make people vote for a Democrat. And what's he going to do when Clinton puts up someone more liberal?

Yeah, McConnell and Hatch both accused Obama of playing politics with the pick, and honestly I don't think anyone can argue that his selection wasn't politically motivated. But the way to say "we are above the politics on this" is to admit you did not expect such a selection from him for the bench and to move forward in the process. The pick was intended to make the GOP either, A, backtrack on what it said and move forward because they were really concerned about who Obama would nominate, or B, make the GOP look obstinate. They are now just playing into the DNC's hands by doubling down on their position.

[GMDino]

(03-18-2016, 12:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, McConnell and Hatch both accused Obama of playing politics with the pick, and honestly I don't think anyone can argue that his selection wasn't politically motivated. But the way to say "we are above the politics on this" is to admit you did not expect such a selection from him for the bench and to move forward in the process. The pick was intended to make the GOP either, A, backtrack on what it said and move forward because they were really concerned about who Obama would nominate, or B, make the GOP look obstinate. They are now just playing into the DNC's hands by doubling down on their position.

But they've been doing it for 7 years now...has it mattered to voters at all?

We just end up with MORE "them vs us" political talk.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-18-2016, 12:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, McConnell and Hatch both accused Obama of playing politics with the pick, and honestly I don't think anyone can argue that his selection wasn't politically motivated. But the way to say "we are above the politics on this" is to admit you did not expect such a selection from him for the bench and to move forward in the process. The pick was intended to make the GOP either, A, backtrack on what it said and move forward because they were really concerned about who Obama would nominate, or B, make the GOP look obstinate. They are now just playing into the DNC's hands by doubling down on their position.

Yup.  Time to swallow your pride and say you've reconsidered.  What advantage they thought they would gain by saying they wouldn't consider any pick I have no idea.  If that was your plan, no reason to lock yourself into it by announcing it.

[xxlt]

(03-17-2016, 02:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And some people don't read history.

Bork was rejected because he was not qualified.  It had nothing to do with a congress playing political games and refusing to even consider any nominee.

Once Reagan nominated a qualified candidate (Anthonyy Kennedy) he was approved 97-0.

^ indeed. Thanks.

[xxlt]

(03-17-2016, 10:06 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not sure what your point is.   He claimed Reagan's nominees were voted in unanimously.  They were not.  One was actually voted down.  That's the history lesson.  

I noted Reagan nominees were unanimously confirmed. I did not state "every Reagan nominee" or "all Reagan nominees" were unanimously confirmed. So, as usual, you have either misunderstood or deliberately distorted what someone else said. Cheers.

Now, additionally, let's note that Bork was NOT DENIED A HEARING. In fact, I have not taken the time to look this up but I am willing to state with some confidence, "NO REAGAN NOMINEE FOR ANY POST WAS EVER DENIED A HEARING." Feel free to disprove that claim - but it will require proof, and not just saying, "Yes they were."

So, what McConnell is doing in terms of being an asshole is not without precedent. But, what he is doing in terms of denying a hearing is without precedent as far as I know. If there was a precedent for it I am pretty sure it would have been cited by someone by now. And, when Mitch says it has been 80 years since a SC nominee was confirmed in a President's final year he is just straight up lying, or as we used to call it in KY, "He is just Mitch being Mitch."

[*michaelsean*]

(03-18-2016, 03:24 PM)xxlt Wrote: I noted Reagan nominees were unanimously confirmed. I did not state "every Reagan nominee" or "all Reagan nominees" were unanimously confirmed. So, as usual, you have either misunderstood or deliberately distorted what someone else said. Cheers.

Now, additionally, let's note that Bork was NOT DENIED A HEARING. In fact, I have not taken the time to look this up but I am willing to state with some confidence, "NO REAGAN NOMINEE FOR ANY POST WAS EVER DENIED A HEARING." Feel free to disprove that claim - but it will require proof, and not just saying, "Yes they were."

So, what McConnell is doing in terms of being an asshole is not without precedent. But, what he is doing in terms of denying a hearing is without precedent as far as I know. If there was a precedent for it I am pretty sure it would have been cited by someone by now. And, when Mitch says it has been 80 years since a SC nominee was confirmed in a President's final year he is just straight up lying, or as we used to call it in KY, "He is just Mitch being Mitch."

You are missing the point. Claiming people were unanimously confirmed while ignoring that one was voted down is disingenuous.

The second part of your post, I guess you didn't read what I had to say about this situation, and with your preconceived ideas you just assumed my opinion. (Hint: post #137)

I don't know why you don't like me. I'm like the nicest guy on this board.

[*michaelsean*]

Oh and if you are going to claim distorting people's posts is the usual for me then I'm going to expect you to back that up. And not just saying "yes you do".

[fredtoast]

(03-18-2016, 03:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You are missing the point.  Claiming people were unanimously confirmed while ignoring that one was voted down is disingenuous.

You are the only one missing the point.  The fact that one niminee was voted down does nothing to disprove the fact that the Senate back then was capable of cooperating to the point of giving unanimous approval to two of his nominees.

it would be like someone saying "Jim Brown was a great running back.  He lead the league in rushing 9 times."  then you calling him disingenuous because he did not mention that there was a season when Brown did not lead the league.

You are getting hung up on a meaningless fact that does not effect the meaning of the statement at all.  The fact that not EVERY nominee was unanimously approved does not change the fact that the Senate was much much different from today when they will not even agree to consider a nominee.

seriously, how does this fact you are obsessing over change the argument?  it doesn't.

[CageTheBengal]

(03-18-2016, 11:17 AM)Benton Wrote: This may have already been mentioned, but McConnell keeps saying they need to hold it up so that the people can have a say by voting.

Didn't they? Twice? 2008, 2012.

At first it was because Obama is a lameduck president. Now they are saying it's for the people.

How noble.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Everybody is arguing if the Senate should or should not confirm the appointment and it's kind of funny to me, all the fake outrage. I read these posts and all I see is the doctor in "Lawrence of Arabia" after the "Arabs" take Damascus yelling "Outrageous!" as he's walking through seeing the dirty conditions and the poor care of the wounded. While his rage was genuine, I doubt that anyones here on this board or in the United States is.

Republicans are seeing a chance to get not just one Supreme Court Justice on the bench, but two if Ginsburg happens to retire. Even if they only think their guy has a .0000000000137546% chance of winning, they are going to hold up the confirmation because there is still that chance.

And we all know, if a Republican was sitting in the White House and the Democrats had control of the Senate, we would be in the same exact position.

The people voted in Obama and they voted to give control of the Senate to Republicans. So I guess the people wanted the president to appoint a Supreme Court Justice and the people wanted the Senate to hold up the confirmation as well.

[*michaelsean*]

Neb the Republicans have to be smart. Hillary beats Trump easily. If this guy is even close to moderate then he will be far better than anyone Hillary nominates. She will have all the time in the world. McConnell's stupid announcement that they won't consider anyone means be will have to eat some crow. Might as well get it over with.

[Benton]

(03-18-2016, 07:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Neb the Republicans have to be smart.  Hillary beats Trump easily.  If this guy is even close to moderate then he will be far better than anyone Hillary nominates.  She will have all the time in the world.  McConnell's stupid announcement that they won't consider anyone means be will have to eat some crow.  Might as well get it over with.

even if by some pact with Satan trump wins, there's no guarantee he would nominate a conservative. He's a moderate, and his nominees might lean left on a number of issues.

McConnell is basically just wasting everyone's time. Unless he's hoping Kasich or Cruz drops outs.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-18-2016, 08:27 PM)Benton Wrote: even if by some pact with Satan trump wins, there's no guarantee he would nominate a conservative. He's a moderate, and his nominees might lean left on a number of issues.

McConnell is basically just wasting everyone's time. Unless he's hoping Kasich or Cruz drops outs.

Plus I believe the Senate should give a hearing to and vote on a President's nominee.  Ihave no idea what this talk about it being an election year means.  I don't want 5 or 6 liberals on the court as every liberal there seems to be a complete idealogue but dems da breaks. If this guy turns out to be a liberal who sometimes becomes a swing vote, I'll take that as a win.

[JustWinBaby]

I used to care....then I realized this is all just kabuki theater to manipulate our votes.

I picture the establishment having beers, yucking it up and playing rock-paper-scissors to decide who gets what votes. What's killing us is - shocker - career politicians are more interested in re-election than what is good for the country. We've even been led to believe the media isn't state-sponsored propaganda.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2016, 05:40 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I used to care....then I realized this is all just kabuki theater to manipulate our votes.

I picture the establishment having beers, yucking it up and playing rock-paper-scissors to decide who gets what votes.  What's killing us is - shocker - career politicians are more interested in re-election than what is good for the country.  We've even been led to believe the media isn't state-sponsored propaganda.

Not sure what you mean by "propaganda".

If the media was state run propaganda then wouldn't they be praising the government instead of constantly ripping it?  Don't know why the State would pay the media to criticize them when they would probably do it for free.