Mitch McConnell Says Americans Won’t Tolerate Dems Blocking Supreme Court Nomination

[JustWinBaby]

I don't know that I agreed with them waiting, but it was a somewhat unique situation that I think there WERE arguments for waiting for the new POTUS. It was, or could or should have been an issue in the election.

And if Repubs had gotten crushed in the elections like most expected, then they would have had to live with the consequences and Hillary could have put Obama on the SCOTUS if she wanted and the Repubs would only be able to blame themselves.

So there is, arguably, justification for what the Repubs did. And there is, as always, a right of the minority party to object and block a nominee. I absolutely oppose the nuclear option, but this justice is replacing Scalia so Dems really have little room to object to keeping the court balanced (which, practically speaking, is more 4-2-3, maybe 4-1-4, than 4-5).

I despise Harry Reid what Harry Reid did with the "nuclear option". It's pretty underhanded to stack the courts in such a way that cases don't even get to a potentially tilted SCOTUS. But the SCOTUS should never be nominated by simple majority. And my ideal SCOTUS would be 2-5-2.

[GMDino]

(01-11-2017, 03:24 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't know that I agreed with them waiting, but it was a somewhat unique situation that I think there WERE arguments for waiting for the new POTUS.  It was, or could or should have been an issue in the election.

And if Repubs had gotten crushed in the elections like most expected, then they would have had to live with the consequences and Hillary could have put Obama on the SCOTUS if she wanted and the Repubs would only be able to blame themselves.

So there is, arguably, justification for what the Repubs did.  And there is, as always, a right of the minority party to object and block a nominee.  I absolutely oppose the nuclear option, but this justice is replacing Scalia so Dems really have little room to object to keeping the court balanced (which, practically speaking, is more 4-2-3, maybe 4-1-4, than 4-5).

I despise Harry Reid what Harry Reid did with the "nuclear option".  It's pretty underhanded to stack the courts in such a way that cases don't even get to a potentially tilted SCOTUS.  But the SCOTUS should never be nominated by simple majority.  And my ideal SCOTUS would be 2-5-2.

Yes there were...and they were stupid.

But now we see (again) that is was just partisan, power politics from the GOP.   Nothing new, but them not being held accountable isn't new either.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-11-2017, 07:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yes there were...and they were stupid.

How can there be valid and justifiable reasons to make it a voter issue and they are still "stupid"? I'm guessing the reason the justifications were "stupid" are because you disagreed? Or is it because you didn't like the results?

[GMDino]

(01-15-2017, 05:49 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: How can there be valid and justifiable reasons to make it a voter issue and they are still "stupid"?  I'm guessing the reason the justifications were "stupid" are because you disagreed?  Or is it because you didn't like the results?

Because they weren't "valid and justifiable".

There were just "arguments".

Namely The GOP's "argument" that the voters should decide who gets to name the next SCJ.  And they already did.  Twice.  By large margins.  And he was in office to make that choice.