Voters don't deserve an answer

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 11:20 AM)hollodero Wrote: This has nothing to do with party affiliation. I am a foreigner, not a "liberal". But what republicans did to be 6-3 in the SC now was gangster and no retaliation just emboldens the bully to be gangster again and call you a loser. Imho.

Pretty much. It's why I am having such a hard time with this. The side of me that really values the norms that prop up our country hates the move. The side of me that recognizes that the Democrats aren't going to get anywhere holding onto those norms while the other part obliterates them says "pack that shit!"

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 11:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pretty much. It's why I am having such a hard time with this. The side of me that really values the norms that prop up our country hates the move. The side of me that recognizes that the Democrats aren't going to get anywhere holding onto those norms while the other part obliterates them says "pack that shit!"

Just had a thought: is there any way that the Supreme Court could prevent a Biden presidency and Democrat Senate from packing the Supreme Court?

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 11:58 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Just had a thought: is there any way that the Supreme Court could prevent a Biden presidency and Democrat Senate from packing the Supreme Court?

No. They would be exercising their constitutional authority if they made that attempt.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(10-14-2020, 11:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pretty much. It's why I am having such a hard time with this. The side of me that really values the norms that prop up our country hates the move. The side of me that recognizes that the Democrats aren't going to get anywhere holding onto those norms while the other part obliterates them says "pack that shit!"

Yep. If we knew that the Republicans were to act honorably, no. But since we all know that they won’t, I applaud the Democrats for fighting like Republicans.

[hollodero]

(10-14-2020, 11:51 AM)PhilHos Wrote: If Ted Cruz's numbers are right (and I'm going off memory right now, FYI) there have been 29 times where a vacancy on the SCOTUS occurred during a presidential election year. Of those 29, 22 times happened when the the same party held the senate and presidency. And all 22 nominees were confirmed. The remaining times, different parties held the senate and presidency. And only twice has a nominee been confirmed. 

So, in the entire history of the United States of America, during a presidential election where the current president is a different party than the majority in the Senate, only 2 judicial Supreme Court justices have been confirmed.

Is that so. OK, if that is close to being true (and I believe you that it roughly is) that is a point to consider in this argument.
I'd still figure denying a nominee a hearing 11 months before an election is still rather unprecedented, but I could be wrong about that too, since I did not even know the information you just gave me.

(10-14-2020, 11:51 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, any Republican in the Senate in 2016 that argued that a nominee should wait until after the election who is now voting to confirm is a hypocrite. That said, ACB's nomination and confirmation hearing is not unheard of nor is it unprecedented and it is especially NOT unconstitutional.

Nor is expanding the SC. OK it might be unprecedented, but it is not unconstitutional.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 01:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: Is that so. OK, if that is close to being true (and I believe you that it roughly is) that is a point to consider in this argument.
I'd still figure denying a nominee a hearing 11 months before an election is still rather unprecedented, but I could be wrong about that too, since I did not even know the information you just gave me.

For what it's worth, I think the Republicans were wrong for not at least going forward with the hearings. Even if they ended up voting Nay and not approving his appointment would be preferable to just sticking their fingers in their ears and going, "Nananana I can't heeeeeeeeeeear you"

[Belsnickel]

(10-15-2020, 03:20 PM)PhilHos Wrote: For what it's worth, I think the Republicans were wrong for not at least going forward with the hearings. Even if they ended up voting Nay and not approving his appointment would be preferable to just sticking their fingers in their ears and going, "Nananana I can't heeeeeeeeeeear you"

The problem is that, at the time, they would've had a hard time spinning that into a less partisan approach than what they did. Merrick Garland is a moderate with an impeccable resume. He was picked for the exact reason that Republicans would find it impossible to vote no on him. This is why McConnell stuck to the "no hearings" guns.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-15-2020, 03:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that, at the time, they would've had a hard time spinning that into a less partisan approach than what they did. Merrick Garland is a moderate with an impeccable resume. He was picked for the exact reason that Republicans would find it impossible to vote no on him. This is why McConnell stuck to the "no hearings" guns.

No, I get that. Still think they were wrong for doing it that way. From what I remember, Garland wasn't such a bad candidate that conservatives absolutely should do everything to keep him off the SC. 

[*bfine32*]

If we don't want a POTUS to nominate and a Senate to hear a SCOTUS candidate in an election year, then make it statutory. Outside of that, everyone coming up with appeal to emotion terms such as ramming, rushing, gangster, evil, etc..need to stop.

The Dems have, would, and will  do want ever they can within the US Constitution to aid their party. The GOP is doing what the Dems tried to do in 2016 and what RBG stated should be done. Why do the Dems want to trampled on the late Justice's words for Political Gain?


See I know appeal to emotion too.

[Benton]

(10-15-2020, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: . Why do the Dems want to trampled on the late Justice's words for Political Gain?


See I know appeal to emotion too.

Uhhhh... For the same reason the Republicans did it not too long ago?

I don't disagree with you, but it's not like it's the fault of just one party. They've both got their hands dirty. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-14-2020, 11:20 AM)hollodero Wrote: Will be three.
Also, yeah I think this Garland denial was a step too far. Democrats would probably do the same thing now, but I am not so sure they would have done the same thing back then. For one, the centrist Garland already was an olive branch of sorts. While the GOP just nominates the most conservative judges they can find.

This has nothing to do with party affiliation. I am a foreigner, not a "liberal". But what republicans did to be 6-3 in the SC now was gangster and no retaliation just emboldens the bully to be gangster again and call you a loser. Imho.

The only reason the Republicans were able to do that was because the Democrats unleashed the nuclear option first in 2013, thus putting it on the table as a viable option with precedent...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mitch-mcconnell-triggered-nuclear-option-again-here-s-what-means-n990521

Quote:[/url]Has the nuclear option been used before?

[url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mitch-mcconnell-triggered-nuclear-option-again-here-s-what-means-n990521#anchor-Hasthenuclearoptionbeenusedbefore]Senators have threatened to go nuclear for decades. In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon wrote an advisory opinion that helped lay the groundwork for the procedural move.


But no one pushed the proverbial button until 2013, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., invoked the nuclear option to lower the 60-vote threshold to 51 for confirmation of executive branch nominees (such as Cabinet secretaries) and federal judges below the Supreme Court (such as for U.S. courts of appeal).

Reid justified the move by citing unprecedented obstruction from Senate Republicans, but members of both parties lamented the precedent it set. McConnell and Republicans repeatedly cited Reid's move as the basis for invoking the option regarding Supreme Curt nominees.

It's why Trump has a record number of federal judges appointed, and is about to shove through a third supreme court member onto the bench. I am pretty happy with a centrist SC and am not particularly pleased with the idea of a 6-3 majority (and a young majority at that), but 100% all of this was setup by the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot in 2013 and opening Pandora's Box with the nuclear option.


https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/191057-mcconnell-youll-regret-this

Quote:Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Democrats Thursday that they’d regret using the “nuclear option.”

“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.

[Benton]

(10-15-2020, 04:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The only reason the Republicans were able to do that was because the Democrats unleashed the nuclear option first in 2013, thus putting it on the table as a viable option with precedent...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mitch-mcconnell-triggered-nuclear-option-again-here-s-what-means-n990521



It's why Trump has a record number of federal judges appointed, and is about to shove through a third supreme court member onto the bench. I am pretty happy with a centrist SC and am not particularly pleased with the idea of a 6-3 majority (and a young majority at that), but 100% all of this was setup by the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot in 2013 and opening Pandora's Box with the nuclear option.

Fair point.

But there's more to it than just 'dems are evil.' I don't remember the numbers reid used to justify, but something like half of all appointment nominations to be blocked by senate came under obama. The system has checks and balances, but that in itself was an abuse by the gop. The government can't just stop functioning for 4-8 years because you don't like the guy in the white house.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-15-2020, 04:49 PM)Benton Wrote: Fair point.

But there's more to it than just 'dems are evil.' I don't remember the numbers reid used to justify, but something like half of all appointment nominations to be blocked by senate came under obama. The system has checks and balances, but that in itself was an abuse by the gop. The government can't just stop functioning for 4-8 years because you don't like the guy in the white house.

Oh, 100% there's more to it than just dems are evil. 

Dem AND Reps are evil and neither have our best interests as their primary goal.

#DownWith2Parties

:andy:

[*bfine32*]

(10-15-2020, 04:41 PM)Benton Wrote: Uhhhh... For the same reason the Republicans did it not too long ago?

I don't disagree with you, but it's not like it's the fault of just one party. They've both got their hands dirty. 

Yeah, but it's more emotionally charged now that she has passed. And her being an extreme liberal also gives them a double whammy. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-15-2020, 04:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The only reason the Republicans were able to do that was because the Democrats unleashed the nuclear option first in 2013, thus putting it on the table as a viable option with precedent...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mitch-mcconnell-triggered-nuclear-option-again-here-s-what-means-n990521



It's why Trump has a record number of federal judges appointed, and is about to shove through a third supreme court member onto the bench. I am pretty happy with a centrist SC and am not particularly pleased with the idea of a 6-3 majority (and a young majority at that), but 100% all of this was setup by the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot in 2013 and opening Pandora's Box with the nuclear option.


https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/191057-mcconnell-youll-regret-this

No, it’s not. Obama wasn’t able to appoint the federal judges because of McConnell’s obstruction which created a backlog of vacancies. That obstruction is why Reid invoked the “nuclear option.” Which is why McConnell in turn invoked the “nuclear option” v2.0. If the Biden and the Dems expand the SCOTUS we can just refer to it as the “nuclear option” v3.0.

Again, if they would just fill the vacancies as the become available then we wouldn’t have this conversation about the political gamesmanship.

[Mickeypoo]

I thought a SCOTUS Justice was supposed to make rulings based on the constitution and the current laws.

From what I heard from ACB at the hearings, if she practices what she preaches, I would be ok with 9 ACB's.

[Dill]

(10-16-2020, 09:47 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I thought a SCOTUS Justice was supposed to make rulings based on the constitution and the current laws.

From what I heard from ACB at the hearings, if she practices what she preaches, I would be ok with 9 ACB's.

If that were REALLY what ACB was picked to do, why take so much time to vet and select her, via an organization tracking how candidates rule on, speak, and write about Roe vs Wade, Citizens United, and NDIB vs Sibellius?

Why would a president promise voters he would select nominees put forward by the Federalist Society if those nominees were just going to "make rulings based on the Constitution and the current laws"?

[Dill]

(10-15-2020, 10:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, it’s not. Obama wasn’t able to appoint the federal judges because of McConnell’s obstruction which created a backlog of vacancies. That obstruction is why Reid invoked the “nuclear option.”  Which is why McConnell in turn invoked the “nuclear option” v2.0. If the Biden and the Dems expand the SCOTUS we can just refer to it as the “nuclear option” v3.0.

Again, if they would just fill the vacancies as the become available then we wouldn’t have this conversation about the political gamesmanship.

Sure, but if you frame out that blockage by the party of "No,"

then it is clear the Dems started it.