Who you got for SCOUTUS

[GMDino]

(07-10-2018, 01:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what bothers me in all of this is that this whole partisan fight over justices is a relatively new thing. It used to be "is the person qualified? Ok then." Advice and consent to me means that much. Kavanaugh is obviously qualified. I don't like him, but whatever.

I am of the opinion that judicial appointments, all judicial appointments, ought to be at a 60 vote threshold. I feel like nominations to the third branch should have a higher level of scrutiny than executive branch appointments in general, but we won't see that again for some time.

Blame the democrats for the lower courts and cabinet positions and the GOP for the SCOTUS.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271

Quote:ELIMINATING THE FILIBUSTER FOR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES


In 2013, Senate Democrats — then in the majority — triggered the nuclear option for the first time.

Frustrated with what they considered the relentless Republican obstruction of Obama's appointments, Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, changed the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold.


McConnell railed against the change at the time, though the 60-vote threshold still applied to high court nominees.


However, when it came time to confirm Gorsuch in 2017, near-unified Democratic opposition and the GOP's own slim majority of 51 Republican senators made getting to a 60-vote supermajority impossible.



Last April, McConnell triggered a rules change, clearing the way for Gorsuch to be confirmed with a simple majority. The use of the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees was dramatic for a body like the Senate, which operates on tradition and precedent.

But just so I don't lose my partisan cred...Turtlehead is the biggest PITA with HIS interpretation of "Advice and consent":

Quote:REMEMBER MERRICK GARLAND?


In February 2016, days after the conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, Republicans made an unprecedented declaration: The Senate would not hear or confirm any nominee to fill the unexpected vacancy until the country had elected a new president in November.

Don't even try nominating anyone, McConnell told Obama, the Constitution requires "the advice and consent of the Senate."

"We intend to exercise the constitutional power granted the Senate under Article II, Section 2 to ensure the American people are not deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time," Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter, claiming the move was "born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people."

Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland anyway. His nomination lingered for eight months — Garland passed the time with puzzles and volunteering, it was later reported — before Republican Donald Trump won the presidency and dashed any leftover hopes that Garland might one day take a seat on the nation's highest court.

Supreme Court nominations have long been contentious — past rulings were poured over, qualifications dissected, witnesses interviewed — but Garland was the first nominee in decades to be denied any kind of consideration by the Senate.

I wish nothing good for that "man" ever.