Progressive turn a 180 degrees on Judge nomanation

[Joann Stubbs]

Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.

It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.



Now it changes.
At the time, then-Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont called on all members of the committee to be fair during the hearings and abstain from questioning the integrity or independence of President Obama’s nominee.

Republicans did just that, prompting Kagan to publicly thank then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Republicans for giving her “such respectful and expeditious consideration.”


During this week’s hearing – starting from the moment Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced Judge Kavanaugh and his family – the proceedings were interrupted by one Democratic senator after another, demanding a vote to delay the hearing. Then, like clockwork, came the shouts of protesters in the crowd.

If these childish antics and partisan outbursts appeared to be a well-coordinated effort on the part of Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of Kavanaugh, it’s because they were.

News organizations reported that on the eve of the hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats hosted a conference call with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, and plotted a “protest strategy” to disrupt the proceedings.

 

[BlackFlag]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

 

[westwall]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

Biden did it too. So why do you care?

 

[BlackFlag]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

Biden did it too. So why do you care?

Name the nominee that Biden blocked. I'll wait as long as you want.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.

It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.



Now it changes.
At the time, then-Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont called on all members of the committee to be fair during the hearings and abstain from questioning the integrity or independence of President Obama’s nominee.

Republicans did just that, prompting Kagan to publicly thank then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Republicans for giving her “such respectful and expeditious consideration.”


During this week’s hearing – starting from the moment Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced Judge Kavanaugh and his family – the proceedings were interrupted by one Democratic senator after another, demanding a vote to delay the hearing. Then, like clockwork, came the shouts of protesters in the crowd.

If these childish antics and partisan outbursts appeared to be a well-coordinated effort on the part of Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of Kavanaugh, it’s because they were.

News organizations reported that on the eve of the hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats hosted a conference call with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, and plotted a “protest strategy” to disrupt the proceedings.

Clear all the democrat guests from the gallery

 

[westwall]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

Biden did it too. So why do you care?

Name the nominee that Biden blocked. I'll wait as long as you want.

He was the most prominent Senator to ever suggest it.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

 

[Darkwind]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

Yeah, let them go with that.

They have already publically announced -- well before any hearing -- that they intend to vote no. Not on the basis if his qualifications, but on the basis of they don't like Trump.

I would prefer that they act like mature adults. I hope that the conservative side of the country has taken note and made copies of the childish antics and that they show up predominantly in political ads all across the country.

Because this is what the Democrat party is all about anymore. Childish temper tantrums.

 

[Coyote]

Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.

It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.



Now it changes.
At the time, then-Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont called on all members of the committee to be fair during the hearings and abstain from questioning the integrity or independence of President Obama’s nominee.

Republicans did just that, prompting Kagan to publicly thank then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Republicans for giving her “such respectful and expeditious consideration.”


During this week’s hearing – starting from the moment Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced Judge Kavanaugh and his family – the proceedings were interrupted by one Democratic senator after another, demanding a vote to delay the hearing. Then, like clockwork, came the shouts of protesters in the crowd.

If these childish antics and partisan outbursts appeared to be a well-coordinated effort on the part of Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of Kavanaugh, it’s because they were.

News organizations reported that on the eve of the hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats hosted a conference call with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, and plotted a “protest strategy” to disrupt the proceedings.

What changed?

Simple. What the Republicans did to Garland. Start there.

 

[Tilly]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

I think people would prefer the Left stopped acting like tards throwing their toys out of the pram at every opportunity.

And just like tantrum throwing cry babies, you should be ignored and / or laughed at.

 

[Darkwind]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

Biden did it too. So why do you care?

Name the nominee that Biden blocked. I'll wait as long as you want.

He was the most prominent Senator to ever suggest it.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

Yet again, Ted Cruz nailed this issue right on the head of the nail.

This SCOTUS nominee is a nominee that the people voted for.

 

[Coyote]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

Biden did it too. So why do you care?

Name the nominee that Biden blocked. I'll wait as long as you want.

He was the most prominent Senator to ever suggest it.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

Yet again, Ted Cruz nailed this issue right on the head of the nail.

This SCOTUS nominee is a nominee that the people voted for.

Not really.

 

[Darkwind]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

Biden did it too. So why do you care?

Name the nominee that Biden blocked. I'll wait as long as you want.

He was the most prominent Senator to ever suggest it.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

Yet again, Ted Cruz nailed this issue right on the head of the nail.

This SCOTUS nominee is a nominee that the people voted for.

Not really.

Yes really. Your dissent is duly noted.

 

[Coyote]

Biden did it too. So why do you care?

Name the nominee that Biden blocked. I'll wait as long as you want.

He was the most prominent Senator to ever suggest it.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

Yet again, Ted Cruz nailed this issue right on the head of the nail.

This SCOTUS nominee is a nominee that the people voted for.

Not really.

Yes really. Your dissent is duly noted.

Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.

 

[Darkwind]

Name the nominee that Biden blocked. I'll wait as long as you want.

He was the most prominent Senator to ever suggest it.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

Yet again, Ted Cruz nailed this issue right on the head of the nail.

This SCOTUS nominee is a nominee that the people voted for.

Not really.

Yes really. Your dissent is duly noted.

Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.

Has been asked and answered many times. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president. The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee. The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.

Cruz is right. This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump. If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no. As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.

 

[BlackFlag]

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?

Biden did it too. So why do you care?

Name the nominee that Biden blocked. I'll wait as long as you want.

He was the most prominent Senator to ever suggest it.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

You could have answered with just 6 letters instead of that nonsense. Correct answer: nobody.

 

[night_son]

Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.

It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.



Now it changes.
At the time, then-Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont called on all members of the committee to be fair during the hearings and abstain from questioning the integrity or independence of President Obama’s nominee.

Republicans did just that, prompting Kagan to publicly thank then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Republicans for giving her “such respectful and expeditious consideration.”


During this week’s hearing – starting from the moment Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced Judge Kavanaugh and his family – the proceedings were interrupted by one Democratic senator after another, demanding a vote to delay the hearing. Then, like clockwork, came the shouts of protesters in the crowd.

If these childish antics and partisan outbursts appeared to be a well-coordinated effort on the part of Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of Kavanaugh, it’s because they were.

News organizations reported that on the eve of the hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats hosted a conference call with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, and plotted a “protest strategy” to disrupt the proceedings.

Just the tip of the iceberg. The revolutionary ideologue purists on the American Left--blind as ever to the potential lethality of history repeating iself in the present, have yet to fully realize the potential army awaiting with baited breath, their orders to storm the "Bastille" in violent, angry mobs millions strong. They're getting there slowly but surely.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Was the majority of the senate not voted in by the people. As was miraculously proven Americans did not want the country to lurch to the left any farther. Apparently liberals only want our checks and balances to work in their favor, no one elses. As was stated during the Kavanaugh hearings, the left thinks they are still running the show a year and a half after the election.

 

[candycorn]

He was the most prominent Senator to ever suggest it.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

Yet again, Ted Cruz nailed this issue right on the head of the nail.

This SCOTUS nominee is a nominee that the people voted for.

Not really.

Yes really. Your dissent is duly noted.

Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.

Has been asked and answered many times. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president. The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee. The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.

Cruz is right. This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump. If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no. As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.

Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling. As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months. If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

 

[Darkwind]

Yet again, Ted Cruz nailed this issue right on the head of the nail.

This SCOTUS nominee is a nominee that the people voted for.

Not really.

Yes really. Your dissent is duly noted.

Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.

Has been asked and answered many times. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president. The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee. The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.

Cruz is right. This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump. If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no. As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.

Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling. As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months. If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

Sorry, a tit for tat response is something I don't do.

Name the law or Senate rule that they must respond within X amount of time to a judicial nomination.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet again, Ted Cruz nailed this issue right on the head of the nail.

This SCOTUS nominee is a nominee that the people voted for.

Not really.

Yes really. Your dissent is duly noted.

Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.

Has been asked and answered many times. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president. The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee. The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.

Cruz is right. This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump. If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no. As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.

Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling. As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months. If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months.

There have been much longer vacancies.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789