Progressive turn a 180 degrees on Judge nomanation

[Missourian]

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.

What Biden did to Garland. It couldn't have been accomplished without him.

 

[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.

What Biden did to Garland. It couldn't have been accomplished without him.

Biden didn't do anything. There was no "Biden rule" until you guys took something he said and invented a rule to justify what you did. At least have the balls to own it.

 

[Coyote]

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.

You seem to have the odd idea that checks and balances are only allowed to work in your favor. Hence, refusing to allow a sitting president to nominate a candidate for a vacancy as is his right. Not voting the nominee down (the checks and balances part), but not even giving him a hearing. You set a precident. I'm not sure where it will go from here.

 

[Coyote]

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.

She asked a good question, which you dodged:
If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

 

[hunarcy]

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?

If they could have, they would have.

 

[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?

If they could have, they would have.

Possibly. The Republicans set a precedent.

 

[eagle1462010]

Four Protesters Arrested During Sotomayor Hearing

Updated 7:30 p.m.Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings began as many historic happenings do in Congress — with protests and arrests.Capitol Police had arrested four protesters by Monday afternoon. Two anti-abortion activists, Robert M. James and Andrew R. Beacham disrupted the hearing with yells of “Abortion is murder!—James, 48, was arrested shortly before 11 a.m. after he interrupted Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) opening statement. Beacham, 27, yelled similar anti-abortion sentiments at about 1 p.m. and was promptly escorted out of the room and arrested.Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Capitol Police later arrested two more protesters at the hearing, 68-year-old Francis Mahoney of Florida and 61-year-old Norma McCorvey of Texas.McCorvey was the “Jane Roe“ in the Supreme Court’s seminal 1973 “Roe v. Wade“ decision legalizing abortion. She has since become a leading abortion opponent. All four people arrested were charged with unlawful conduct - disruption of Congress.Overall, however, the proceedings Monday went smoothly in comparison with other high-profile hearings



And in this hearing...............70 were arrested the first day....................Liberals are wacked.........

 

[hunarcy]

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?

If they could have, they would have.

Possibly. The Republicans set a precedent.

And, the Democrats will block a nominee in that manner in the future, which will show that they approve of the tactic and were just mad the Republicans thought of it first.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

She asked a good question, which you dodged:
If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

Her question was not germane to the issue.

The Senate has no time limit on a judicial nominee. If it did, then the Senate for the past 30 years has been derelict in its duty given the number of open judicial nominations that have gone unvoted upon by both Democrat controlled and Republican controlled Senates.

 

[eagle1462010]

Dems lost............elections have consequences...........Now get on the back of the bus.......

Who said that........

 

[Missourian]

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.

What Biden did to Garland. It couldn't have been accomplished without him.

Biden didn't do anything. There was no "Biden rule" until you guys took something he said and invented a rule to justify what you did. At least have the balls to own it.

Whenever a liberal claimed it was wrong, a video of the Vice President of the United States was played saying it was exactly the correct course of action. Hard to argue with the Vice President (D) when one is also a (D).

Of course Biden, as most politicos, only meant for his words to be applied when it was advantageous to his own party...not the other guys. That's what made it so delicious. He couldn't come out and say that...no matter how much we all knew it to be true...so what could be done? Nothing...and Merrick Garland became a footnote while instead President Trump put his mark on the Court. Thank you Joe Biden.

 

[Missourian]

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.

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

 

[Coyote]

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.

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

 

[Coyote]

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.

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

Point taken........but they play dirty all the time........

They changed the rules of the Senate........went nuclear.......on the agreement with Iran.............the suckered the GOP to have to try to have enough votes to Stop it instead of it being voted for as is normal.............Craziest thing I've ever seen in my life.......

They tried to sneak through nominations for court during recess...........forcing the GOP back to stop it.

Your side aren't angels............so please............

 

[eagle1462010]

10 Times Democrats Vowed To Block Republican Nominees

Both sides have a history.

 

[Missourian]

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.

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

Like the Dems are paying for the Nuclear Option now?

Bet you wish you could take that one back...but it was advantageous to you at the time.

And this was advantageous to us...it likely got Trump elected...and pushing of another might have the same result...getting another Republican elected president. Could cut either way.

 

[eagle1462010]

FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Wrote the Obstructionist Playbook on ‘Borking’ a President’s Nominee

With news of the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Obama White House and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are already staking a position that President Obama, and not his successor, should appoint Scalia’s replacement. But it’s useful to remember that one member of the Obama administration – Vice President Joe Biden – once had a very different opinion on the Senate’s ability to block a president’s nominee at all costs.
Following the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1987, President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.

One of the key Democrats leading the charge was then Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A legal brief called the Biden Report was drafted to dissect Bork’s background and positions with the clear intention of opposing him. Bork would later write that the Biden Report “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.”

Ultimately, Biden’s Judiciary Committee rejected Bork’s nomination by a 9-5 vote, and eventually the full Senate would vote against his confirmation by 58-42.

The lasting legacy of the Bork nomination was the unprecedented viciousness of the campaign to block him, which has been the standard for Supreme Court nominations ever since. Indeed, the dictionary now contains the verb “bork” to describe the obstruction of a nominee “through systematic defamation or vilification.”

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

But now a precedent has been set.

Wrong, nominees have been ignored in the past.

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