Progressive turn a 180 degrees on Judge nomanation

[regent]

The Courts have been a source of political maneuvering since our second president, Adams, and the midnight judges.

 

[Darkwind]

What does that have to do with Me, other conservatives; more importantly, with the nominee?

Everything. When conservatives whine about lack of civility...they tend to forget how they have fostered and rewarded exactly that behavior.

Okay, cite specifically how I have fostered and rewarded that kind of behavior. Assuming of course, that simple disagreement on issues constitute whining.

Then cite the whining and incivility of the nominee.

I am not talking about you specifically or the nominee. But I am teaming about the President who condemned rude behavior yet engages in it daily and the conservatives who support it.

Have you condemned rude behavior from the left? There is a veritable smorgasbord of incivility arising from that quarter.

You mean like antifa’s behavior or harassment of conservative speakers in colleges? Yes.

Have you condemned rude behavior from the right?

I have and do. But its more than just the fascists in black masks.

What about those who call conservatives who support originalist thinking for supreme court justices (just to keep it on topic)? They get called all kinds of vile names in the cause of abortion which isn't even on the table. Or any number of other vile names for supporting solutions that are not government based?

 

[Crepitus]

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.

dOnald tRump's nominee is in no was shape or form the equal of Kagan just as tRump is not the equal of President Obama. Nominate someone who hasn't lied repeatedly under oath and who wasn't choosen solely for his/her political bent and you will get a fair hearing.

Actually Trump's nominee is fully qualified for the position.

Except for the fact that he was choosen for his ideology rather than his qualifications and that whole perjury thing sure.

No perjury, but his qualifications are impeccable. Even the Democrats prior to Trump though so.

After all, with over 300 opinions as a sitting judge, one would think you could come up with a jurisprudence reason why he is not qualified.

I didn't say he wasn't qualified. I said that's not why he was picked and that some of the things he has said under oath amount to perjury.

 

[candycorn]

So if the senate decides to never hold a hearing again, we will have no federal judiciary....period.

Doesn't this begin to violate the theory of checks and balances?

No, but it will jeopardize the Senators ability to get reelected.

You think any senator from Texas who rises to the position of Majority Leader (as Cornyn may do) is in jeopardy of losing his seat if he holds no hearings on the next Democrat's nominations to the high court? They'll have his mug on their currency when they finally secede.

We'll see, won't we?

I doubt it would ever happen. As much as I disagree with him, Cornyn is a decent enough guy. I was saying that "IF" he did it, he would have no political blow back at all from Texans.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice to give the constitution a voice in such matters so that shit like this is removed from ever remotely happening?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

dOnald tRump's nominee is in no was shape or form the equal of Kagan just as tRump is not the equal of President Obama. Nominate someone who hasn't lied repeatedly under oath and who wasn't choosen solely for his/her political bent and you will get a fair hearing.

Actually Trump's nominee is fully qualified for the position.

Except for the fact that he was choosen for his ideology rather than his qualifications and that whole perjury thing sure.

No perjury, but his qualifications are impeccable. Even the Democrats prior to Trump though so.

After all, with over 300 opinions as a sitting judge, one would think you could come up with a jurisprudence reason why he is not qualified.

I didn't say he wasn't qualified. I said that's not why he was picked and that some of the things he has said under oath amount to perjury.

So, the left picks nominees from a pool of people they vet as on their side, but the right shouldn't do the same thing?

He is qualified. He has shown he can be dispassionate in his profession. As every judge should be.

That also means he may come out ruling in things I disagree with.

Thems the breaks. If you want impartiality (as any sane person would) that means that the dice don't always roll your way.

 

[Darkwind]

So if the senate decides to never hold a hearing again, we will have no federal judiciary....period.

Doesn't this begin to violate the theory of checks and balances?

No, but it will jeopardize the Senators ability to get reelected.

You think any senator from Texas who rises to the position of Majority Leader (as Cornyn may do) is in jeopardy of losing his seat if he holds no hearings on the next Democrat's nominations to the high court? They'll have his mug on their currency when they finally secede.

We'll see, won't we?

I doubt it would ever happen. As much as I disagree with him, Cornyn is a decent enough guy. I was saying that "IF" he did it, he would have no political blow back at all from Texans.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice to give the constitution a voice in such matters so that shit like this is removed from ever remotely happening?

Used to be the case until just 20 years ago. Now.... it's a freak act...

 

[Coyote]

Everything. When conservatives whine about lack of civility...they tend to forget how they have fostered and rewarded exactly that behavior.

Okay, cite specifically how I have fostered and rewarded that kind of behavior. Assuming of course, that simple disagreement on issues constitute whining.

Then cite the whining and incivility of the nominee.

I am not talking about you specifically or the nominee. But I am teaming about the President who condemned rude behavior yet engages in it daily and the conservatives who support it.

Have you condemned rude behavior from the left? There is a veritable smorgasbord of incivility arising from that quarter.

You mean like antifa’s behavior or harassment of conservative speakers in colleges? Yes.

Have you condemned rude behavior from the right?

I have and do. But its more than just the fascists in black masks.

What about those who call conservatives who support originalist thinking for supreme court justices (just to keep it on topic)? They get called all kinds of vile names in the cause of abortion which isn't even on the table. Or any number of other vile names for supporting solutions that are not government based?

What do they get called and by whom? Do you mean the Bork nomination? Yes that was ugly, so much so it became a verb for ugly hearings.

 

[Crepitus]

dOnald tRump's nominee is in no was shape or form the equal of Kagan just as tRump is not the equal of President Obama. Nominate someone who hasn't lied repeatedly under oath and who wasn't choosen solely for his/her political bent and you will get a fair hearing.

Actually Trump's nominee is fully qualified for the position.

Except for the fact that he was choosen for his ideology rather than his qualifications and that whole perjury thing sure.

No perjury, but his qualifications are impeccable. Even the Democrats prior to Trump though so.

After all, with over 300 opinions as a sitting judge, one would think you could come up with a jurisprudence reason why he is not qualified.

I didn't say he wasn't qualified. I said that's not why he was picked and that some of the things he has said under oath amount to perjury.

So, the left picks nominees from a pool of people they vet as on their side, but the right shouldn't do the same thing?

He is qualified. He has shown he can be dispassionate in is profession. As every judge should be.

That also means he may come out ruling in things I disagree with.

Thems the breaks. If you want impartiality (as any sane person would) that means that the dice don't allays roll your way.

Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be imparcial.

 

[Darkwind]

Okay, cite specifically how I have fostered and rewarded that kind of behavior. Assuming of course, that simple disagreement on issues constitute whining.

Then cite the whining and incivility of the nominee.

I am not talking about you specifically or the nominee. But I am teaming about the President who condemned rude behavior yet engages in it daily and the conservatives who support it.

Have you condemned rude behavior from the left? There is a veritable smorgasbord of incivility arising from that quarter.

You mean like antifa’s behavior or harassment of conservative speakers in colleges? Yes.

Have you condemned rude behavior from the right?

I have and do. But its more than just the fascists in black masks.

What about those who call conservatives who support originalist thinking for supreme court justices (just to keep it on topic)? They get called all kinds of vile names in the cause of abortion which isn't even on the table. Or any number of other vile names for supporting solutions that are not government based?

What do they get called and by whom? Do you mean the Bork nomination? Yes that was ugly, so much so it became a verb for ugly hearings.

No, I mean progressives in general. Not only on this forum, but on the public stage in media, government, and private life.

 

[DOTR]

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?

They would have had to win an election to do that.

 

[DOTR]

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.

They cant stop a thing.

 

[Manonthestreet]

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.

Remember that drivel they used to spout of the Senate being the most deliberative Body in the world....more like biggest clown car...….kicker more women equals less deliberation

 

[candycorn]

So if the senate decides to never hold a hearing again, we will have no federal judiciary....period.

Doesn't this begin to violate the theory of checks and balances?

No, but it will jeopardize the Senators ability to get reelected.

You think any senator from Texas who rises to the position of Majority Leader (as Cornyn may do) is in jeopardy of losing his seat if he holds no hearings on the next Democrat's nominations to the high court? They'll have his mug on their currency when they finally secede.

We'll see, won't we?

I doubt it would ever happen. As much as I disagree with him, Cornyn is a decent enough guy. I was saying that "IF" he did it, he would have no political blow back at all from Texans.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice to give the constitution a voice in such matters so that shit like this is removed from ever remotely happening?

Used to be the case until just 20 years ago. Now.... it's a freak act...

Had the rules been codified 20 years ago, we wouldn't be having the Party bosses deciding what the playing field looks like.

 

[Darkwind]

No, but it will jeopardize the Senators ability to get reelected.

You think any senator from Texas who rises to the position of Majority Leader (as Cornyn may do) is in jeopardy of losing his seat if he holds no hearings on the next Democrat's nominations to the high court? They'll have his mug on their currency when they finally secede.

We'll see, won't we?

I doubt it would ever happen. As much as I disagree with him, Cornyn is a decent enough guy. I was saying that "IF" he did it, he would have no political blow back at all from Texans.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice to give the constitution a voice in such matters so that shit like this is removed from ever remotely happening?

Used to be the case until just 20 years ago. Now.... it's a freak act...

Had the rules been codified 20 years ago, we wouldn't be having the Party bosses deciding what the playing field looks like.

So, we live in this world, no?

Maybe we should be advocating to do that starting right now?

 

[RodISHI]

Dems and their pet leftist are really giving voters a desire to vote for them with crap like this photo op for their latest stunt at the Kavanaugh hearing.
(it is too disgusting to download the picture so you'll have to go to facebook to see it if you haven't already seen how low they can go)

Paul Robichaud

 

[candycorn]

You think any senator from Texas who rises to the position of Majority Leader (as Cornyn may do) is in jeopardy of losing his seat if he holds no hearings on the next Democrat's nominations to the high court? They'll have his mug on their currency when they finally secede.

We'll see, won't we?

I doubt it would ever happen. As much as I disagree with him, Cornyn is a decent enough guy. I was saying that "IF" he did it, he would have no political blow back at all from Texans.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice to give the constitution a voice in such matters so that shit like this is removed from ever remotely happening?

Used to be the case until just 20 years ago. Now.... it's a freak act...

Had the rules been codified 20 years ago, we wouldn't be having the Party bosses deciding what the playing field looks like.

So, we live in this world, no?

Maybe we should be advocating to do that starting right now?

Yes; absolutely!

We currently have a constitution that is silent on whether a majority is needed to pass a law in the House or Senate. If they were so inclined; a truly obstructionist party could make it where you could pass a bill 20-80 meaning that if you get 20 votes; it passes. In a 2 party reality, it won't happen because the majority will always out vote the minority. If we had 3 parties or 4 parties that were in the Senate though, the party that has a plurality could theoretically pass such a rule as long as the other factions didn't vote against them. There seems to be nothing in the Constitution about packing the court. In '37 they passed an act to stop it. But the Constitution remains silent on it and therefore the act can be overturned or simply ignored.

 

[Darkwind]

We'll see, won't we?

I doubt it would ever happen. As much as I disagree with him, Cornyn is a decent enough guy. I was saying that "IF" he did it, he would have no political blow back at all from Texans.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice to give the constitution a voice in such matters so that shit like this is removed from ever remotely happening?

Used to be the case until just 20 years ago. Now.... it's a freak act...

Had the rules been codified 20 years ago, we wouldn't be having the Party bosses deciding what the playing field looks like.

So, we live in this world, no?

Maybe we should be advocating to do that starting right now?

Yes; absolutely!

We currently have a constitution that is silent on whether a majority is needed to pass a law in the House or Senate. If they were so inclined; a truly obstructionist party could make it where you could pass a bill 20-80 meaning that if you get 20 votes; it passes. In a 2 party reality, it won't happen because the majority will always out vote the minority. If we had 3 parties or 4 parties that were in the Senate though, the party that has a plurality could theoretically pass such a rule as long as the other factions didn't vote against them. There seems to be nothing in the Constitution about packing the court. In '37 they passed an act to stop it. But the Constitution remains silent on it and therefore the act can be overturned or simply ignored.

Yes. The problem is, the Constitution is not silent on the makeup of the legislative branch. It is invested with a House of Representatives elected directly by the people, and a Senate that is appointed by the States legislatures, also directly elected by the people.

Right now, we have already circumvented the Constitution by the amendment (yeah, I know, amendments are part of the constitution) that allows for the direct election of US Senators.

We need a return to the basics of the Constitution in order to start doing away with this fucked up two party system.

 

[candycorn]

I doubt it would ever happen. As much as I disagree with him, Cornyn is a decent enough guy. I was saying that "IF" he did it, he would have no political blow back at all from Texans.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice to give the constitution a voice in such matters so that shit like this is removed from ever remotely happening?

Used to be the case until just 20 years ago. Now.... it's a freak act...

Had the rules been codified 20 years ago, we wouldn't be having the Party bosses deciding what the playing field looks like.

So, we live in this world, no?

Maybe we should be advocating to do that starting right now?

Yes; absolutely!

We currently have a constitution that is silent on whether a majority is needed to pass a law in the House or Senate. If they were so inclined; a truly obstructionist party could make it where you could pass a bill 20-80 meaning that if you get 20 votes; it passes. In a 2 party reality, it won't happen because the majority will always out vote the minority. If we had 3 parties or 4 parties that were in the Senate though, the party that has a plurality could theoretically pass such a rule as long as the other factions didn't vote against them. There seems to be nothing in the Constitution about packing the court. In '37 they passed an act to stop it. But the Constitution remains silent on it and therefore the act can be overturned or simply ignored.

Yes. The problem is, the Constitution is not silent on the makeup of the legislative branch. It is invested with a House of Representatives elected directly by the people, and a Senate that is appointed by the States legislatures, also directly elected by the people.

Right now, we have already circumvented the Constitution by the amendment (yeah, I know, amendments are part of the constitution) that allows for the direct election of US Senators.

We need a return to the basics of the Constitution in order to start doing away with this fucked up two party system.

Disagree.

As long as you have political parties; you'll have someone who is in charge of the parties and able to exert influence over those elected officials. Having 2 parties is no better than having 6 parties or 55 parties or 3 parties or whatever integer you wish to use. Take 1/2 the Dems and 1/2 the Republicans and you have 49 Senators in the Senate... Nothing would pass without the 49 votes and they would nominate a leader who would do exactly what Mitch McConnell does today and what Harry Reid did before him. 3 parties; same problems. And it would be true whenever you have any integer less than 100 (meaning 100 different political parties). Whoever is in charge will slate the rules to favor their party. That is just the nature of the beast.

Now if you crafted the rules and made it to where it took a 3/4 majority to change them...that would take the parties out of the equation.

 

[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.

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.

First, no denied obama the right to nominate someone. The senate decided that they would postpone the advise and consent part until after the election in order to get the pulse of the American people. Had Hilary won, garland would probably be on the court now, the senate would have approved someone. And as you usually do, you forget the Democratic comments about postponing this stuff in the past. Democrats play hardball politics all the time, real hardball politics, yet when republicans finally show some backbone it’s just how horrible from people like you. I’m sure where it will go from here, it will continue as it has for 250 years.

 

[JBvM]

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 has changed? Trump has thrown out the rule book and given everyone a road map