CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[HenryBHough]

I will admit that a confirmation hearing would have provided a perfect opportunity for Garland to be properly Borked. Opportunity missed........damn.

 

[sakinago]

I will admit that a confirmation hearing would have provided a perfect opportunity for Garland to be properly Borked. Opportunity missed........damn.

Seriously, the vote would have came out to be a no...then we'd be hearing about how it isn't fair they're voting no on all of obamas nominations till the end of his term. And they're going to pretend like they would have not done the same... for the third time let me post this

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

 

[FA_Q2]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

They had the power to not nominate him after the hearing. The only reason that I can find that they did not have a hearing was to give political cover to those members in contested races.

IOW, so they could effectively lie to the people. I do not find that 'their duty.' They should have had the balls to not only vote on his nomination but stand up for that vote when facing the voters.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

Again I'll refer you to this little piece of recent history.

Why?

What makes you think that has anything to do with my point at all? What makes you think that I agree with Biden?

 

[FA_Q2]

I will admit that a confirmation hearing would have provided a perfect opportunity for Garland to be properly Borked. Opportunity missed........damn.

Seriously, the vote would have came out to be a no...then we'd be hearing about how it isn't fair they're voting no on all of obamas nominations till the end of his term. And they're going to pretend like they would have not done the same... for the third time let me post this

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

You would hear whining from the partisan hacks no matter what. That has NOTHING to do with if this was a proper action.

 

[sakinago]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

They had the power to not nominate him after the hearing. The only reason that I can find that they did not have a hearing was to give political cover to those members in contested races.

IOW, so they could effectively lie to the people. I do not find that 'their duty.' They should have had the balls to not only vote on his nomination but stand up for that vote when facing the voters.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

Again I'll refer you to this little piece of recent history.

Why?

What makes you think that has anything to do with my point at all? What makes you think that I agree with Biden?

Because what the left is defining as "fair" is replacing a steadfast conservative in Scalia, with a "moderate" garland. That's fair? You have to be kidding me. What this situation is, is in the 2014 elections republicans took control of house and senate. And republicans acted in the way their voters wanted them too and used the separation of powers the way it was intended. This government was set up so that one side isn't lording over the side, because you cannot be a free nation with one side dictating terms to the other. Now we have fallen far from that, but it's time to come back to that. But instead we're stuck in this zero sum argument, so you wanted to see a vote on garland out of your definition of "properness"...it would've been no. It's like arguing over what possibly could have been a touchdown pass being incomplete, complaining about pass interference when there's the standard amount of contact on the play from both sides that never gets called. (Obviously I'm watching football now)

What's not fair is the SCOTUS voting on political activism on BOTH sides, not constitutionality. Let me preface this next statement by saying I'm pro gay marriage. But explain to me how SCOTUS wasn't acting on politics when they initially overturn DOMA, saying it's a states rights issue, then a mere two years later say states have no say in the matter?? How is it not politics, and not completely FUBAR in the kilo decision when private entities are allowed to piggy back on eminent domain and take land out from under citizens because there's more tax money in that?? This is the type of stuff that needs to stop, now can we come together on this??

 

[FA_Q2]

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

They had the power to not nominate him after the hearing. The only reason that I can find that they did not have a hearing was to give political cover to those members in contested races.

IOW, so they could effectively lie to the people. I do not find that 'their duty.' They should have had the balls to not only vote on his nomination but stand up for that vote when facing the voters.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

Again I'll refer you to this little piece of recent history.

Why?

What makes you think that has anything to do with my point at all? What makes you think that I agree with Biden?

Because what the left is defining as "fair" is replacing a steadfast conservative in Scalia, with a "moderate" garland. That's fair? You have to be kidding me. What this situation is, is in the 2014 elections republicans took control of house and senate. And republicans acted in the way their voters wanted them too and used the separation of powers the way it was intended. This government was set up so that one side isn't lording over the side, because you cannot be a free nation with one side dictating terms to the other. Now we have fallen far from that, but it's time to come back to that. But instead we're stuck in this zero sum argument, so you wanted to see a vote on garland out of your definition of "properness"...it would've been no. It's like arguing over what possibly could have been a touchdown pass being incomplete, complaining about pass interference when there's the standard amount of contact on the play from both sides that never gets called. (Obviously I'm watching football now)

What's not fair is the SCOTUS voting on political activism on BOTH sides, not constitutionality. Let me preface this next statement by saying I'm pro gay marriage. But explain to me how SCOTUS wasn't acting on politics when they initially overturn DOMA, saying it's a states rights issue, then a mere two years later say states have no say in the matter?? How is it not politics, and not completely FUBAR in the kilo decision when private entities are allowed to piggy back on eminent domain and take land out from under citizens because there's more tax money in that?? This is the type of stuff that needs to stop, now can we come together on this??

Again, nothing there has anything to do with what I have stated. Biden's push to block any hearing that may have happened at the end of Bush's term is irrelevant to what I think of Garlands block.

You mention fair several times. Notice that I have not mentioned fair once. I care not for arguments about fair - that is irrelevant.

My point was rather simple - the block had nothing to do with seating Garland or not - garland had zero chance of being seated with republican control of the senate. His block was nothing more than a cover so that some senators could go back to their constituencies and lie about the block and/or cover their asses. Congress should have had the balls to stand up and vote for what they believed in rather than sulking in the shadows to cover for those senators in contested districts.

 

[sakinago]

I will admit that a confirmation hearing would have provided a perfect opportunity for Garland to be properly Borked. Opportunity missed........damn.

Seriously, the vote would have came out to be a no...then we'd be hearing about how it isn't fair they're voting no on all of obamas nominations till the end of his term. And they're going to pretend like they would have not done the same... for the third time let me post this

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

You would hear whining from the partisan hacks no matter what. That has NOTHING to do with if this was a proper action.

This is a zero sum argument. An argument over whatever the lefts self serving definition of properness is this week. Proper action, really? Was it proper action when Pelosi said we need to vote for the bill (ACA) before we can see what's in the bill? And then then rush the vote on the bill before republican controlled congress takes over? So either condem what the left has been doing for years, or spare me this zero sum argument, and let's come together on things like our representatives really need to read the damn bills (which they never do) before they vote on the damn bill. We shouldn't need a entire law firm studying these bills for months to still be foggy on certain details with it. I think that's a very clear sign we're not properly practicing law making.

 

[sakinago]

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

They had the power to not nominate him after the hearing. The only reason that I can find that they did not have a hearing was to give political cover to those members in contested races.

IOW, so they could effectively lie to the people. I do not find that 'their duty.' They should have had the balls to not only vote on his nomination but stand up for that vote when facing the voters.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

Again I'll refer you to this little piece of recent history.

Why?

What makes you think that has anything to do with my point at all? What makes you think that I agree with Biden?

Because what the left is defining as "fair" is replacing a steadfast conservative in Scalia, with a "moderate" garland. That's fair? You have to be kidding me. What this situation is, is in the 2014 elections republicans took control of house and senate. And republicans acted in the way their voters wanted them too and used the separation of powers the way it was intended. This government was set up so that one side isn't lording over the side, because you cannot be a free nation with one side dictating terms to the other. Now we have fallen far from that, but it's time to come back to that. But instead we're stuck in this zero sum argument, so you wanted to see a vote on garland out of your definition of "properness"...it would've been no. It's like arguing over what possibly could have been a touchdown pass being incomplete, complaining about pass interference when there's the standard amount of contact on the play from both sides that never gets called. (Obviously I'm watching football now)

What's not fair is the SCOTUS voting on political activism on BOTH sides, not constitutionality. Let me preface this next statement by saying I'm pro gay marriage. But explain to me how SCOTUS wasn't acting on politics when they initially overturn DOMA, saying it's a states rights issue, then a mere two years later say states have no say in the matter?? How is it not politics, and not completely FUBAR in the kilo decision when private entities are allowed to piggy back on eminent domain and take land out from under citizens because there's more tax money in that?? This is the type of stuff that needs to stop, now can we come together on this??

Again, nothing there has anything to do with what I have stated. Biden's push to block any hearing that may have happened at the end of Bush's term is irrelevant to what I think of Garlands block.

You mention fair several times. Notice that I have not mentioned fair once. I care not for arguments about fair - that is irrelevant.

My point was rather simple - the block had nothing to do with seating Garland or not - garland had zero chance of being seated with republican control of the senate. His block was nothing more than a cover so that some senators could go back to their constituencies and lie about the block and/or cover their asses. Congress should have had the balls to stand up and vote for what they believed in rather than sulking in the shadows to cover for those senators in contested districts.

Your saying you never used the word fair, but your still calling foul on actions YOU considered cowardly by congress. That's a straight up biased view on this. Did it occur to that the right didn't even want Obamas nominations to be considered? This is what the right asked for. Overwhelmingly. Other points of view exist in the world. Don't fault us for your inability to recognize them. The closest reason I'd ever agree with you on this, is go ahed and freaking vote on him so we can shut this ridiculous argument from the left down. Needless appeasement. Is that what your looking for, because it sounds a lot like what your asking for.

 

[LoneLaugher]

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

Of course you do. Dupe.

Your not a very good op, you just respond with name calling to opposition. Some of us actually care about having the honest conversations that the left talks a big game about. You want to take your ball and go home, that's fine, just don't waste our time raining on our parade.

I asked for honesty. When I don't get it...i don't pretend to be pleasant,.

Get what exactly? You're own opinion fed back to you? I don't think you're looking for honesty.

Whatever you say, chief.

 

[sakinago]

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

Of course you do. Dupe.

Your not a very good op, you just respond with name calling to opposition. Some of us actually care about having the honest conversations that the left talks a big game about. You want to take your ball and go home, that's fine, just don't waste our time raining on our parade.

I asked for honesty. When I don't get it...i don't pretend to be pleasant,.

Get what exactly? You're own opinion fed back to you? I don't think you're looking for honesty.

Whatever you say, chief.

Nice running commentary. Take your ball and go home

 

[LoneLaugher]

Of course you do. Dupe.

Your not a very good op, you just respond with name calling to opposition. Some of us actually care about having the honest conversations that the left talks a big game about. You want to take your ball and go home, that's fine, just don't waste our time raining on our parade.

I asked for honesty. When I don't get it...i don't pretend to be pleasant,.

Get what exactly? You're own opinion fed back to you? I don't think you're looking for honesty.

Whatever you say, chief.

Nice running commentary. Take your ball and go home

I think you are looking for an argument. is it upsetting you that you aren't finding one?

 

[PK1]

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees
Please spare us, don't act like the democrats would not have done the same had the tables been turned. And they already have as shown in the article above. So either condem Biden actions, or accept that Congress acted in the way their constituents wanted them too.

You have a good point; both major parties should play "fair" and do their jobs as elected officials for their job description.
Perhaps, we need to define "fair", such as a rule: "no SCOTUS nominations during a POTUS election year" ... regardless of which party holds Congressional majorities.

I mean the rules are already there, like what if Obama had a democratic controlled congress? Would you still agree with waiting until the next pres to make a nomination? Would you be any happier had this congress not blocked the voting on nominations, but instead voted no to every one of Obamas nominations until the end of his term (which is what would've happened)? The rules have a separation of powers in place, the POTUS makes nominations, the representatives of the people vote yes or no (congressmen), then the representatives of the state vote yes or no (senate). Congress writes and votes on bills, senate then votes on those bills, president gives a thumbs up or down unless 2/3 senate majority vote yes, then pres has no say. Then the bill goes to Supreme Court, court is suppose to determine whether or not it's constitutional. That's how it's suppose to work in a nutshell. There's no reason that 9 UNELECTED officials should be voting their political convictions, it is NOT their place! Their place is to reign in the government IF legislative and executive branches overstep their bounds according to the constitution/BOR, whether they're stepping on our personal rights, or our states rights.

I would like to see the elected officials do their jobs without partisan excuses, and their SCOTUS appointments do their jobs based on Constitutional arguments.
That said, i would like to see a Constitutional amendment that would force Congress to decide on the POTUS nominee within 90 days or that nominee is automatically confirmed by default. Also. while we are at it, the Constitution should also include the mandate that a maximum 9 SCOTUS members should comprise that branch. Also, if the POTUS does not nominate someone to fill a vacancy within 60 days, then Senate takes over in some way.
Just some thoughts in trying to make non-partisan rules and reduce wasteful gridlock.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees
Please spare us, don't act like the democrats would not have done the same had the tables been turned. And they already have as shown in the article above. So either condem Biden actions, or accept that Congress acted in the way their constituents wanted them too.

You have a good point; both major parties should play "fair" and do their jobs as elected officials for their job description.
Perhaps, we need to define "fair", such as a rule: "no SCOTUS nominations during a POTUS election year" ... regardless of which party holds Congressional majorities.

I mean the rules are already there, like what if Obama had a democratic controlled congress? Would you still agree with waiting until the next pres to make a nomination? Would you be any happier had this congress not blocked the voting on nominations, but instead voted no to every one of Obamas nominations until the end of his term (which is what would've happened)? The rules have a separation of powers in place, the POTUS makes nominations, the representatives of the people vote yes or no (congressmen), then the representatives of the state vote yes or no (senate). Congress writes and votes on bills, senate then votes on those bills, president gives a thumbs up or down unless 2/3 senate majority vote yes, then pres has no say. Then the bill goes to Supreme Court, court is suppose to determine whether or not it's constitutional. That's how it's suppose to work in a nutshell. There's no reason that 9 UNELECTED officials should be voting their political convictions, it is NOT their place! Their place is to reign in the government IF legislative and executive branches overstep their bounds according to the constitution/BOR, whether they're stepping on our personal rights, or our states rights.

I would like to see the elected officials do their jobs without partisan excuses, and their SCOTUS appointments do their jobs based on Constitutional arguments.
That said, i would like to see a Constitutional amendment that would force Congress to decide on the POTUS nominee within 90 days or that nominee is automatically confirmed by default. Also. while we are at it, the Constitution should also include the mandate that a maximum 9 SCOTUS members should comprise that branch. Also, if the POTUS does not nominate someone to fill a vacancy within 60 days, then Senate takes over in some way.
Just some thoughts in trying to make non-partisan rules and reduce wasteful gridlock.

Seems reasonable...........

 

[sakinago]

Your not a very good op, you just respond with name calling to opposition. Some of us actually care about having the honest conversations that the left talks a big game about. You want to take your ball and go home, that's fine, just don't waste our time raining on our parade.

I asked for honesty. When I don't get it...i don't pretend to be pleasant,.

Get what exactly? You're own opinion fed back to you? I don't think you're looking for honesty.

Whatever you say, chief.

Nice running commentary. Take your ball and go home

I think you are looking for an argument. is it upsetting you that you aren't finding one?

If you're not arguing quite the name calling, simple as that

 

[sakinago]

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees
Please spare us, don't act like the democrats would not have done the same had the tables been turned. And they already have as shown in the article above. So either condem Biden actions, or accept that Congress acted in the way their constituents wanted them too.

You have a good point; both major parties should play "fair" and do their jobs as elected officials for their job description.
Perhaps, we need to define "fair", such as a rule: "no SCOTUS nominations during a POTUS election year" ... regardless of which party holds Congressional majorities.

I mean the rules are already there, like what if Obama had a democratic controlled congress? Would you still agree with waiting until the next pres to make a nomination? Would you be any happier had this congress not blocked the voting on nominations, but instead voted no to every one of Obamas nominations until the end of his term (which is what would've happened)? The rules have a separation of powers in place, the POTUS makes nominations, the representatives of the people vote yes or no (congressmen), then the representatives of the state vote yes or no (senate). Congress writes and votes on bills, senate then votes on those bills, president gives a thumbs up or down unless 2/3 senate majority vote yes, then pres has no say. Then the bill goes to Supreme Court, court is suppose to determine whether or not it's constitutional. That's how it's suppose to work in a nutshell. There's no reason that 9 UNELECTED officials should be voting their political convictions, it is NOT their place! Their place is to reign in the government IF legislative and executive branches overstep their bounds according to the constitution/BOR, whether they're stepping on our personal rights, or our states rights.

I would like to see the elected officials do their jobs without partisan excuses, and their SCOTUS appointments do their jobs based on Constitutional arguments.
That said, i would like to see a Constitutional amendment that would force Congress to decide on the POTUS nominee within 90 days or that nominee is automatically confirmed by default. Also. while we are at it, the Constitution should also include the mandate that a maximum 9 SCOTUS members should comprise that branch. Also, if the POTUS does not nominate someone to fill a vacancy within 60 days, then Senate takes over in some way.
Just some thoughts in trying to make non-partisan rules and reduce wasteful gridlock.

So the president would still get whoever they wanted in? You sure you want to give trump that power? I don't like the idea of any president getting that kind of power.

And sometimes voters want Congress to stop everything the other side is throwing at them. This country is too obsessed with putting laws on every aspect of our lives. Again do you want to give the right and trump that kind of power to push through every thing they want?

 

[PK1]

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees
Please spare us, don't act like the democrats would not have done the same had the tables been turned. And they already have as shown in the article above. So either condem Biden actions, or accept that Congress acted in the way their constituents wanted them too.

You have a good point; both major parties should play "fair" and do their jobs as elected officials for their job description.
Perhaps, we need to define "fair", such as a rule: "no SCOTUS nominations during a POTUS election year" ... regardless of which party holds Congressional majorities.

I mean the rules are already there, like what if Obama had a democratic controlled congress? Would you still agree with waiting until the next pres to make a nomination? Would you be any happier had this congress not blocked the voting on nominations, but instead voted no to every one of Obamas nominations until the end of his term (which is what would've happened)? The rules have a separation of powers in place, the POTUS makes nominations, the representatives of the people vote yes or no (congressmen), then the representatives of the state vote yes or no (senate). Congress writes and votes on bills, senate then votes on those bills, president gives a thumbs up or down unless 2/3 senate majority vote yes, then pres has no say. Then the bill goes to Supreme Court, court is suppose to determine whether or not it's constitutional. That's how it's suppose to work in a nutshell. There's no reason that 9 UNELECTED officials should be voting their political convictions, it is NOT their place! Their place is to reign in the government IF legislative and executive branches overstep their bounds according to the constitution/BOR, whether they're stepping on our personal rights, or our states rights.

I would like to see the elected officials do their jobs without partisan excuses, and their SCOTUS appointments do their jobs based on Constitutional arguments.
That said, i would like to see a Constitutional amendment that would force Congress to decide on the POTUS nominee within 90 days or that nominee is automatically confirmed by default. Also. while we are at it, the Constitution should also include the mandate that a maximum 9 SCOTUS members should comprise that branch. Also, if the POTUS does not nominate someone to fill a vacancy within 60 days, then Senate takes over in some way.
Just some thoughts in trying to make non-partisan rules and reduce wasteful gridlock.

So the president would still get whoever they wanted in? You sure you want to give trump that power? I don't like the idea of any president getting that kind of power.

And sometimes voters want Congress to stop everything the other side is throwing at them. This country is too obsessed with putting laws on every aspect of our lives. Again do you want to give the right and trump that kind of power to push through every thing they want?

I am being bipartisan. Rules for gov efficiency should apply to all parties.
What makes you think Trump will not get his way after inauguration with a Republican Congress ... with current dysfunctional rules (that I'd like to tighten up)?

 

[sakinago]

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees
Please spare us, don't act like the democrats would not have done the same had the tables been turned. And they already have as shown in the article above. So either condem Biden actions, or accept that Congress acted in the way their constituents wanted them too.

You have a good point; both major parties should play "fair" and do their jobs as elected officials for their job description.
Perhaps, we need to define "fair", such as a rule: "no SCOTUS nominations during a POTUS election year" ... regardless of which party holds Congressional majorities.

I mean the rules are already there, like what if Obama had a democratic controlled congress? Would you still agree with waiting until the next pres to make a nomination? Would you be any happier had this congress not blocked the voting on nominations, but instead voted no to every one of Obamas nominations until the end of his term (which is what would've happened)? The rules have a separation of powers in place, the POTUS makes nominations, the representatives of the people vote yes or no (congressmen), then the representatives of the state vote yes or no (senate). Congress writes and votes on bills, senate then votes on those bills, president gives a thumbs up or down unless 2/3 senate majority vote yes, then pres has no say. Then the bill goes to Supreme Court, court is suppose to determine whether or not it's constitutional. That's how it's suppose to work in a nutshell. There's no reason that 9 UNELECTED officials should be voting their political convictions, it is NOT their place! Their place is to reign in the government IF legislative and executive branches overstep their bounds according to the constitution/BOR, whether they're stepping on our personal rights, or our states rights.

I would like to see the elected officials do their jobs without partisan excuses, and their SCOTUS appointments do their jobs based on Constitutional arguments.
That said, i would like to see a Constitutional amendment that would force Congress to decide on the POTUS nominee within 90 days or that nominee is automatically confirmed by default. Also. while we are at it, the Constitution should also include the mandate that a maximum 9 SCOTUS members should comprise that branch. Also, if the POTUS does not nominate someone to fill a vacancy within 60 days, then Senate takes over in some way.
Just some thoughts in trying to make non-partisan rules and reduce wasteful gridlock.

So the president would still get whoever they wanted in? You sure you want to give trump that power? I don't like the idea of any president getting that kind of power.

And sometimes voters want Congress to stop everything the other side is throwing at them. This country is too obsessed with putting laws on every aspect of our lives. Again do you want to give the right and trump that kind of power to push through every thing they want?

I am being bipartisan. Rules for gov efficiency should apply to all parties.
What makes you think Trump will not get his way after inauguration with a Republican Congress ... with current dysfunctional rules (that I'd like to tighten up)?

Which rules do you mean? I think the biggest dysfunction of congress is the fact they're number one priority is re-election, and fundraising. One big way to stop that is term limits. Instead of making fund raising phone calls all day, and throwing events at night, they'll be more focused on actual legislation. On the other hand I do not want their sole focus to be on rule making, their rule making should be confined to what the 9th and 10th amendment allow, which is a LOT less than what they have been doing.

 

[PK1]

You have a good point; both major parties should play "fair" and do their jobs as elected officials for their job description.
Perhaps, we need to define "fair", such as a rule: "no SCOTUS nominations during a POTUS election year" ... regardless of which party holds Congressional majorities.

I mean the rules are already there, like what if Obama had a democratic controlled congress? Would you still agree with waiting until the next pres to make a nomination? Would you be any happier had this congress not blocked the voting on nominations, but instead voted no to every one of Obamas nominations until the end of his term (which is what would've happened)? The rules have a separation of powers in place, the POTUS makes nominations, the representatives of the people vote yes or no (congressmen), then the representatives of the state vote yes or no (senate). Congress writes and votes on bills, senate then votes on those bills, president gives a thumbs up or down unless 2/3 senate majority vote yes, then pres has no say. Then the bill goes to Supreme Court, court is suppose to determine whether or not it's constitutional. That's how it's suppose to work in a nutshell. There's no reason that 9 UNELECTED officials should be voting their political convictions, it is NOT their place! Their place is to reign in the government IF legislative and executive branches overstep their bounds according to the constitution/BOR, whether they're stepping on our personal rights, or our states rights.

I would like to see the elected officials do their jobs without partisan excuses, and their SCOTUS appointments do their jobs based on Constitutional arguments.
That said, i would like to see a Constitutional amendment that would force Congress to decide on the POTUS nominee within 90 days or that nominee is automatically confirmed by default. Also. while we are at it, the Constitution should also include the mandate that a maximum 9 SCOTUS members should comprise that branch. Also, if the POTUS does not nominate someone to fill a vacancy within 60 days, then Senate takes over in some way.
Just some thoughts in trying to make non-partisan rules and reduce wasteful gridlock.

So the president would still get whoever they wanted in? You sure you want to give trump that power? I don't like the idea of any president getting that kind of power.

And sometimes voters want Congress to stop everything the other side is throwing at them. This country is too obsessed with putting laws on every aspect of our lives. Again do you want to give the right and trump that kind of power to push through every thing they want?

I am being bipartisan. Rules for gov efficiency should apply to all parties.
What makes you think Trump will not get his way after inauguration with a Republican Congress ... with current dysfunctional rules (that I'd like to tighten up)?

Which rules do you mean? I think the biggest dysfunction of congress is the fact they're number one priority is re-election, and fundraising. One big way to stop that is term limits. Instead of making fund raising phone calls all day, and throwing events at night, they'll be more focused on actual legislation. On the other hand I do not want their sole focus to be on rule making, their rule making should be confined to what the 9th and 10th amendment allow, which is a LOT less than what they have been doing.

If my proposed new rules were in place a year ago, then current Congress would have had to at least evaluate or vote on the nominee, on record.
Yes i know, that train left.

I agree, however, the #1 problem is "they're number one priority is re-election, and fundraising."

 

[FA_Q2]

I will admit that a confirmation hearing would have provided a perfect opportunity for Garland to be properly Borked. Opportunity missed........damn.

Seriously, the vote would have came out to be a no...then we'd be hearing about how it isn't fair they're voting no on all of obamas nominations till the end of his term. And they're going to pretend like they would have not done the same... for the third time let me post this

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

You would hear whining from the partisan hacks no matter what. That has NOTHING to do with if this was a proper action.

This is a zero sum argument. An argument over whatever the lefts self serving definition of properness is this week. Proper action, really? Was it proper action when Pelosi said we need to vote for the bill (ACA) before we can see what's in the bill? And then then rush the vote on the bill before republican controlled congress takes over? So either condem what the left has been doing for years, or spare me this zero sum argument, and let's come together on things like our representatives really need to read the damn bills (which they never do) before they vote on the damn bill. We shouldn't need a entire law firm studying these bills for months to still be foggy on certain details with it. I think that's a very clear sign we're not properly practicing law making.

I have condemned the left continuously here. You seem to be falsely assuming that I am left because I am willing to call out the right on things that I see as bullshit.

You might want to scale back the assumptions. We are talking about a specific instance here in this thread and it has literally nothing to do with the left.

 

[FA_Q2]

They had the power to not nominate him after the hearing. The only reason that I can find that they did not have a hearing was to give political cover to those members in contested races.

IOW, so they could effectively lie to the people. I do not find that 'their duty.' They should have had the balls to not only vote on his nomination but stand up for that vote when facing the voters.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

Again I'll refer you to this little piece of recent history.

Why?

What makes you think that has anything to do with my point at all? What makes you think that I agree with Biden?

Because what the left is defining as "fair" is replacing a steadfast conservative in Scalia, with a "moderate" garland. That's fair? You have to be kidding me. What this situation is, is in the 2014 elections republicans took control of house and senate. And republicans acted in the way their voters wanted them too and used the separation of powers the way it was intended. This government was set up so that one side isn't lording over the side, because you cannot be a free nation with one side dictating terms to the other. Now we have fallen far from that, but it's time to come back to that. But instead we're stuck in this zero sum argument, so you wanted to see a vote on garland out of your definition of "properness"...it would've been no. It's like arguing over what possibly could have been a touchdown pass being incomplete, complaining about pass interference when there's the standard amount of contact on the play from both sides that never gets called. (Obviously I'm watching football now)

What's not fair is the SCOTUS voting on political activism on BOTH sides, not constitutionality. Let me preface this next statement by saying I'm pro gay marriage. But explain to me how SCOTUS wasn't acting on politics when they initially overturn DOMA, saying it's a states rights issue, then a mere two years later say states have no say in the matter?? How is it not politics, and not completely FUBAR in the kilo decision when private entities are allowed to piggy back on eminent domain and take land out from under citizens because there's more tax money in that?? This is the type of stuff that needs to stop, now can we come together on this??

Again, nothing there has anything to do with what I have stated. Biden's push to block any hearing that may have happened at the end of Bush's term is irrelevant to what I think of Garlands block.

You mention fair several times. Notice that I have not mentioned fair once. I care not for arguments about fair - that is irrelevant.

My point was rather simple - the block had nothing to do with seating Garland or not - garland had zero chance of being seated with republican control of the senate. His block was nothing more than a cover so that some senators could go back to their constituencies and lie about the block and/or cover their asses. Congress should have had the balls to stand up and vote for what they believed in rather than sulking in the shadows to cover for those senators in contested districts.

Your saying you never used the word fair, but your still calling foul on actions YOU considered cowardly by congress.

And it still has nothing to do with fair. Of course they are things that I consider improper by congress - that is what I have been saying.

That's a straight up biased view on this.

Biased how?

Did it occur to that the right didn't even want Obamas nominations to be considered? This is what the right asked for. Overwhelmingly.

And?

That does not change the fact that I think what congress did was incorrect.

Other points of view exist in the world. Don't fault us for your inability to recognize them.

Where is my inability to recognize them. YOU are the only one that seem to be unable to recognize that there are other viewpoints out there. I stated what they did was incorrect. I have never stated that everyone should agree with me or that you cannot have your own opinion. What I have done is support my opinion with reasoning as is the point of debate. All you seem to want to do is demand that I concede because you have a differing opinion.

The closest reason I'd ever agree with you on this, is go ahed and freaking vote on him so we can shut this ridiculous argument from the left down. Needless appeasement. Is that what your looking for, because it sounds a lot like what your asking for.

Appeasement has nothing to do with it. Having congressmen actually stand for something rather than political games does. I hold those that demand dominion over our lives to a higher standard and expect them to be as transparent as possible. I do not abide the bullshit political games that congress has mired itself in.

This is not an argument from the left. Hell this is actually an argument that SHOULD be coming from the right.