CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[WillowTree]

It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:

• Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
• Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
• Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
• Did the second step happen?

Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".

Show us where the constitution gives a time frame in which confirmation hearings must occur!

Show us what the question was.

There must be some question, something holding it up, right?
Did the POTUS fail to name a nominee? Nope, he did that.
Did the Senate chambers vanish into thin air? Nope, still there.
Was the nominee unavailable for a hearing? Doesn't seem so.

What's their question?

Show us in the constitution where it gives a time frame in which confirmations must be heard! Please!

 

[hjmick]

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?

I don't know that it was an abuse of power necessarily, and I wouldn't call it justified. What they did is certainly understandable when one considers that there was a Presidential election just over the horizon and no one can deny that a party in power wants to do all they can to see that SCotUS has a makeup that closely reflect their values. Despite what Biden said in 1992, if we are going to be honest with ourselves we would admit that had what he spoke taken place, any nomination by a President who lost re-election would have been tossed in the dust bin leaving the nomination open for the next President.

Now, I did suggest that should the Republicans lose the election the first thing they might want to do is confirm Garland because at least he is a known quantity and who knows who Hillary might have nominated. In my opinion, Garland was one of the less odious individuals President Obama could have been nominated to the court... Well, when one takes into account President Obama's political inclinations...

 

[Pogo]

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.

That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

It's ideology and the left lost.

No, it's a Court appointment, which is how the Constitution declares things work, and it was blocked. We don't have any idea what "ideology" there was, since there was no hearing.

Why do you suppose they were afraid to hold hearings? Aye, there's the rub.

I don't know that fear was a factor. They held out for the chance to place a conservative on the bench!

Again --- does not compute. The Senate ..... where some partisan hacks are supposed to be holding a 'maority" anyway..... ALREADY HAS the discretion to approve or disapprove a nominee. To that end they bring him or her in for hearings. If after those hearing they're not comfy with that nominee, then he or she is out. That's the process.

But that process did not happen. The elephant is still in the room --- why were they afraid to hold hearings?

Some kind of testosterone power trip?

 

[peach174]

It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:

• Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
• Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
• Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
• Did the second step happen?

Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".

So no, they have no "right to block" it. They had the right to disapprove if such disapproval was warranted, in which case the nomination would end.

But they didn't do that, even with a "majority". My question still is ----- why were they afraid to do that? Were they afraid of what the People would have found out about the nominee? Were they afraid they wouldn't come up with enough to disapprove of? Sure looks like it.

Which party of how to govern that holds the majority in the House and Senate, is very relavant and is partly why you are not able to understand that.
The constitution gives each party the right to make the rules in how the house & senate are conducted.
The Constitution gives each party that right.
It gives the R's as well as D's the right to do so and that is what the R's did.
They had the Constitutional right to block it till after the Nov. Election.

 

[Pogo]

It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:

• Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
• Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
• Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
• Did the second step happen?

Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".

So no, they have no "right to block" it. They had the right to disapprove if such disapproval was warranted, in which case the nomination would end.

But they didn't do that, even with a "majority". My question still is ----- why were they afraid to do that? Were they afraid of what the People would have found out about the nominee? Were they afraid they wouldn't come up with enough to disapprove of? Sure looks like it.

Which party of how to govern that holds the majority in the House and Senate, is very relavant and is partly why you are not able to understand that.
The constitution gives each party the right to make the rules in how the house & senate are conducted.
The Constitution gives each party that right.
It gives the R's as well as D's the right to do so and that is what the R's did.
They had the Constitutional right to block it till after the Nov. Election.

The Constitution doesn't even make mention of political parties. At all.
So no it bestows no such "right". At all.

The bottom line remains ---- they had no good reason to not hold hearings. No reason beyond political party partisanship. Admit it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.

That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

I disagree, and it's my country too, so there.

All is fair in war.

 

[peach174]

It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:

• Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
• Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
• Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
• Did the second step happen?

Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".

So no, they have no "right to block" it. They had the right to disapprove if such disapproval was warranted, in which case the nomination would end.

But they didn't do that, even with a "majority". My question still is ----- why were they afraid to do that? Were they afraid of what the People would have found out about the nominee? Were they afraid they wouldn't come up with enough to disapprove of? Sure looks like it.

Which party of how to govern that holds the majority in the House and Senate, is very relavant and is partly why you are not able to understand that.
The constitution gives each party the right to make the rules in how the house & senate are conducted.
The Constitution gives each party that right.
It gives the R's as well as D's the right to do so and that is what the R's did.
They had the Constitutional right to block it till after the Nov. Election.

The Constitution doesn't even make mention of political parties. At all.
So no it bestows no such "right". At all.

The bottom line remains ---- they had no good reason to not hold hearings. No reason beyond political party partisanship. Admit it.

I never said that the constitution mentions parties, I said which party to govern , no matter what type of party or what they are called.

 

[Pogo]

Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.

That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

I disagree, and it's my country too, so there.

All is fair in war.

This isn't "war". It's government.
:"All's fair in love and war" means that there are no rules. That does not apply to government, which absolutely has rules. We call it collectively the "Constitution".

Whelp -- that Constitution denotes a process, and that process has not been followed; in fact it's been outright rejected in advance by parts of the government that are supposed to be executing that process.

They should be removed from office for that. If you're going to defy the Constitution for your own personal partisan gain, then you don't belong anywhere near government.

But partisan hacks enable it. And here we are -- doing the same thing expecting different results.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.

That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

I disagree, and it's my country too, so there.

All is fair in war.

This isn't "war". It's government.
:"All's fair in love and war" means that there are no rules. That does not apply to government, which absolutely has rules. We call it collectively the "Constitution".

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Whelp

Speak for yourself.

that Constitution denotes a process, and that process has not been followed; in fact it's been outright rejected in advance by parts of the government that are supposed to be executing that process.

What process has not been followed?

If you're going to defy the Constitution for your own personal partisan gain, then you don't belong anywhere near government.

Indeed. Some Democrats have just been removed from it. Others will follow.

 

[WillowTree]

That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

It's ideology and the left lost.

No, it's a Court appointment, which is how the Constitution declares things work, and it was blocked. We don't have any idea what "ideology" there was, since there was no hearing.

Why do you suppose they were afraid to hold hearings? Aye, there's the rub.

I don't know that fear was a factor. They held out for the chance to place a conservative on the bench!

Again --- does not compute. The Senate ..... where some partisan hacks are supposed to be holding a 'maority" anyway..... ALREADY HAS the discretion to approve or disapprove a nominee. To that end they bring him or her in for hearings. If after those hearing they're not comfy with that nominee, then he or she is out. That's the process.

But that process did not happen. The elephant is still in the room --- why were they afraid to hold hearings?

Some kind of testosterone power trip?

Why are ewe afraid to answer?

 

[pismoe]

Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.

That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

It's ideology and the left lost.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ thank you Peach .

 

[WillowTree]

Schumer in '07: 'We Should Not Confirm Any Bush Nominee to the Supreme Court'

 

[Pogo]

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.

That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

I disagree, and it's my country too, so there.

All is fair in war.

This isn't "war". It's government.
:"All's fair in love and war" means that there are no rules. That does not apply to government, which absolutely has rules. We call it collectively the "Constitution".

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

 

[Pogo]

Schumer in '07: 'We Should Not Confirm Any Bush Nominee to the Supreme Court'

See the word "confirm" in your own link?

See the term "hold hearings" in my posts? Or the word "consider" in the thread title?

See the difference?

Perhaps not.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

I disagree, and it's my country too, so there.

All is fair in war.

This isn't "war". It's government.
:"All's fair in love and war" means that there are no rules. That does not apply to government, which absolutely has rules. We call it collectively the "Constitution".

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

No. I refer to people like you as "you people", not to Americans.

That should be clear enough.

 

[Pogo]

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

I disagree, and it's my country too, so there.

All is fair in war.

This isn't "war". It's government.
:"All's fair in love and war" means that there are no rules. That does not apply to government, which absolutely has rules. We call it collectively the "Constitution".

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

No. I refer to people like you as "you people", not to Americans.

That should be clear enough.

I'm actually the one standing up for the Constitution here while you and some other dystopian wags are standing for political party partisanship. That is indeed clear enough. Really lets us know who's on what side.

 

[WillowTree]

I disagree, and it's my country too, so there.

All is fair in war.

This isn't "war". It's government.
:"All's fair in love and war" means that there are no rules. That does not apply to government, which absolutely has rules. We call it collectively the "Constitution".

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

No. I refer to people like you as "you people", not to Americans.

That should be clear enough.

I'm actually the one standing up for the Constitution here while you and some other dystopian wags are standing for political party partisanship. That is indeed clear enough. Really lets us know who's on what side.

So where is the time frame? You got the passage yet?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I disagree, and it's my country too, so there.

All is fair in war.

This isn't "war". It's government.
:"All's fair in love and war" means that there are no rules. That does not apply to government, which absolutely has rules. We call it collectively the "Constitution".

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

No. I refer to people like you as "you people", not to Americans.

That should be clear enough.

I'm actually the one standing up for the Constitution here while you and some other dystopian wags are standing for political party partisanship. That is indeed clear enough. Really lets us know who's on what side.

 

[Pogo]

This isn't "war". It's government.
:"All's fair in love and war" means that there are no rules. That does not apply to government, which absolutely has rules. We call it collectively the "Constitution".

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

No. I refer to people like you as "you people", not to Americans.

That should be clear enough.

I'm actually the one standing up for the Constitution here while you and some other dystopian wags are standing for political party partisanship. That is indeed clear enough. Really lets us know who's on what side.

So where is the time frame? You got the passage yet?

You don't need a "time frame" when you already have an absolute statement plainly defying Constitutional process.

 

[Pogo]

This isn't "war". It's government.
:"All's fair in love and war" means that there are no rules. That does not apply to government, which absolutely has rules. We call it collectively the "Constitution".

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

No. I refer to people like you as "you people", not to Americans.

That should be clear enough.

I'm actually the one standing up for the Constitution here while you and some other dystopian wags are standing for political party partisanship. That is indeed clear enough. Really lets us know who's on what side.

Matter of fact, take a look at the poll in this thread. Three times as many respondents stand for political partisanship as those who stand for Constitutional process.

That speaks volumes right there.