Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Faun]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

GOP did it during a Presidential election year. It is not a Presidential election year. Not the same thing.

Doesn't have to be an election year. The new McConnell rule allows the Senate to refuse confirmation hearings to an elected president at any time for as long as desired by the Senate.

MSM doesn't control dissemination of information any longer. block, resist, and lose the next election.

Nope, the McConnell rule proved to be acceptable to the people. There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

 

[hadit]

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate (3),[/COLOR] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

Annotations added

With Garland, the Senate didn't consent.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.

But no worries, karma is strong in politics. What goes around, comes around; and I have no doubt the day will come when the shoe will be on the other foot and then Democrats can invoke the McConnell rule.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.


And they were right.

Well then you’ll be ok with it when a Democrat-led Senate shuts out a Republican President at some point in the future, potentially for years.

There is nothing to prevent that, except political pressure. It simply doesn't matter if anyone is okay with it or not.

 

[kaz]

The delay over Garland was to allow the INCOMING president to name his preferred Justice.

at the time the delay started, Hillary was considered a shoe in, and it was predicted she would also name Garland, or someone similar.

if the democrats somehow take the Senate, are thy going to delay Trumps nominations til either HE leaves office, or THEY lose the Senate?

I agree, but not with the big difference between the two elections. Yes, the "delay" over Garland was to allow the new President to make the pick. In this case, the senate's ability to confirm or deny the nomination is equally worthy for that argument.

In that case we would never be able to replace justices because we have an election every two years. The Republicans never held a justice back because of midterms. It's just a phony excuse because the Democrats are still pissed about the Republicans holding out until after a PRESIDENTIAL election.

Republicans set the precedent. Does not matter whether it is Presidential or Congressional elections. The Senate does play a role in judicial nominations.

They set a precedent for congressional elections when they didnt do it in an off year election. Got it. Wow, thats inane

You are inane. A election is a election.

Inane is word parsing, which is what you are doing. No one has ever advocated not having a supreme court pick in a non-election year. McConnell didn't either.

What you're arguing is oh, McConnell didn't have supreme court hearings in an election year. Well, an off year election is still an election year. Therefore he advocated that too.

No, you're an idiot.

And frankly, it was more narrow than that. Obama didn't have the votes. Trump did. Both parties would have confirmed the pick in an election year if they had the votes

 

[hadit]

. And thanks to McConnell, that door can remain shut for years, if need be, until a Democrat wins the White House.

Nothing can be done about that now, what McConnell did in 2016 is water over the dam.

If libs want to act like children over things that can't be changed, I guess that's just tough shit. President Trump will fight fire with fire.

And after Democrats do it to Trump, or whoever the next Republican President is, that too will become “water over the dam.” That’s the new Senate rule McConnell created, available to both sides.

He and Reid made this happen. Reid went nuclear first to move Obama's picks through. That's politics.

 

[rightwinger]

We have a court where conservatives support higher taxes on Americans and believe that no warrant is required for cellphone records. That is not a court that I want.

The SC rules based on the US Constitution. In the Constitution, Congress creates taxes, spending and laws. I don't know anywhere in the document that mentions cell phone records.

The Constitution talks about illegal search and seizure. You need a warrant to get phone records so cellphone records are no different. Conservatives ignored the Constitution in several of their decisions.

Search and seizure (at the time) meant that the government couldn't bust in your home, rip up the floorboards of your daughters bedroom looking for evidence against the state. Anybody that thinks cell phone communications are private is a total idiot.

Communications are over the air and can be intercepted

Your cell phone records are private

All your cell phone records can provide is who you called, who may have called you, and how much time you spent on the calls. Nothing too personal about that.

Important information if you are investigating a crime

They can also tell where the call was made from

 

[rightwinger]

I agree, but not with the big difference between the two elections. Yes, the "delay" over Garland was to allow the new President to make the pick. In this case, the senate's ability to confirm or deny the nomination is equally worthy for that argument.

In that case we would never be able to replace justices because we have an election every two years. The Republicans never held a justice back because of midterms. It's just a phony excuse because the Democrats are still pissed about the Republicans holding out until after a PRESIDENTIAL election.

Republicans set the precedent. Does not matter whether it is Presidential or Congressional elections. The Senate does play a role in judicial nominations.

They set a precedent for congressional elections when they didnt do it in an off year election. Got it. Wow, thats inane

You are inane. A election is a election.

Inane is word parsing, which is what you are doing. No one has ever advocated not having a supreme court pick in a non-election year. McConnell didn't either.

What you're arguing is oh, McConnell didn't have supreme court hearings in an election year. Well, an off year election is still an election year. Therefore he advocated that too.

No, you're an idiot.

And frankly, it was more narrow than that. Obama didn't have the votes. Trump did. Both parties would have confirmed the pick in an election year if they had the votes

Congress makes a lot of important decisions in an election year.

Nobody advocates they shut down in the last year “so the people can decide”

 

[rightwinger]

. And thanks to McConnell, that door can remain shut for years, if need be, until a Democrat wins the White House.

Nothing can be done about that now, what McConnell did in 2016 is water over the dam.

If libs want to act like children over things that can't be changed, I guess that's just tough shit. President Trump will fight fire with fire.

And after Democrats do it to Trump, or whoever the next Republican President is, that too will become “water over the dam.” That’s the new Senate rule McConnell created, available to both sides.

He and Reid made this happen. Reid went nuclear first to move Obama's picks through. That's politics.

But Reid specifically exempted Supreme Court selections

 

[Polishprince]

Congress makes a lot of important decisions in an election year.

Nobody advocates they shut down in the last year “so the people can decide”

Congress did make a decision on Garland- that he was too extreme of a choice even to justify a vote on.

President Obama should have withdrawn his name, and submitted the best pro-2nd Amendment, pro-life man available.

 

[hadit]

. And thanks to McConnell, that door can remain shut for years, if need be, until a Democrat wins the White House.

Nothing can be done about that now, what McConnell did in 2016 is water over the dam.

If libs want to act like children over things that can't be changed, I guess that's just tough shit. President Trump will fight fire with fire.

And after Democrats do it to Trump, or whoever the next Republican President is, that too will become “water over the dam.” That’s the new Senate rule McConnell created, available to both sides.

He and Reid made this happen. Reid went nuclear first to move Obama's picks through. That's politics.

But Reid specifically exempted Supreme Court selections

He opened the door to the majority party changing the rules to make it easier for them.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

Fair play?


Nanananabooboo?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate (2), and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

Annotations added

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint

And without consent, sorry...…..

you read what I wrote, didn’t you?

I included that as one of the first 3 steps in the process, all of which are required for the 4th and final step of appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.

you read what I wrote, didn’t you?

I did.

I included that as one of the first 3 steps in the process, all of which are required for the 4th and final step

So you already realize that without the Consent, there is no appointment. Excellent.

Had you understood what I wrote, you would have known I was aware of that when you first read it.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

He has authority to nominate, but the Senate gets the final say. And they said no. It was very sad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle.

You bet. The Dem majority leader can refuse to bring the nomination to the Senate floor.
Who is the Dem majority leader?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

GOP did it during a Presidential election year. It is not a Presidential election year. Not the same thing.

Doesn't have to be an election year. The new McConnell rule allows the Senate to refuse confirmation hearings to an elected president at any time for as long as desired by the Senate.

MSM doesn't control dissemination of information any longer. block, resist, and lose the next election.

Nope, the McConnell rule proved to be acceptable to the people. There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

Or about unelected Presidents.

 

[Polishprince]

You bet. The Dem majority leader can refuse to bring the nomination to the Senate floor.
Who is the Dem majority leader?

That's the whole point, the Democrat Party doesn't have the votes to stop the nomination of this fabulous choice.

The first step if they are interested is to win the Senate.

 

[rightwinger]

Congress makes a lot of important decisions in an election year.

Nobody advocates they shut down in the last year “so the people can decide”

Congress did make a decision on Garland- that he was too extreme of a choice even to justify a vote on.

President Obama should have withdrawn his name, and submitted the best pro-2nd Amendment, pro-life man available.

No, they did not make a decision
Mitch McConnell made that decision BEFORE Obama even nominated Garland. He stated he would not consider any nominee from Obama

Partisanship at its best

 

[rightwinger]

You bet. The Dem majority leader can refuse to bring the nomination to the Senate floor.
Who is the Dem majority leader?

That's the whole point, the Democrat Party doesn't have the votes to stop the nomination of this fabulous choice.

The first step if they are interested is to win the Senate.

I agree

In spite of Democratic showmanship, all Republicans will toe the line and confirm. 50-49

 

[Polishprince]

You bet. The Dem majority leader can refuse to bring the nomination to the Senate floor.
Who is the Dem majority leader?

That's the whole point, the Democrat Party doesn't have the votes to stop the nomination of this fabulous choice.

The first step if they are interested is to win the Senate.

I agree

In spite of Democratic showmanship, all Republicans will toe the line and confirm. 50-49

I think several Democrat senators will choose not to obstruct either.

Particularly those from Red States like WV and ND who are facing reelection

 

[iceberg]

Congress makes a lot of important decisions in an election year.

Nobody advocates they shut down in the last year “so the people can decide”

Congress did make a decision on Garland- that he was too extreme of a choice even to justify a vote on.

President Obama should have withdrawn his name, and submitted the best pro-2nd Amendment, pro-life man available.

No, they did not make a decision
Mitch McConnell made that decision BEFORE Obama even nominated Garland. He stated he would not consider any nominee from Obama

Partisanship at its best

and when biden was saying a lame duck president should not make these decisions - little did he know the ramifications of his words at the time, huh?

if the left would stop doing stupid shit for the right to copy maybe we could get somewhere.

 

[Avatar4321]

Republicans are the hypocrites. They refused to act on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland by saying that voters should decide in the election. This is a good example of how Republicans have abused their majorities.

They did decide in an election. Trump isn’t up for re-election until 2020. If the democrats have the senate they can hold things up then.

Can we stop with this phoney outrage? Garland didn’t have the votes to be appointed. He didn’t have the votes to beat the filibuster. Obama knew he didn’t have a chance to get him on the bench. He did it purely to politically motivate uneducated fools.

And let’s stop pretending that if a republican president had a Democrat senate during an election year you wouldn’t have done the same thing. The senate has a check on the presidents nominees for a reason. It’s not illegitimate to have the senate exercise that check

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate (3),[/COLOR] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

Annotations added

With Garland, the Senate didn't consent.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.

But no worries, karma is strong in politics. What goes around, comes around; and I have no doubt the day will come when the shoe will be on the other foot and then Democrats can invoke the McConnell rule.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.


And they were right.

Well then you’ll be ok with it when a Democrat-led Senate shuts out a Republican President at some point in the future, potentially for years.

Oh, yeah, because that wasn't a given from the outset, no matter what we do now.

Tell me, when Democrats have the Presidency and the majority in the Senate, how much time do they spend thinking about placating Republicans?