Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Cecilie1200]

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.

If the Democrat Party wins the Senate in November, that's exactly what we'll have.

Regardless of what President Trump were to do this evening.

Do you think if Trump waited until after November to name Mark R. Levin to the Supreme Court, he'll suddenly be acceptable to the Far Left?

Of course not, that's why the President is going to push this right through before Labor Day.

So? Other seats are likely to open up in the near future. Democrats can shut the door to replacing them if they win. And thanks to McConnell, that door can remain shut for years, if need be, until a Democrat wins the White House.

Uh huh, and somehow, we're supposed to believe that if we cave and kowtow to Democrats now, that's not going to be the case anyway.

 

[hadit]

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President Obama should have withdrawn his name, and submitted the best pro-2nd Amendment, pro-life man available.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

No disagreement here. They didn't want to hold the vote because there would likely have been little in the way of reasonable opposition. That being said, they should have held the vote, and should do so now as well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If Trump wanted to be a complete and utter boss, he'd say that he's waiting until after the 2018 mid-terms are over so that he can nominate anyone he wants, since the republicans will pick up seats in the 51. "I don't want to have to worry about getting Susan Collins' vote, so we'll just easily sail someone through at the beginning of 2019 with 55 or so republicans votes in the Senate.

It would stand a small chance at backfiring but man, that would be a such a pimp-ass move.

Not true. The Senate is fully in play. That is why Republicans started a campaign to get Kennedy to retire now before the midterms.

Yeah, because tons of political shenanigans are necessary to get an 80-year-old man to decide to retire.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans set the precedent. Does not matter whether it is Presidential or Congressional elections.

It doesn't matter to you simply because your party is not in the White House or in control of the Senate. The precedent of which you speak referred to an upcoming presidential election and that the voters should be able to choose the president who will make the next appointment. We already know which president is making the nomination.

I don't have a party. Ronald Reagan would not be a part of the Trump Republican Party. I am going to be fighting to get rid of the Trump Republican Party including something I never have nor ever thought I would need to do. Vote for a Democrat.

You're "outraged" that the Republicans aren't conservative enough for Ronald Reagan, and your response is to vote for a Democrat? Yeah, we're all totally buying that.

Don't ever wonder why the world laughs at you in derision, hon.

 

[oreo]

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.

The Republican Senate majority isn't that big, it's only 1 vote, and they wiould like to have a bi-partisan confirmation. They used the nuclear option on Niel Gorsuch, but John McCain complained about that, because what it did was insure that when Democrats are the majority in the Senate they will now use the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees--with an excuse that Republicans did it..

So Republicans may decide NOT to use the nuclear option in this instance--because they know it eventually will get shoved up a dark spot someday in the future. So they may insist on the 61 vote threshold--which they don't have.

Go back to post # 511 on this thread for a better explanation. It's just politics 101

 

[oreo]

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?

I know you don't like to get your nose rubbed into anything--but post 511 is exactly what happened, and now Democrats are going to play the same card. There is only a 1 vote Republican majority in the Senate so I imagine they will succeed in getting it done. I don't think the Nuclear option will work this time around.

 

[iceberg]

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.

The Republican Senate majority isn't that big, it's only 1 vote, and they wiould like to have a bi-partisan confirmation. They used the nuclear option on Niel Gorsuch, but John McCain complained about that, because what it did was insure that when Democrats are the majority in the Senate they will now use the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees--with an excuse that Republicans did it..

So Republicans may decide NOT to use the nuclear option in this instance--because they know it eventually will get shoved up a dark spot someday in the future. So they may insist on the 61 vote threshold--which they don't have.

Go back to post # 511 on this thread for a better explanation. It's just politics 101

i don't think it matters what the repubs do here. if the liberals have a chance to get their way by going nuke, they'll do it. to expect the other side not to do it is ludicrous.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

Partisanship at its best

no

that was Reid lying about Romney

 

[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

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

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

Possible

If it is obvious they do not have the votes to block, many will vote to approve

 

[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

Partisanship at its best

no

that was Reid lying about Romney

Had nothing to do with Romney

 

[rightwinger]

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

McConell made it clear he would not consider any OBama nominee as soon as Scalia died

There is no evidence that Democrats would have done the same. Democrats have a long history of supporting nominees from a Republican President

The only motivation was to stop the court from turning liberal

 

[oreo]

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.

The Republican Senate majority isn't that big, it's only 1 vote, and they wiould like to have a bi-partisan confirmation. They used the nuclear option on Niel Gorsuch, but John McCain complained about that, because what it did was insure that when Democrats are the majority in the Senate they will now use the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees--with an excuse that Republicans did it..

So Republicans may decide NOT to use the nuclear option in this instance--because they know it eventually will get shoved up a dark spot someday in the future. So they may insist on the 61 vote threshold--which they don't have.

Go back to post # 511 on this thread for a better explanation. It's just politics 101

i don't think it matters what the repubs do here. if the liberals have a chance to get their way by going nuke, they'll do it. to expect the other side not to do it is ludicrous.

Republicans have their own fears going into the midterm election cycle. This link will explain it. The general public is pissed off, and if people show up to vote this coming November it's looking very ugly for Republicans. IOW the last thing they want to do is shove another Trump nominee down the public's throats by using the nuclear option. I think they will insist on the 61 vote threshold, in order to keep the peace. They don't have 61 votes.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

Now the interesting thing about Kavanaugh is this, and it makes perfect sense why Trump wants him to be the next SCOTUS.

A decade later, after Kavanaugh had worked closely with President George W. Bush, he wrote in a law review that he had new appreciation for the demands of the presidency and the toll any legal proceeding could take on the White House. He recommended presidents be shielded from civil and criminal litigation until they leave office."Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job is," he wrote, "I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible." He acknowledged that blocking litigation would suggest the President was "above the law," but he added that "the point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office."Kavanaugh noted in the 2009 Minnesota Law Review piece that a check against a "bad-behaving or law-breaking President" would still exist. "If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available."

Who is Brett Kavanaugh? Washington insider has said presidents should be shielded from litigation while in office - CNNPolitics

There is not a snowballs chance in hell, that Democrats will vote for a SCOTUS nominee that is on record for stating that President's shouldn't be investigated or litigated until after "they're out of office."

 

[Faun]

. 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.

Reid went nuclear because Republicans were being obstructionists and blocking everything they could with Obama, without even knowing what they were blocking. There’s an infamous pledge Republicans made obstruct everything Obama did. Whereas McConnell went nuclear when Democrats lined up to block Gorsuch.

But like I said earlier, in politics, what goes around, comes around. Sometimes it takes decades, like for some Republicans, impeaching Clinton was payback for trying to impeach Nixon. That took 24 years. Sometimes, payback is quicker. Reid pulled the nuclear option in 2013, McConnell paid Democrats back and pulled the nuclear option in 2017.

At some point, Democrats will be in control of the Senate with a Republican President when a Supreme Court seat opens. Could happen next year or it could happen years from now. But it will happen. And don’t be surprised if Democrats do as McConnell and tell the president, sorry, but you don’t get to replace a Supreme Court Justice as the Constitution avails. Even if that president has 6 years potentially remaining in their presidency.

 

[Faun]

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.

You’re lying. Republicans did not make a decision on Garland — they made a decision on Obama. They rejected Garland before he was even nominated, declaring they were not going to give confirmation hearings to anyone Obama nominated.

 

[Faun]

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.

They said no to Obama, not to his nominee. Payback’s a bitch. Remember that in the next year or so if Democrats take control of the Senate and a Liberal seat on that bench opens up.

 

[Faun]

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.

McConnell made it about elected presidents when he said the people should decide the next president to pick Scalia’s replacement; while taking that honor away from an elected president with 21% of his term remaining. Until then, that had never happened before.

 

[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.

Reid went nuclear because Republicans were being obstructionists and blocking everything they could with Obama, without even knowing what they were blocking. There’s an infamous pledge Republicans made obstruct everything Obama did. Whereas McConnell went nuclear when Democrats lined up to block Gorsuch.

But like I said earlier, in politics, what goes around, comes around. Sometimes it takes decades, like for some Republicans, impeaching Clinton was payback for trying to impeach Nixon. That took 24 years. Sometimes, payback is quicker. Reid pulled the nuclear option in 2013, McConnell paid Democrats back and pulled the nuclear option in 2017.

At some point, Democrats will be in control of the Senate with a Republican President when a Supreme Court seat opens. Could happen next year or it could happen years from now. But it will happen. And don’t be surprised if Democrats do as McConnell and tell the president, sorry, but you don’t get to replace a Supreme Court Justice as the Constitution avails. Even if that president has 6 years potentially remaining in their presidency.

It wouldn't surprise me at all. The only thing that can break that cycle is principled politicians willing to put the long term good of the country ahead of their own short term gain (like that will happen) or the people exerting enough political pressure on elected officials to force them into sanity. People have to care enough the next time elections roll around to remember the power grabs and punish the grabbers.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

Partisanship at its best

no

that was Reid lying about Romney

Had nothing to do with Romney

 

[hadit]

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.

They said no to Obama, not to his nominee. Payback’s a bitch. Remember that in the next year or so if Democrats take control of the Senate and a Liberal seat on that bench opens up.

If that happens, I predict total gridlock imposed by petulant democrats.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

McConell made it clear he would not consider any OBama nominee as soon as Scalia died

There is no evidence that Democrats would have done the same. Democrats have a long history of supporting nominees from a Republican President

The only motivation was to stop the court from turning liberal

Democrats have a long history of supporting nominees from a Republican President

Biden comes to mind.