Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Faun]

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

Probably. But there are a couple of moderate female Republican Senators who could vote against Kavanaugh if he appears eager in overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

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President Obama should have withdrawn his name, and submitted the best pro-2nd Amendment, pro-life man available.

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.

Biden never said that.

 

[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 (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?

Well Democrats confirmed Kennedy in an election year, so who knows what your point is? Unless your point is, Republicans can’t trust Democrats because they would do the same; even though they didn’t.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

Biden never said that.

Do you ever bother to research anything? True, that's 10 seconds of your life you won't ever get back. But it may help you not look like such a dumbass.
Joe Biden’s 1992 opposition to lame-duck Supreme Court pick could doom Obama nomination

 

[Auld Phart]

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

 

[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.

Biden never said that.

you funny, faun.

biden did say that. sorry it disrupts the balance of your universe but that was his intent. now if you think it's stupid then say so when the left starts this shit and then the right won't have precedence to go off of.

 

[busybee01]

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.

You know that Marxist Elena Kagan was nominate right at the 2010 congressional election, right Comrade?

Do you grasp that we are NOT changing presidents this time around? Trump will appoint regardless.

Stalinists, stupid as dog shit, but not as pleasant to be around..

You are a fascist pig.

The Senate has a role to play so it is legitimate to wait until after the midterms.

It's legitimate? When has the Senate ever stopped an appointment over midterms before?

When has a nominee ever languished 9 months before a President leaves office. 2016. The midterms are 4 months away. If things are so good for Republicans then what does it matter.

 

[Faun]

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.

Who said cave? How about following the precedent set over 227 previous years of holding confirmation hearings for an elected president’s nominee with so much time remaining in their term?

 

[busybee01]

Some bully pulpit with 42 percent approval

Dems played that card in 2016 and voters did not care that the court sat empty. What makes you think they will care in 2020?

People just didn't want to see a Commie Court. Your side is a huge threat to freedom in this country and more and more people are realizing it, especially since some in your party consider Cortez the new face of the DNC; an admitted Socialist.

The real difference is how each side vents their anger. When your people get upset, they have protests, riots, attacking patrons in a restaurant, attacking children eating a hamburger, and by the time elections come around, you vented.

With us, we hold our anger in like a wife who's husband totally forgot their anniversary. But we don't burn down businesses, attack police officers.......we let all our anger out when we go vote. A hurricane or tornado can't stop us because we're so pissed.

So again, if your Senators want to rile up our base, then all we can do is let them.

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.

To get phone records from the phone company you had to get a court order. To get a person's mail you had to get a court order. Why should cellphones and e-mails be any different. Any judge who does not respect that is unfit to be a judge.

 

[Thinker101]

People just didn't want to see a Commie Court. Your side is a huge threat to freedom in this country and more and more people are realizing it, especially since some in your party consider Cortez the new face of the DNC; an admitted Socialist.

The real difference is how each side vents their anger. When your people get upset, they have protests, riots, attacking patrons in a restaurant, attacking children eating a hamburger, and by the time elections come around, you vented.

With us, we hold our anger in like a wife who's husband totally forgot their anniversary. But we don't burn down businesses, attack police officers.......we let all our anger out when we go vote. A hurricane or tornado can't stop us because we're so pissed.

So again, if your Senators want to rile up our base, then all we can do is let them.

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.

To get phone records from the phone company you had to get a court order. To get a person's mail you had to get a court order. Why should cellphones and e-mails be any different. Any judge who does not respect that is unfit to be a judge.

I dunno, let's ask Hillary.

 

[Faun]

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.

You mean if they act like Republicans did while Obama was president?

 

[busybee01]

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.

I never heard of such a campaign. When did it start?

Grassley tries to nudge Supreme Court justices into early retirement

McConnell aims to reshape courts in case Senate flips

From your first link:

“So my message to any one of the nine Supreme Court justices, if you’re thinking about quitting this year, do it yesterday.“

Your second link didn't even mention Kennedy.

Please don't waste my time Googling the internet to find something to support your point if you yourself are not going to read them to understand they don't.

We know who they were talking about. Clearly Republicans are worried about retaining the Senate. Idiots like you are the ones who have no clue what is going on. Trump has even reached out to Kennedy and his family. Wonder why.

 

[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.

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.

Biden never said that.

Do you ever bother to research anything? True, that's 10 seconds of your life you won't ever get back. But it may help you not look like such a dumbass.
Joe Biden’s 1992 opposition to lame-duck Supreme Court pick could doom Obama nomination

Moron, try quoting Biden saying Bush would not get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice....

 

[bendog]

People just didn't want to see a Commie Court. Your side is a huge threat to freedom in this country and more and more people are realizing it, especially since some in your party consider Cortez the new face of the DNC; an admitted Socialist.

The real difference is how each side vents their anger. When your people get upset, they have protests, riots, attacking patrons in a restaurant, attacking children eating a hamburger, and by the time elections come around, you vented.

With us, we hold our anger in like a wife who's husband totally forgot their anniversary. But we don't burn down businesses, attack police officers.......we let all our anger out when we go vote. A hurricane or tornado can't stop us because we're so pissed.

So again, if your Senators want to rile up our base, then all we can do is let them.

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.

To get phone records from the phone company you had to get a court order. To get a person's mail you had to get a court order. Why should cellphones and e-mails be any different. Any judge who does not respect that is unfit to be a judge.

an interesting question, and perhaps not surprisingly one that Gorsuch has interesting views that support your view. The traditional, pre-internet test revolved around whether one had an expectation of privacy about a communication. We all know our browsing history is an open book. If you signup for facebook, your profile is an open book. Somewhere is someone who knows by screename and its match to my email. And my email registration reveals my identity. I know someone can match all that, yet I post.

 

[Faun]

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Until after the election. Now compare that to what McConnell did when he told Obama in February, 2016, with 10 months remaining in his term, that he wouldn’t get to replace Scalia, period. Not before the election. Not after the election.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

Biden never said that.

Do you ever bother to research anything? True, that's 10 seconds of your life you won't ever get back. But it may help you not look like such a dumbass.
Joe Biden’s 1992 opposition to lame-duck Supreme Court pick could doom Obama nomination

Moron, try quoting Biden saying Bush would not get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice....

Really?! You obviously didn't read the link. Let me help.

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

 

[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.

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.

Biden never said that.

you funny, faun.

biden did say that. sorry it disrupts the balance of your universe but that was his intent. now if you think it's stupid then say so when the left starts this shit and then the right won't have precedence to go off of.

No he didn’t. Biden suggested postponing confirmation hearings until after the election, just a few months away. McConnell shut down confirmation hearings for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

 

[Auld Phart]

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Until after the election. Now compare that to what McConnell did when he told Obama in February, 2016, with 10 months remaining in his term, that he wouldn’t get to replace Scalia, period. Not before the election. Not after the election.

Until after the election.

after the election, it would be the incoming presidents choice of Justice.

you keep losing, and yet you continue sticking your foot in your mouth.

 

[busybee01]

Still haven't gotten tired of playing this... lol



Though I definitely would like the confirmation to occur before Oct. 1, I do see a massive conservative turnout if Kavanauch's nomination became a midterm issue. Sure, the left (DEM) would also have a massive referendum turnout but I'd be very comfortable with the conservative's (GOP) odds in that scenario...

The problem is that the seats where Republicans are in trouble have strong suburban components. The Supreme Court nomination brings Roe vs Wade into the forefront which is a loser for Republicans at this time. It ends up helping Republicans. Worth noting that Democrat Connor Lamb was for Roe vs Wade and FOR restrictions.

 

[bendog]

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.

Biden never said that.

you funny, faun.

biden did say that. sorry it disrupts the balance of your universe but that was his intent. now if you think it's stupid then say so when the left starts this shit and then the right won't have precedence to go off of.

No he didn’t. Biden suggested postponing confirmation hearings until after the election, just a few months away. McConnell shut down confirmation hearings for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

Bork had already been rejected and Biden was talking about taking up another nomination for the same seat. There's no comparison between Garland and the Kennedy nomination. However, there's no presidential election in 18. Trump won. So, there's also no basis to deny him the opportunity to have a second nominee voted up or down.

Mitch changed the rules with Garland. But that issue is not really at play.

If Kavenaugh can get all gop votes besides McCain, the vulnerable dems should jump on the bus. If he can't convince Collins he's good with Roe and Casey, then he should be voted down. It's not a hard question, imo.