Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[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.

Both parties used to put politics aside when it came to Supreme Court Justices
They deferred to the President in his choice unless there were specific critical objections

Republicans changed that process to where an opposing candidate will not even be considered while they hold the Senate. They invoked the nuclear option where only a majority is needed to confirm

Now they get to live under the same rules

Both parties used to put politics aside when it came to Supreme Court Justices
They deferred to the President in his choice unless there were specific critical objections

And then the Dems started Borking.

 

[Meister]

Back in the day, the president would nominate a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court.
There would be confirmation hearings and if the candidate WAS unqualified there would be a down vote.
The candidate was not disqualified because he leaned left or right....a couple of exceptions along the way.
Even Obama's far left leaning choices passed the muster and were voted through.
Trump can't even get a even shake with his choices. A well qualified candidate in Gorsuch had to use the nuclear option
to get confirmed. IMO it was a black eye on American politics when the nomination is more about the president and less about the nominee.
The sitting president does get his choice in judges, unless there is something very wrong for that nominee.
But, with the vetting, a bad choice wouldn't be considered.
Elections really do have consequences and the minority party just needs to go pound sand.

 

[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.

presidential election this year I haven't heard about?

Midterms are elections as well.

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 this case, the senate's ability to confirm or deny the nomination is equally worthy for that argument.

Senate is too close for that to matter all that much.

as before, if Dems take the Senate, how long are they going to hold up nominations?

til Trump is replaced, or til they are?

I would say it is a whole new ballgame

Once Republicans sat on a nomination for a year, why not two?
Why not three?

Affirming a Supreme Court Nominee is now strictly a political power play

 

[Silhouette]

Both parties used to put politics aside when it came to Supreme Court Justices
They deferred to the President in his choice unless there were specific critical objections

So it looks like Amy Barrett is our next Justice since she was already confirmed to the federal appeals system with democrats pitching in.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Both parties used to put politics aside when it came to Supreme Court Justices
They deferred to the President in his choice unless there were specific critical objections

Republicans changed that process to where an opposing candidate will not even be considered while they hold the Senate. They invoked the nuclear option where only a majority is needed to confirm

Now they get to live under the same rules

But a bad decision doesn't have to be repeated, does it? It was egregious what McConnell did. I don't agree with the Dems doing the same thing, even though their argument makes as much sense, I guess.

It is just one more excuse for refusing to get anything whatsoever done in Congress. This has to end.

A new precedent has been established
SCOTUS nominations are now political power plays

The genie is out of the bottle and we are not going back to the way things used to be

 

[rightwinger]

I don't know what the Dems are thinking here. Right now they have some leverage. They are in a position to push for a moderate conservative judge, with Collins and couple others preferring that kind of choice. The Republicans have great odds of picking up several more seats in the Senate as it is. If the blue wave crashes, which I believe it likely will, Trump could be in a position after the election to put Mike Lee or Ted Cruz on the court if he wanted. The Dems need to accept that Garland or someone like him will not be nominated. They need to work toward a moderate candidate and get the best deal they can.

Let’s see Trump nominate a moderate

I say chances are slim

 

[rightwinger]

Midterms are elections as well.

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.

Thank you, GOP Senate for starting this delaying tactic. Now live with your own creation.

I'll be telling you the same thing years from now when our Senate does the same to your President. The delay tactic used by Republicans was the presidential election--not midterms. Like always, you on the left lie like all hell.

All bets are off

Former courtesies of selecting a justice are now off the table.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Both parties used to put politics aside when it came to Supreme Court Justices
They deferred to the President in his choice unless there were specific critical objections

So it looks like Amy Barrett is our next Justice since she was already confirmed to the federal appeals system with democrats pitching in.

But look at Gorsuch, he got a unanimous voice vote in 2006 to get on the Tenth Circuit.
45 Dems voted against him in 2017.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

presidential election this year I haven't heard about?

Midterms are elections as well.

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 this case, the senate's ability to confirm or deny the nomination is equally worthy for that argument.

Senate is too close for that to matter all that much.

as before, if Dems take the Senate, how long are they going to hold up nominations?

til Trump is replaced, or til they are?

I would say it is a whole new ballgame

Once Republicans sat on a nomination for a year, why not two?
Why not three?

Affirming a Supreme Court Nominee is now strictly a political power play

I would say it is a whole new ballgame

Why?
The Senate never ignored a President's nominee before?

Affirming a Supreme Court Nominee is now strictly a political power play

It has been since 1987. The Republicans finally started playing in 2016.

 

[rightwinger]

The selection of a Supreme Court Justice used to be the last vestige of Civility between the parties. The most qualified Justice was the primary consideration.

Now, it is strictly political
Select the youngest and most politically extreme judge you can find
If you control the Senate......block the other parties nominee
Filling the Supreme Court with nine judges is no longer a priority
Filibuster is off the table

We cannot go back to the old way again

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The selection of a Supreme Court Justice used to be the last vestige of Civility between the parties. The most qualified Justice was the primary consideration.

Now, it is strictly political
Select the youngest and most politically extreme judge you can find
If you control the Senate......block the other parties nominee
Filling the Supreme Court with nine judges is no longer a priority
Filibuster is off the table

We cannot go back to the old way again

Yup.
The Dems are currently hoist with their own petard.

 

[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.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

 

[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.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

And how did that work out for Obama?

 

[Faun]

Hijacked the process? Barry Hussein was a lame duck who was term limited to a couple of months when the choice for SCOTUS came up. President Trump has 2 1/2 years left in his first term. Even if democrats want to re-invent the Constitution there is no precedent for waiting until after mid-term elections. Democrats have to put away their anger or seek professional help and live with the reality that President Trump will pick a nominee for the Supreme Court.

WTF are you talking about? Obama nominated Garland in March, 2016, with nearly a year to go in his term.

 

[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.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

Politicization of SCOTUS is the new norm

Confirming a new justice used to be a priority of the Senate to ensure nine judges were on the court

Republicans let the court function for a year with eight judges. What is the hurry now in filling the court?

 

[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.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

It happened before 2016, it'll happen in the future.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

It happened before 2016, it'll happen in the future.

It is the new norm

Hold Supreme Court seats open until the political climate is favorable

 

[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.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

It happened before 2016, it'll happen in the future.

Until then, no president has ever been denied a confirmation hearing to fill a seat on the Supreme Court after nominating a replacement with 10 months remaining in their presidency.

 

[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.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

It happened before 2016, it'll happen in the future.

It is the new norm

Hold Supreme Court seats open until the political climate is favorable

It's the McConnell rule. Keep that seat open until the next Democrat president gets elected.