Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Kondor3]

...Harry never did it, though. Handsome is as handsome does.

He opened the door as part of a threat sequence... he is, indeed, historically culpable.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——-/ DemocRATs grasping at straws. Funny stuff.

 

[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.

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.

But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate).

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

 

[rightwinger]

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.

What is the problem with having a Supreme Court of 6-8 for a few years while you wait for elections to go one way or another?

 

[rightwinger]

...Harry never did it, though. Handsome is as handsome does.

He opened the door as part of a threat sequence... he is, indeed, historically culpable.

It is McConnels baby

 

[rightwinger]

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.

But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate).

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

Yet new candidates were rapidly proposed and approved without impacting the court

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Obama said it best, if you want to have an impact "win an election"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate).

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

Yet new candidates were rapidly proposed and approved without impacting the court

Sometimes.
Sometimes waiting until the Presidency changed hands.
Sometimes waiting until the Senate changed hands.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate).

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

Yet new candidates were rapidly proposed and approved without impacting the court

Sometimes.
Sometimes waiting until the Presidency changed hands.
Sometimes waiting until the Senate changed hands.

Rarely

The process was to give nominees a hearing and they weren’t usually overwhelmingly confirmed regardless of political leaning

On rare occasions, a nominee was denied and the replacement was rapidly confirmed

Gorsich was a whole new ballgame and we will never go back to bipartisan confirmations

 

[candycorn]

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.

I agree.

Whomever is President should nominate a person to sit on the court….
Whomever runs the Senate should hold hearings…

That is the way it should be. I don’t care if it is 11:59 AM on inauguration day….

 

[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.

I agree.

Whomever is President should nominate a person to sit on the court….
Whomever runs the Senate should hold hearings…

That is the way it should be. I don’t care if it is 11:59 AM on inauguration day….

That is the way it used to be

I see no way of going back

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Good idea. Keep riling up our base until the midterms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Been doing it this way since the country started. The only reason Democrats don't like the EC now is because they can't win.

Pay attention, you dumbass. My statements have nothing to do with whether the electoral college system is an appropriate mechanism for choosing the President. The question is whether the election reflects the People's choice for Supreme Court nominations.

Well Dumbass, the people chose Trump as our President so yes, they chose his nominations as well.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Good idea. Keep riling up our base until the midterms.

The electorate does not care about filling court seats

They proved that in 2016

 

[rightwinger]

Been doing it this way since the country started. The only reason Democrats don't like the EC now is because they can't win.

Pay attention, you dumbass. My statements have nothing to do with whether the electoral college system is an appropriate mechanism for choosing the President. The question is whether the election reflects the People's choice for Supreme Court nominations.

Well Dumbass, the people chose Trump as our President so yes, they chose his nominations as well.

The people chose Obama in 2012 by an overwhelming majority vote. Republicans ignored their vote

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Been doing it this way since the country started. The only reason Democrats don't like the EC now is because they can't win.

Pay attention, you dumbass. My statements have nothing to do with whether the electoral college system is an appropriate mechanism for choosing the President. The question is whether the election reflects the People's choice for Supreme Court nominations.

Well Dumbass, the people chose Trump as our President so yes, they chose his nominations as well.

The people chose Obama in 2012 by an overwhelming majority vote. Republicans ignored their vote

Perhaps, but with the preponderance of Congress and Senate, it seems that his support was dwindling and buyers remorse set in by 2016. With Trump we continued that success so people's minds haven't changed much.

Basically people started turning against him because of Commie Care. All lies from saving $2,500 a year to better coverage for cheaper prices. If the results of Commie Care were known before 2012, Mickey Mouse could have beaten him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Good idea. Keep riling up our base until the midterms.

The electorate does not care about filling court seats

They proved that in 2016

Maybe not your electorate, but Trump will have the bully pulpit and I'm sure he will use it to tear Democrats a new asshole if his nominees are held up. The guy has a knack of being able to rile up our base as you have witnessed in the past.

 

[Faun]

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.

But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate).

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

The examples he gives...

Adams, 1828 - That came after the 1828 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016.
​

Tyler, 1845 - Tyler was not elected president and of his nominees, some had hearings, some did not and one was even confirmed. That is not like what Republicans did with Obama in 2016 where they announced they would not hold a confirmation hearing for Obama no matter who he nominated and they announced that before he even picked Garland.

Fillmore, 1852 - Not elected president and his first nomination came in August, 1852, three months before the election. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Buchanan, 1861 - Buchanan's nomination was made 3 months after the 1860 election and 1 month before he was leaving office.

Hayes, 1881 - That came after the 1880 election, not 8 months before it, like with Obama in 2016. Not like Obama who announced his nomination in March of the election year.

Johnson, 1968 - That was not like Obama in 2016. Johnson's nomination came in June of 1968, was the result of a justice retiring to hand LBJ the replacement, and Johnson's nominee was given a confirmation hearing.

So no, there has never been a circumstance like Obama's where a president, elected to a 4 year term which includes nominating Supreme Court replacements, was flat out denied a confirmation hearing no matter who he nominated with 10 months (21% of his term) remaining in office. And not even a rightwing source like the National Review can spin it to make it appear like this was nothing new.​

 

[rightwinger]

Been doing it this way since the country started. The only reason Democrats don't like the EC now is because they can't win.

Pay attention, you dumbass. My statements have nothing to do with whether the electoral college system is an appropriate mechanism for choosing the President. The question is whether the election reflects the People's choice for Supreme Court nominations.

Well Dumbass, the people chose Trump as our President so yes, they chose his nominations as well.

The people chose Obama in 2012 by an overwhelming majority vote. Republicans ignored their vote

Perhaps, but with the preponderance of Congress and Senate, it seems that his support was dwindling and buyers remorse set in by 2016. With Trump we continued that success so people's minds haven't changed much.

Basically people started turning against him because of Commie Care. All lies from saving $2,500 a year to better coverage for cheaper prices. If the results of Commie Care were known before 2012, Mickey Mouse could have beaten him.

By your logic, Trump lost the majority vote, so his choice should not be considered.

BTW....Obamacare is more popular than Trump

 

[rightwinger]

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

Good idea. Keep riling up our base until the midterms.

The electorate does not care about filling court seats

They proved that in 2016

Maybe not your electorate, but Trump will have the bully pulpit and I'm sure he will use it to tear Democrats a new asshole if his nominees are held up. The guy has a knack of being able to rile up our base as you have witnessed in the past.

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?