- Moderator
- #41
Another Democrat "moderate" who doesn't know the Constitution.
WATCH: Manchin says he’ll vote "no" on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee no matter who it is | News Thud
Good for him. He is doing exactly what the Constitution says. You know. Like you guys did in 2016. Advise and Consent.
So 100% of the time Democrats have acted in your own self interest
100% of the time Republicans have acted in their own self interest
You keep calling them hypocrites, which is actually your own hypocrisy
That is the issue
No. You are unable to define the actual issue. It's sequence of events.
1. Unprecedented blocking of judicial nominees by McConnell. He doesn't deny this either.
2. Harry Reid, in response, ups the ante and abolishes the 60-vote rule for lower court nominees, setting another unfortunate precedent.
3. McConnell invents new rule (pretending that it was pre-existing, due to a statement by Biden, in 1992, 25 years ago, during a hypothetical discussion) and claims that the winner of the election should be the one who fills the vacancy and denies a sitting president his constitutional right.
Here are a few of the Republican's on this (16 quotes in the article)....
Senator Ted Cruz Quote: “Let the Election Decide”
Senator Lindsey Graham:“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
…This should be a decision for the people. Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.”
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Mitch McConnell Quote:“I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice.
“…If there’s a Republican President… and a vacancy occurs in the last year… you can say, Lindsay Graham said let’s let the next President, whoever that may be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.
2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican -S.C.)
“If it Was a Republican President…”“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in...
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland nomination March, 2016
“Do Not Start This Process…” (Merrick Garland Nomination)“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
“Lifetime Appointments in an Election Year…”“The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.)
“The American People Should Not Be Denied…”“I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.
During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.”
2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
“Partisan, Divisive Confirmation Battle…”“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) – Merrick Garland nomination
“The campaign is already underway. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Thom Tillis (Republican Senator, N.C.) about Obama’s Merrick Garland nomination
4. McConnell then employs the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees, setting yet another unfortunate new precedent.
5. McConnell reverses on his new rule, now claiming that a sitting president, with an election a month and a half away, should be the one to fill the vacancy.
And now? You're reduced to - "well, if you had the chance you would have done the same thing!" - do you realize how pathetic that sounds as a rebuttal?
The problem is...with each new precedent....all out blocking of judicial appointments; nuclear options 1 and 2; hypocritically changing the rules....you are setting new political playing fields where we used to be governed by time test bi partisan rules.
Where are you going to stop? Will you ever stop trying to justify it?
Here is what I wonder. What if the Democrats gain the White House and Senate both? They have some options:
1. Adding to the SCOTUS
2. Ending the fillibuster
3. SCOTUS term limits
- all perfectly legal and absolutely constitutional.
SHOULD they do this? Using your reasoning - YES, given the excuses you've made for all of the above.
Much as I'd LIKE, no scratch that - LOVE them to do that out of retaliation - it's a REALLY BAD IDEA. Just like what you guys did, and the precedents you have set.
Abolishing the filibuster or applying simple majority rules across the board would abolish any need to compromise or work with the other side and allow for sweeping legislative changes being passed every time there is a new majority in control.
Adding to the SCOTUS - self explanatory on why that is a bad idea.
Scotus term limits is the only good idea - it would ratchet down the incredibly political pressure SCOTUS appointments represent.
But hey....you guys, along with Reid, set precedents and then flip flopped. Blatently, badly, and hypocritically.
Last edited: