Possible Scenario

[sakinago]

Well it’d be that mixed with the fact that the GOP only did it when an election was months away, vs the left loosing another presidential election and taking their ball home with them for 4 years. This scenario wouldn’t even be close to what happened in 2016.

Oh. So where exactly is the time limit for this being acceptable?

Acceptable is whatever politically viable. Not sure the Dems would be able to hold onto the senate for 2 years if they announce holding out for 4.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Acceptable is whatever politically viable. Not sure the Dems would be able to hold onto the senate for 2 years if they announce holding out for 4.

Fine with me if they attempt to do so.

There's absolutely no rush for them to fill the court with someone they don't like with the precedent that has been set.

 

[sakinago]

Acceptable is whatever politically viable. Not sure the Dems would be able to hold onto the senate for 2 years if they announce holding out for 4.

Fine with me if they attempt to do so. The precedent has been set.

It was set with Bork. The left is good at setting precedents. You can thank Reid for doing away with the filibuster. Again the 2 situations aren’t comparable. Do you really want a country that only appoints judges when the senate and whitehouse are controlled by the same party.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Acceptable is whatever politically viable. Not sure the Dems would be able to hold onto the senate for 2 years if they announce holding out for 4.

Fine with me if they attempt to do so. The precedent has been set.

It was set with Bork. The left is good at setting precedents. You can thank Reid for doing away with the filibuster. Again the 2 situations aren’t comparable. Do you really want a country that only appoints judges when the senate and whitehouse are controlled by the same party.

How are they not comparable?

Republicans blocked Garland for 7.5 months. Therefore, Democrats block a Republican nominee.

 

[sakinago]

Acceptable is whatever politically viable. Not sure the Dems would be able to hold onto the senate for 2 years if they announce holding out for 4.

Fine with me if they attempt to do so. The precedent has been set.

It was set with Bork. The left is good at setting precedents. You can thank Reid for doing away with the filibuster. Again the 2 situations aren’t comparable. Do you really want a country that only appoints judges when the senate and whitehouse are controlled by the same party.

How are they not comparable?

Republicans blocked Garland for 7.5 months. Therefore, Democrats block a Republican nominee.

For 4 years right after an election? One is before an election, the other is after an election plus an additional 41 months.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Acceptable is whatever politically viable. Not sure the Dems would be able to hold onto the senate for 2 years if they announce holding out for 4.

Fine with me if they attempt to do so. The precedent has been set.

It was set with Bork. The left is good at setting precedents. You can thank Reid for doing away with the filibuster. Again the 2 situations aren’t comparable. Do you really want a country that only appoints judges when the senate and whitehouse are controlled by the same party.

How are they not comparable?

Republicans blocked Garland for 7.5 months. Therefore, Democrats block a Republican nominee.

For 4 years right after an election? One is before an election, the other is after an election plus an additional 41 months.

So you're arguing that it's not comparable because of the time frame.

Where exactly is this imaginary boundary that makes them different?

 

[2aguy]

Trump wins Whitehouse, Dems take over senate. RBG either dies or retires to deal with her ailing health. Does the Dem Senate refuse to confirm Trumps appointees?

They will never confirm any Trump appointee if they take the Senate...

This is why along with Trump, we sadly have to vote for every establishment, coward, back stabbing rino republican on the ticket..... this is a numbers game and Trump will need the Senate.

 

[2aguy]

It should depend on the nominee ... the CW on the two The Donald has already placed is favorable ... I've kinda been following and what little I've seen of their judicial opinions seems spot-on correct ... and they have voted against The Donald several times ...

The precedent is set ... Democrats are free keep the chair vacant if they chose ... let the voters weight in 2022 ...

Free for 4 years, that was not at all the precedent. It was like 4 months. And again it’ll leave the court as a republican majority. The court will not stop taking cases during the 4 years.

Doesn't matter.....Stare Decisis only matters to conservative Justices....the left wing activists in robes will rule however they want and over turn whatever they don't like.

 

[Jets]

Absolutely. Once one party sets a “standard”, the other will follow suit.

The standard was set with Robert Bork in the 80's...in fact rejecting qualified judges of opposing parties has come to te known as getting "BORKED"...Bork actually joked that his name is now an adjective e.g. "there goes another borked judge"

I get the point, but at least Bork got a vote. The problem is that the GOP made it ok to “Garland” a nominee.

 

[2aguy]

The democrat senate would approve a very moderate or progressive judge.....but not conservative.

They won't do that......they have pulled the mask off completely.....look to them to even impeach Kavanaugh and a slew of other judges Trump appointed...... they are no longer even pretending to care about the law, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights......naked power grabs are all they are now.

 

[sakinago]

It should depend on the nominee ... the CW on the two The Donald has already placed is favorable ... I've kinda been following and what little I've seen of their judicial opinions seems spot-on correct ... and they have voted against The Donald several times ...

The precedent is set ... Democrats are free keep the chair vacant if they chose ... let the voters weight in 2022 ...

Free for 4 years, that was not at all the precedent. It was like 4 months. And again it’ll leave the court as a republican majority. The court will not stop taking cases during the 4 years.

Doesn't matter.....Stare Decisis only matters to conservative Justices....the left wing activists in robes will rule however they want and over turn whatever they don't like.

Wrong, only matters to leftist judges masquerading as conservative judges. Roberts goes against his own goddamn decisions to help the left out. It’s lunacy.

 

[colfax_m]

Do you really want a country that only appoints judges when the senate and whitehouse are controlled by the same party.

No. But that’s that country we have now.

 

[sakinago]

Do you really want a country that only appoints judges when the senate and whitehouse are controlled by the same party.

No. But that’s that country we have now.

Whoa whoa, waiting 4 years after an election to appoint a nominee isn’t extreme for you?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I get the point, but at least Bork got a vote. The problem is that the GOP made it ok to “Garland” a nominee.

absolutely, because once a party starts a standard the other follows suit

 

[colfax_m]

Do you really want a country that only appoints judges when the senate and whitehouse are controlled by the same party.

No. But that’s that country we have now.

Whoa whoa, waiting 4 years after an election to appoint a nominee isn’t extreme for you?

Yeah. Waiting a year for Merrick Garland was extreme too.

If Clinton had won in 2016, do you think a Republican Senate would have voted on her nominee?

 

[ReinyDays]

Huhwhat? Roberts might as well be a democratic appointee. The other 4 are basically a solid granite voting bloc that always come down the same way.

Roberts voted to uphold the Texas abortion law, but it was struck down anyway (5-4 I think) ... now he just recently voted to strike the Louisiana abortion law down even though the two were almost carbon copies of each other ...

He cited stare decisis explicitly ...

 

[sakinago]

Do you really want a country that only appoints judges when the senate and whitehouse are controlled by the same party.

No. But that’s that country we have now.

Whoa whoa, waiting 4 years after an election to appoint a nominee isn’t extreme for you?

Yeah. Waiting a year for Merrick Garland was extreme too.

If Clinton had won in 2016, do you think a Republican Senate would have voted on her nominee?

Yeah, they in fact said they would. It was half a year btw, not a year.

 

[colfax_m]

Do you really want a country that only appoints judges when the senate and whitehouse are controlled by the same party.

No. But that’s that country we have now.

Whoa whoa, waiting 4 years after an election to appoint a nominee isn’t extreme for you?

Yeah. Waiting a year for Merrick Garland was extreme too.

If Clinton had won in 2016, do you think a Republican Senate would have voted on her nominee?

Yeah, they in fact said they would. It was half a year btw, not a year.

From Wiki:
After a period of 293 days, Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017 at the end of the 114th Congress.[95] On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[96] On April 7, 2017, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Neither of us are completely correct but it was longer than 6 months.

Did McConnell ever say they’d vote on a Clinton nominee? Cruz, Burr and a few others said they had no intention.

 

[sakinago]

Huhwhat? Roberts might as well be a democratic appointee. The other 4 are basically a solid granite voting bloc that always come down the same way.

Roberts voted to uphold the Texas abortion law, but it was struck down anyway (5-4 I think) ... now he just recently voted to strike the Louisiana abortion law down even though the two were almost carbon copies of each other ...

He cited stare decisis explicitly ...

Yeah I know it’s beyond reason. Stare decisis apparently only applies to rules that came down on the liberal side of the court. He also agreed that Obama’s DACA EO was unlawful, but basically ordered trump to continue to be unlawful because he didn’t like trumps rational that the EO was unlawful. You have to shake the stupid out of your head when you hear Roberts decisions.

 

[Mac1958]

Absolutely. Once one party sets a “standard”, the other will follow suit.

Yep. Like children. "He did it first!"