Should the Judiciary Hearing Be Scrapped & Just A Confirmation Vote Be Held?

[easyt65]

Usually I don't pay attention to anything Rush Limbaugh says because he is more often than not a pompous arrogant windbag....but I just read the headline talking about how Limbaugh made this suggestion.

He makes a great point - we know how this is going to go. In the coming confirmation hearings Democrats are going to do their very best to top their immoral, unethical, despicable assault they perpetrated against Kavanaugh.

The Kavanaugh hearings were a complete, disgusting, heinous waste of time...so why bother?!

Why put any candidate through such a despicable process when we already know in the end, even if the candidate displayed the wisdom of Solomon and walked on water, the Democrats would still NOT vote for them?

Complete the necessary legal background checks and just vote.

Everything from the moment the nominee is named to the moment the vote is held will be nothing but an immoral, unethical character / job / family / life assassination attempt by the Democrats who only want to prevent the vacancy from being filled by President Trump.

Why allow the Democrats do that to anyone?!

Limbaugh calls on Senate GOP to scrap Judiciary Committee hearing for Trump SCOTUS nominee

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should proceed directly to a vote on President Trump's forthcoming Supreme Court nominee without bothering to hold a confirmation hearing, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday.

www.foxnews.com

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

Why was my comment ironic?

That can't be a serious question....

'And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems'

Need a tissue?


If you haven't heard yet, Aussies just nominated Trump for his 3rd individual Nobel Peace Prize...

3 Nobel Peace Prize
2 USSC Justices
& 1 Re-Election...

WINNING!

BWUHAHAHAHA!

 

[FA_Q2]

Usually I don't pay attention to anything Rush Limbaugh says because he is more often than not a pompous arrogant windbag....but I just read the headline talking about how Limbaugh made this suggestion.

He makes a great point - we know how this is going to go. In the coming confirmation hearings Democrats are going to do their very best to top their immoral, unethical, despicable assault they perpetrated against Kavanaugh.

The Kavanaugh hearings were a complete, disgusting, heinous waste of time...so why bother?!

Why put any candidate through such a despicable process when we already know in the end, even if the candidate displayed the wisdom of Solomon and walked on water, the Democrats would still NOT vote for them?

Complete the necessary legal background checks and just vote.

Everything from the moment the nominee is named to the moment the vote is held will be nothing but an immoral, unethical character / job / family / life assassination attempt by the Democrats who only want to prevent the vacancy from being filled by President Trump.

Why allow the Democrats do that to anyone?!

Limbaugh calls on Senate GOP to scrap Judiciary Committee hearing for Trump SCOTUS nominee

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should proceed directly to a vote on President Trump's forthcoming Supreme Court nominee without bothering to hold a confirmation hearing, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday.

www.foxnews.com

easy, are you still to fucking lazy to read the Constitution? Your dumb ass needs to get a 4th grader to "advise" you about Article 2, Sec 2, Cls 2 to enlighten your ignorant ass about the "advise and consent " requirements in the Constitution; especially as it pertains to judges. Oh, and pass that on to that idiot Rush and your idiotic brethren who responded to the OP with such vacuous un-Constitutional suggestions!

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

What does Article 2 Section 2, Clause 2 specifically say that has caused to to write this?
Yes I am familiar with what it says -

It should be obvious to anyone who could read and understand what I cited from the OP and replied to in my oh so complex response. Obviously, you're having the same difficulty in your grasp of 18th Century English. If you are unable to comprehend those few words perhaps you can get together with easyT and share the time and costs of his 4th grade tutor!

So nothing.

So nothing.

So that will be your second out of two dodges? You fucks are such damn pitifully ignorant shits!

I'll make it easy on you and point you toward the Framers'explanation of "advise and consent". Hamilton wrote about that in The Federalist #75 & #76. Ever hear about checks and balances being part of the Constitution, Bunkey? Read those two arguments and learn something about the Law of the Land you ignorant fuck!

What advise and consent did Garland get?

It is The President that is to receive the advise and consent.
The Senate advised Obama not to nominate and consented to not holding a vote.

That’s a nice attempt to spin but no it was not congresses job to advise the President to not perform his constitutional duty... that’s not how the process was designed to work and you know it. Obama nominated a judge. It was congresses job to advise him on the pick and consent or not consent. Had they held a hearing and not consented through a vote then the president should then nominate somebody else. This is not what happened as we well know. The GOP side of Congress blankety stonewalled the nomination in the name of the election year and wanting the people to decide. Most of us knew then that their excuse was bullshit and it’s concretely confirmed now that it was bullshit as they all flat out lied. Get it?

You're right. Garland did not get his due hearings. Trey Gowdy has some advice for Joe, you, and other snowflakes:


'YOU SHOULD HAVE WON'
Trey Gowdy's message for Biden amid Supreme Court battle: 'Win elections'

That’s fine if that’s your view on how things should work. Just don’t complain next time the Dems take power and abuse it. You best believe that a move like this validates the Dems to add seats to the court and fill them should they take the majority

Nothing warrants packing the courts. That signals the absolute end to everything the judiciary stands for.

For me, that is no less a threat than the president refusing to pass power onto the next president. The fact the democrats even allow such an evil concept to pass their lips is strongly driving me to vote for republicans and do not kid yourself - they are not threatening this because the republicans are going to appoint a replacement for RGB. This is NOT the first time they have threatened such.

Your own words demonize the GOP with what they did to the courts over the last 8 years. Block Obama’s nominations and then expedite Trumps.

Adding two seats doesn’t pack the court it balances it. And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems

Yes what they did was wrong - they should have held a hearing. Beyond that, the shenanigans they pulled changed, quite literally, nothing at all. Garland was not going to get nominated. The answer to them doing something wrong is NOT burning the entire institution to the damn ground. That is absolutely nuts.

And yes, adding justices to ensure you control the court politics is the very definition of packing the court. How can you claim otherwise with a straight face?

It is massively ironic that you post this half a page later as well:

What are you in grade school? Do you think bad behavior from one side justifies it from the other?! Grow up. Have some
Back bone. Just an ounce of character and integrity

Why was my comment ironic?

That can't be a serious question....

'And given the shit Mitch pulled with Garland and then this pick those actions will be very justified by the Dems'

Need a tissue?


If you haven't heard yet, Aussies just nominated Trump for his 3rd individual Nobel Peace Prize...

3 Nobel Peace Prize
2 USSC Justices
& 1 Re-Election...

WINNING!

BWUHAHAHAHA!

.......

You may need to read that again.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If the Dems did what the GOP did then they would be just as wrong. And yes I have little doubt they would have done the same thing. Doesn’t make this situation any different

It's either Constitutional or un-Constititional. There is no "wrong". And expecting the Dems to follow some "rule" is stupid. In fact, I wish McConnell would ditch the filibuster rule now while the GOP has the majority, because the Dems are going to do it first chance they get.

What filibuster rule? There is no filibuster on judicial nominees.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

you're not paying attention. I’m not talking about Trump nominating somebody now. I’ve said over and over that he has that right. The game was what happened to Garland and the new precedent that Reps tried to set about nominating justices during an election year.... and then completely flip flopping on it during the next term. Obama should have gotten Garland and Trump should get this pick. We all know this

Yeah, I am trying to ignore your ignorance for the most part.

1. Garland is in the past...let it go.

2. What 'precedence' regarding nominating Judges in an election year' did the GOP set?

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has forced partisans to become experts on Supreme Court history.

www.vox.com

3. Yes, Garland should have gotten his hearings. Sadly, he didn't. Welcome to POLITICS.

And 'for the record, we both know if GBG would have bailed in September 2016 Barry and the Democrats would have broken their collective asses trying to fill the vacancy. Barry even said if one came available that he year he would have.

GBG??????????

 

[Diver Diva]

It's either Constitutional or un-Constititional. There is no "wrong". And expecting the Dems to follow some "rule" is stupid. In fact, I wish McConnell would ditch the filibuster rule now while the GOP has the majority, because the Dems are going to do it first chance they get.

What filibuster rule? There is no filibuster on judicial nominees.

I was referring to the legislative filibuster rule. The Dems are going to get rid of it the next time they control the Senate. Until then the spineless Republicans will sit on their hands, play by the rules and not get anything done and wait for the Dems to change the rules and ram everything down their throats.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How can the Dems change the filibuster and destroy the country? They are in the minority

They will if they ever get the majority again. And they will shred the Constitution if they ever control the Supreme Court.

How would they get the majority? If they are so evil and wrong then they surely won’t take back control, right? If the do win then isn’t that the will of the people talking?

with these power grab games the GOP just pulled to get two justices it would justify the Dems to drop the filibuster and add two more seats to the court, right? It would be legal and That’s how these games play out. You can’t cheer one side and condemn the other. You either support the games or you don’t

The people voted four years ago and that term doesn’t end until January. If the situation was reversed we all know damn good and well the Democrats would do the exact same thing and would tell the Republicans, too bad so sad but elections have consequences and I for one would be good with that. Fair is fair.

The people also voted 8 years ago to elect Obama for a second term and he had the right to nominate Garland. Congress had the responsibility to advise and consent and they failed hold a hearing or a vote. You can’t spin your way out of it. Graham’s quote says it all

And six years ago the people voted for a Republican Senate. No spinning just facts. The fact is if the situation was reversed the Democrats would act the same exact way because that’s what politicians do. I believe the GOP should have voted but they didn’t, bad move but that doesn’t change anything today. The GOP has the political advantage and they can do as they like.

No no no we’ve never seen anything this bad as far as obstruction. You can’t justify the GOPs abuse of power by presuming the Dems would have done the same. That’s BS

There was no obstruction, the Dems had no help in the Senate to push forward. The Senate was with in their rights. Nothing in the Constitution said it the had to put Garland to a vote. I dislike what they did, but there was nothing that required a vote. Reid did similar with bills from the House, but nothing required Reid present any of the Hose bills and it bit the Democrats under Obama and Garland and with this session of Congress. We don’t even have gridlock, we have egos screwing America over.

Don’t worry the Dems will escalate this when they do worse in their seeking revenge. My questions is where do the voters draw the line?

Just to clarify all this blather and white noise the left has always spewed about Merrick Garland and his "right" to a hearing and FORMER President Obama's "right" to have his nominee confirmed, and whatever-the-fuck-else they think they were entitled to:

There have been 15 nominations to the Supreme Court which were left hanging and simply allowed to lapse when the session of Congress ended.

John Crittenden was nominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. The Senate declined to vote on him, and the seat was eventually filled by Andrew Jackson's nomination of John McLean.

Roger Taney was nominated by Andrew Jackson in 1835, and the Senate declined to vote on him. President Jackson nominated him again in December of that year, when the composition of the Senate had changed, and Taney was confirmed.

Reuben Walworth was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him. Tyler eventually gave up and withdrew the nomination.

Edward King was nominated by John Tyler in 1844, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

John Tyler kept re-nominating Walworth and King, and the Senate just kept basically ignoring him entirely.

John Read was nominated by John Tyler in 1845, and the Senate declined to vote on him.

I could go on, and will if anyone insists, but let's hear no more about how the Senate is "obligated" to give hearings and votes to every nominee that every President puts forth. Pretty clearly, the Senate has always been seen to have the option of providing "advice and consent" by simply ignoring nominations they don't like. The example of President John Tyler tells us that this sort of interaction between a President and a Senate which are at odds with each other certainly has precedent.

I don’t believe they were obligated however by voting him down it would have looked better.

My thought is, if you have the advantage and the Republicans currently do, they need to seize it, and that goes for either party.

I think that now, AND I thought that then. It was nice to finally see the Republicans say, "Nope, we're not interested in confirming this guy, and we're not going to waste time pretending we might just to make nice with a bunch of jackals who are going to attack us in extremely nasty terms no matter what we do." And it's nice to see them now saying, "The people voted us into office for this, and this is what we're going to do. You guys don't waste any time pandering to us when YOU'RE in power, and there's no reason we should pander to you."

Republicans are always so afraid to say "fuck you" to the Democrats, because it might offend the voters. They never consider that the voters might like them better if they did it more often.

I think back to when Obama had the House and Senate and he made statements like get in the back of the bus, elections have consequences and other such divisive rhetoric. With Trump, they have impeachment in their minds and the Republicans never forgot it and now the Republicans are excerising their power that the voters gave them. Long gone is Clinton and Gingrich and Reagan and O’Neil. Now, it is not negotiable, not bending, no compromise.

The way it is now is a disaster after disaster waiting to happen. We shouldn’t stand for it

As long as we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans, we get what we get. The people have the power to vote but we elect disasters. Look at the last two cycles, Clinton, Trump, Biden, none are deserving.

Yes, but who else are you going to elect besides Democrats and Republicans who's going to be less of a disaster? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein?

No
We have a binary system.

Well, effectively we do. It doesn't really HAVE to be, but third parties and their candidates do a uniformly shit job of presenting themselves so that anyone sane can take them seriously. And the voters tend to find binary races simple and comfortable.

Effectively and literally
President Trump was Effectively a third party candidate who won the binary election.

Of course 3rd party people wanted an outsider just not that outsider (eye roll)

No, not literally. Remember Ross Perot? He did an excellent job of providing an independent candidate people could take seriously. Unfortunately, he couldn't maintain the appearance of a steady, serious candidate for the long haul. and he could have used a much more professional, efficient campaign.

All Perot did was help elect Clinton -
Image a world where those two had simply remained big fish in the little pond of Arkansas and the balance of the country had never been subjected to their level of evil.

He was their throw way candidate no big name wanted to compete against 41 until Perot and the infamy of "read my lips"

Who in the hell are you talking about? Perot was from Texas.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's either Constitutional or un-Constititional. There is no "wrong". And expecting the Dems to follow some "rule" is stupid. In fact, I wish McConnell would ditch the filibuster rule now while the GOP has the majority, because the Dems are going to do it first chance they get.

What filibuster rule? There is no filibuster on judicial nominees.

I was referring to the legislative filibuster rule. The Dems are going to get rid of it the next time they control the Senate. Until then the spineless Republicans will sit on their hands, play by the rules and not get anything done and wait for the Dems to change the rules and ram everything down their throats.

Thank you for clarifying!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Afraid that whatever looney bird is willing to stand for nomination and participate in this travesty might not be up to the standards we should expect of a SC justice? You ought to be.

How is this a travesty?

US gets a new more American judge. That's great news no matter how it is handled.

But that's not enough. Once president Trump wins I propose he stacks the court with devoted fanatical American justices.

Replace Roberts for his Epstein episodes,
Get rid of Kaegan for lying on her application
And impeach sotomyer for both racism and incompetence.

What the hell are you prattling about?