The Dems may not like what the GOP Senators consider "disqualifying" going forward

[Auld Phart]

So? The Democrats find more women to cry rape until January.

and if he nominates a woman?

Then Democrats deny trump confirmation hearings for the next 2 years.

based on butthurt?

You know, the McConnell rule of denying a sitting president confirmation hearings until a new president is sworn in.

Biden rule

You already confirmed it’s not the Biden rule when you admitted Biden never suggested the sitting president be denied appointing a replacement for the remainder of his presidency; like McConnell did.

Obama was on his way out, no matter how the election went.
The next president, D or R, should have been tasked with the replacement

Bush was not, tho the election proved otherwise.

Biden stated that the nomination of a new justice, because of retirement, death, etc, be left up to the incoming president.


History a problem for you?

or just not suit you?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Great, let’s see you do what no other rightie could... quite Biden saying Bush will never get a confirmation hearing on any nominees for the remainder of his presidency....

It was during G.H.W. Bush's last year (1992) that stalled the retirement of Blackmun and allowed Breyer to be his replacement. So, yeah. That is exactly what Biden was doing.

 

[Hiryuu]

It’s a rule now. Now, it’s acceptable to not hold confirmation hearings for the duration of a president’s terms.

No it isn't a rule, because no rule was ever changed. Majority Leader McConnell didn't have to change any rule, because he had the power necessary without changing a rule.

That's not going to change a rule that doesn't exist (no one is required in any way to do what Majority Leader McConnell did with the Garland nomination), however many times you say otherwise.

 

[Hiryuu]

They ceded that ground when they denied a sitting president his Constitutional authority to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

No, just using the biden rule.

There is no Biden Rule, because what Biden did was make a speech and had nothing to do with rules.

However, what failed to happen is President Obama failed to nominate an Associate Supreme Court Justice that could make it through the Senate. The duties/responsibilities are defined in the rules. President Obama made his nomination, and Senate Majority Leader McConnell acted within the existing Senate rules.

The Constitution states the President gets to nominate/appoint, not confirm, an Associate Supreme Court Justice, and he did. The Constitution states the Senate gets to make its own rules, it had, and none of them were changed. Both the President and Majority Leader McConnell were following the Constitution, and the existing rules that applied at the time.

The problem is that any argument otherwise is partisan politics full swing.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Democrats controlled the Senate when Sotomayor and Kagen were appointed. Republicans couldn’t withhold confirmation hearings then.

Republicans voted to confirm and didn't threaten a filibuster.

On this issue, the Rs have the moral high ground in motherfucking spades.

They ceded that ground when they denied a sitting president his Constitutional authority to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

No, just using the biden rule.

Great, so let’s see you quote Biden saying Bush should be denied confirmation hearings for the rest of his presidency so the next president could pick the new justice....

Bush?! Lol.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no Biden Rule, because what Biden did was make a speech and had nothing to do with rules.

Rumors that William Rehnquist and/or Harry Blackmun were considering retirement were circulating during that time. Remember, the last confirmed GOP Justice was none other than Clarence Thomas.

Neither Rehnquist nor Blackmun announced retirement after Joe Biden's comments (threats). There would have been a vacancy for as much as 10 months had one of them retired.

Biden made his intent known and prevented the retirement of at least one justice.

EDIT: (White was the one who actually retired first)

 

[g5000]

After the dems put up such a circus against Kavanaugh, one of the most qualified candidates in history, what repercussions can the dems expect from the GOP going forward. IMHO any "sexual misconduct" (including bringing the big dog out) is one, any "juvenile transgression" (theft, underage drinking, etc.), any drug use, including marijuana, any DUI, any PFA, any felony, etc.

I'm sure the FBI or Senate investigators could find something disqualifying on any and all democrat nominees going forward. If they can even find anyone to run that gauntlet.

I'm fine with sexual misconduct being a disqualifier to be a judge.

I don't know what the whining is about by the psuedocons. After all, they believed being black was a disqualifier for being President.

Karma's a *****.

 

[g5000]

The Republicans wouldn't give Merrick Garland so much as a hearing. Then they changed the Senate rules, creating an all new precedent for approving Supreme Court Justices, thereby watering down the whole point of the Senate even more.

Now they are whining about the consequences of their actions!

They wanted a nuclear war, and they got one.

 

[rightwinger]

I think we need to go even further
Congress has shown it is incapable of keeping partisanship out of the process. 75 percent is unachievable in today’s climate

Both parties should nominate a justice and let the people decide. Terms should be limited to 12 years

The idea of term limits has some merit, but I don't think it is essential to destroy the particular problem we are experiencing.

I think problem exists the most in 51% being a goal, that in itself, supports a two party strangle hold on our current political climate. If 51% is all that is required, then that is a motivator to run towards one side or the other. It forces people to group in situations that may not accurately represent a fair picture of their true political leanings and actual desires, in order for them to more or less do the best they can to keep someone else from doing something, instead of representing what each voters actually wants.

To require a supermajority (75% may be a little steep for the people who just want to fight, and 67% may be more suitable), could allow (no guarantee it will), the opportunity for people to find (or group in) additional parties that more closely represent their own concerns. Then those parties could work together to find the common ground necessary to produce more responsible legislation. I am not trying to fix things so they can get screwed up again, but make it so people are forced to come up with solutions where a simple divide won't accomplish much more than one team versus another.

I also don't want to suggest that I would expect anything to be easily accomplished, because I am not looking for a fast solution as much as a better solution, whether it may be legislation, appointments, or politics in general. I don't care if they don't do crap in Washington DC, and I am more interested in ensuring what they do manage to accomplish, better serves everyone.

If Washington DC cannot manage to get something done, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution indicates the states, or the people themselves, can choose to govern what they think is necessary.

The selection of Judges for the Supreme Court

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

He was?

Don't remember reading anything about him being 'disqualified'.

You just heard the usual from the left. When they lose a milestone, they try to hang a millstone around the right's neck with what is known as a "self-fulfilling prophecy." With this literary device, they create a scenario they want (usually to get rid of the best conservative they can by any means possible), build a castle in Spain around it, and enough people will fall for it until it comes true. However, like beating a dead horse, the self-fulfilling prophecy device has been used one too many times, and the American voters are getting a little more savvy, except the ones who fell for the Ford tearjerking thespian play of lying her ass off while making it seem believable by employing even more communication anomalies known best by real Hollywood stars to make people love them when they play heroines, longsuffering victims, or heroes, whichever shoe fits the act. It's all smoke and mirrors when they're behind. I hope that is the final toss in this attempted character assassination that went south on the Democrat Party.

Her story had more credibility than Kavanaughs choirboy claims
Everyone who knew him tells of a party animal who was a mean drunk

 

[The Original Tree]

How about simply, Revenge for Bork , Thomas and now Kavanaugh?

 

[rightwinger]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

Ask Biden why Garland was disqualified.

Biden supported Garland and still does

Show where Biden ever advocated a Supreme Court seat lay vacant for a year

 

[rightwinger]

Ask Garland why he was disqualified

He was?

Don't remember reading anything about him being 'disqualified'.

Yes he was. He was disqualified for being a nominee of Obama's.

pretty much.

McConnell, AND Biden, felt that the nomination should be delayed til after an upcoming presidential election, giving the new, or incoming president, the chance to name their own Justice.

Biden talked weeks before an election, McConnell stretched that to one year

Now, all bets are off and an opposing party is under no obligation to allow a seat to be filled

The McConnell Rule

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Republicans wouldn't give Merrick Garland so much as a hearing. Then they changed the Senate rules, creating an all new precedent for approving Supreme Court Justices, thereby watering down the whole point of the Senate even more.

And, why did they do that?

Now they are whining about the consequences of their actions!

You mean the Dems are whining about the consequences of elections?

They wanted a nuclear war, and they got one.

Who started it?

THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS WANTING TO GET THEIR WAY NO MATTER WHAT IT COSTS.

Look, there are plenty of reasons to shit on the GOP. I am not defending them one bit. This is not one of them.

Remember Robert Bork?

"Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

"'Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.'"

See Wiki.

They were able to force Reagan/Bush to pick a moderate (Anthony Kennedy)(which I am glad we had). Then, Souter was a complete leftist. Reagan felt like he had no choice. The Dems threw a fit and got their way.

But, when G.H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, they started the bullshit again.

This is 100% on the Dems. They are the assholes here.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Biden supported Garland and still does

Show where Biden ever advocated a Supreme Court seat lay vacant for a year

Ummm......Bruh.....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Biden talked weeks before an election, McConnell stretched that to one year

Now, all bets are off and an opposing party is under no obligation to allow a seat to be filled

The McConnell Rule

Ummm.....Bruh.....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

Delaying the retirement of at least one justice.

 

[hadit]

Oh, yes, the feeble Garland defense. What was he accused of again?

Being an Obama nominee.

That's enough to destroy a life, for sure, but how's that the Republican's fault?

Who blocked his confirmation hearings if not Republicans?

Blocking his hearing was wrong, as I have maintained all along. It did not, however, destroy his life, family, or career.

Did not destroy his career? Hello? He was not able to sit on the Supreme Court! I'd say that is a pretty big ******* blow to one's career.

Only a few judges get to sit on the SC, yet the rest manage quite successful careers. Garland's reputation and integrity are intact, his family doesn't have to deal with idiots calling him all sorts of vile, undeserved names, he can continue what he was doing with the additional caveat that he can honestly say he was nominated to the SC, an honor very few can claim. So, if you want to whine that Garland was as damaged as how much democrats are trying to damage Kavanaugh, you're arguing a really stupid point.

 

[hadit]

No, by telling a sitting president he would not be allowed to seat any more Supreme Court justices for the remainder of his presidency.

Majority Leader McConnell didn't have to tell the President anything, the vote wasn't happening, because he wasn't bringing it to the floor and had the power necessary to make it so.

And future Senate Majority Leaders will have no problem doing the same thing. Leave a seat unfilled until you have a President from your party

Not sure about this, saw it in a post. But suppose that Garland's voting record was 95% in line with Kavanaugh's. IMHO that nominee could get support from both sides. If a president recognizes the reality that he won't get anyone approved except a moderate that might help get nominees thru even a partisan Senate of the opposite party.

The pseudocons were told that Garland was an extreme far left judge. They blindly parroted that without knowing ****-all about him.

and the liberals are now running with the RAPIST mantra and don't know **** about him either other than their "side" doesn't want him in - now go attack them in the streets as waters and other liberal leaders condone.

That's the ticket. Kavanaugh wasn't even accused of rape, yet the idiots are calling him a rapist. Sad, sad day indeed.

 

[iceberg]

Majority Leader McConnell didn't have to tell the President anything, the vote wasn't happening, because he wasn't bringing it to the floor and had the power necessary to make it so.

And future Senate Majority Leaders will have no problem doing the same thing. Leave a seat unfilled until you have a President from your party

Not sure about this, saw it in a post. But suppose that Garland's voting record was 95% in line with Kavanaugh's. IMHO that nominee could get support from both sides. If a president recognizes the reality that he won't get anyone approved except a moderate that might help get nominees thru even a partisan Senate of the opposite party.

The pseudocons were told that Garland was an extreme far left judge. They blindly parroted that without knowing ****-all about him.

and the liberals are now running with the RAPIST mantra and don't know **** about him either other than their "side" doesn't want him in - now go attack them in the streets as waters and other liberal leaders condone.

That's the ticket. Kavanaugh wasn't even accused of rape, yet the idiots are calling him a rapist. Sad, sad day indeed.

they take any port in a storm and go straight to max drama. any attempt to say "slow down" results in getting insulted and attacked as well.

 

[hadit]

Oh, yes, the feeble Garland defense. What was he accused of again?

Being an Obama nominee.

That's enough to destroy a life, for sure, but how's that the Republican's fault?

Who blocked his confirmation hearings if not Republicans?

Blocking his hearing was wrong, as I have maintained all along. It did not, however, destroy his life, family, or career. No one accused him of misconduct, no one sent the FBI to interview people about allegations from his childhood, no one came out of the woodwork with tales carefully crafted so as to be almost impossible to verify, and on it goes. Aside from being associated with Obama, nothing negative happened to him, as no one used anything from his life and career as a reason to vote against him.

Contrast that with the concerted attempt to personally destroy Kavanaugh by any means necessary and possible. It seems that you're trying to equate the two and excuse what's going on as a consequence. That's ludicrous.

You play with the cards you’re dealt. Democrats didn’t have a hand where they had any control over blocking Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

And that's as it should be, because they lost the election. So, instead of playing the hand they had, they decided attempting to destroy Kavanaugh personally was a great idea, hoping to gin up emotions from the emotional crew against him instead of factual, reasoned opposition. They've tainted themselves for a long time with this.

And trying to compare what Kavanaugh is going through to Garland's experience is still ludicrous. Garland was simply a victim of political circumstance and was treated respectfully. Kavanaugh is not. Garland will simply be himself the rest of his life. Kavanaugh will undeservedly have idiots calling him a rapist.