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

[hadit]

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

Exactly. The Republicans forced the Democrats into a corner when the Republicans went nuclear.

The Republicans wanted a nuclear war, and they got one.

And, as is usually the case in politics, it was the democrats who first went nuclear by voiding the long standing filibuster tradition on most bench appointments. They opened the door most of the way, the Republicans smashed it open the rest of the way and the democrats are now complaining that the draft is too strong.

 

[hadit]

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

It's the same players on the Republican side, Senator Flake was the one who urged Garland shouldn't get a hearing or be confirmed unless Hillary Clinton won the election (Senator Hatch signed on to that idea afterwards). Senators Murkowski and Collins pushed for hearings prior to the election.

It's like walking around the block to get next door.

So? Garland was still denied a hearing. Republicans gambled and it paid off for them. Now Democrats are gambling.

Gambling on what?

there will be a new president elected in 2020?

Gambling on Kavanaugh not getting confirmed.

and the next will be better/worse/same as Kavanaugh?

Even if the Democrats take the senate. Trump has until the next senate is seated to nominate a Justice.

and that doesnt' happen til 2 months AFTER the election

That is true. Tick them off enough and they may just ran through whoever they want.

 

[g5000]

Things we know the GOP does not consider to be disqualifying for office:

1. Pussy grabbing

2. Running a fake "university" to bilk senior citizens out of their retirement nest eggs.

3. Dodging the draft.

4. Denigrating POWs.

5. Denigrating soldiers who have died for their country.

6. Demanding we cut-and-and run from Iraq.

7. Donating millions to pro-abortion Democrats, including Terry McAuliffe.

8. Donating to the Clinton Foundation.

9. Being a birther.

10. Slandering one's opponents, even going so far as to accuse one's dad of killing JFK.

11. Calling for universal health care.

12. Demanding a ban on assault weapons and longer wait times to buy a gun.

13. Grabbing guns and then going through due process.

14: Running up trillion dollar deficits.

 

[hadit]

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

And no one she says was at the party backs up her claim.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I hope the next GOP nominee is a mouthy asshole who says that all gun laws and welfare programs are unconstitutional.

Then, I hope they ram that SOB through with no arguments or interviews. Just ram that dry, unlubed shit right up the Democrats' asses.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Things we know the GOP does not consider to be disqualifying for office:

1. Pussy grabbing

2. Running a fake "university" to bilk senior citizens out of their retirement nest eggs.

3. Dodging the draft.

4. Denigrating POWs.

5. Denigrating soldiers who have died for their country.

6. Demanding we cut-and-and run from Iraq.

7. Donating millions to pro-abortion Democrats, including Terry McAuliffe.

8. Donating to the Clinton Foundation.

9. Being a birther.

10. Slandering one's opponents, even going so far as to accuse one's dad of killing JFK.

11. Calling for universal health care.

12. Demanding a ban on assault weapons and longer wait times to buy a gun.

13. Grabbing guns and then going through due process.

14: Running up trillion dollar deficits.

Has nothing to do with the SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process.

I am not defending the GOP on any of that shit.

Democrats are the sole ass clowns on the topic at hand. If you can't admit that, you are not objective.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Shit. Repugs can't find anything incriminating against Dem nominees, They just refuse to hold hearings on them. If you're upset about the "circus", perhaps you should do a better job of vetting candidates. Surely you can do better than a dry drunk with anger management issues and no impulse control. Of course, the Trump administration is itself a dysfunctional circus, with staff and cabinet members being fired and replaced at an alarming rate.

 

[Hiryuu]

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)

All I posted is that then Chairman Biden stated his opinion, and it had nothing to do with rules. Whether or not a vacancy would have existed for 10 months would have depended on who the President nominated, and how Congress managed that nomination using the existing rules they already had.

Unless of course, if you would like to suggest the Democrats at the time were simply incapable of doing anything bi-partisan, of which I would have no reason to argue (mainly because it doesn't make a difference now), then go right ahead.

 

[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.

Shit. Repugs can't find anything incriminating against Dem nominees, They just refuse to hold hearings on them. If you're upset about the "circus", perhaps you should do a better job of vetting candidates. Surely you can do better than a dry drunk with anger management issues and no impulse control. Of course, the Trump administration is itself a dysfunctional circus, with staff and cabinet members being fired and replaced at an alarming rate.

I'm not even sure Kavanaugh is a dry drunk. He has the red splotchy face of an active drunk. Then there are the crying jags and the outbursts of anger. He's very emotionally unstable.

Seems to me he is a very wet and active drunk.

 

[rightwinger]

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.....

Republicans will reap what they have sown

Long respected rules of filling court seats are now a thing of the past

It is now majority rule and filling a seat is optional at the discretion of the Senate

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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)

All I posted is that then Chairman Biden stated his opinion, and it had nothing to do with rules. Whether or not a vacancy would have existed for 10 months would have depended on who the President nominated, and how Congress managed that nomination using the existing rules they already had.

Unless of course, if you would like to suggest the Democrats at the time were simply incapable of doing anything bi-partisan, of which I would have no reason to argue (mainly because it doesn't make a difference now), then go right ahead.

Here's what Joe said:
"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

That was 8 months after Clarence Thomas.

 

[rightwinger]

Kavanaugh got what he had coming

Republicans would have acted the same way

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Republicans will reap what they have sown

Long respected rules of filling court seats are now a thing of the past

It is now majority rule and filling a seat is optional at the discretion of the Senate

And, the Democrats started it. 100% the fault of the Dems.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Kavanaugh got what he had coming

Republicans would have acted the same way

They haven't in the past.

I hope they do going forward until it starts a goddamn war. Enough is enough.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Your list is too short.

You should have included "Lying to the Senate while under Oath."

Right now with Kavanaugh the GOP is between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Seems to me he is a very wet and active drunk.

Yet, he is the pick of the President. Either he gets a confirmation vote or he does not.

Don't have the votes? Tough shit.

Don't have the votes to stop it? Tough shit.

Use Senate rules to prevent Court appointments? Rules get changed.

The point of advice and consent is to determine qualifications. The guy sat on the 2nd highest court for more than a decade. The allegations against him are nearly 4 decades old.

This is Dems ONCE AGAIN trying to prevent the consequences of a presidential election.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans will reap what they have sown

Long respected rules of filling court seats are now a thing of the past

It is now majority rule and filling a seat is optional at the discretion of the Senate

And, the Democrats started it. 100% the fault of the Dems.

New ball game

The courts used to be off limits for politics and most justices were approved bilaterally almost unanimously

Now, the party line will hold, a mere majority to appoint and seats will sit empty for years

It is on the Republicans

 

[rightwinger]

Seems to me he is a very wet and active drunk.

Yet, he is the pick of the President. Either he gets a confirmation vote or he does not.

Don't have the votes? Tough shit.

Don't have the votes to stop it? Tough shit.

Use Senate rules to prevent Court appointments? Rules get changed.

The point of advice and consent is to determine qualifications. The guy sat on the 2nd highest court for more than a decade. The allegations against him are nearly 4 decades old.

This is Dems ONCE AGAIN trying to prevent the consequences of a presidential election.

Explain it to Garland

Kavenaugh got what he deserved, so did Thomas

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

New ball game

The courts used to be off limits for politics and most justices were approved bilaterally almost unanimously

Now, the party line will hold, a mere majority to appoint and seats will sit empty for years

It is on the Republicans

Bork.

I rest my case.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Explain it to Garland

Kavenaugh got what he deserved, so did Thomas

That's what I thought.