Then vs. Now: An RBG vs. Merrick Garland comparison

[DGS49]

A. The 2016 Presidential election was shaping up as much as a vote on the future of the USSC as on the Presidency itself. Hence, it made sense to allow the voters to decide. Had HRC won, she could have nominated anyone she liked, and that person would have been confirmed.

B. Republicans are FAIR in their treatment of Democrat nominees. When the person nominated is arguably qualified, they consent. Note the nomination of RBG herself. A known Left-wing radical, she was confirmed with only three dissenting votes, even though the REPUBLICANS DID NOT WANT HER ON THE COURT. Therefore, had HRC won, she could have nominated anyone she wanted - even Barry O'Bama - and he would have been confirmed, regardless of what happened in the election for the Senate. On the other hand, Democrats are despicable in their treatment of Republican nominees, and had they taken the Senate (and Trump won), they would have forced him to nominate a "moderate" like Souter.

C. At the time when Senator McConnell decided to non-consider Judge Garland, HRC was a prohibitive favorite to win the November 2016 election. Some "reputable" sources had Trump's chances at 10 to one. In fact, there was a good chance that the WH and the Senate would both shift to the Democrats. Today's Media treatment of McConnell's choice in 2016 conveniently forgets this fact.

D. Donald Trump was elected specifically to replace RBG with a Conservative. NO ONE expected her to go four more years, whether via retirement or expiration. It was presumed that Trump would have the opportunity to replace her. It was only her own obstinacy - witness her reported dying wish - that prevented her from retiring when any rational person would have retired.

E. A Conservative USSC Justice is no threat to the laws and Constitution, as a Leftist judge is. S/he will not make up new Constitutional rights, create new meanings for longstanding laws, find new principles never before seen. WHOEVER Trump nominates, it will not be an "activist." Not so with a Leftist Justice.

 

[Moonglow]

Such a bizarre apology tour for Republicans that have the gall to actually believe they are the saviours of the Universe..

 

[rightwinger]

Nice try

But the denial had nothing to do with Garland. McConnell announced he would not consider any Obama nominee BEFORE Obama nominated Garland.

He said nothing about an opposition party holding the Senate. ONLY that it was inappropriate to consider a SCOTUS appointment in an election year.

That was 10 months before the election.
Now, 45 days before the election, he is trying to rush an appointment

 

[Mac1958]

There is no need to (try to) defend or justify this. It is what it is, and no one should be surprised at what's happening.

This country is just in a really, really bad place right now.

 

[Obiwan]

Nice try

But the denial had nothing to do with Garland. McConnell announced he would not consider any Obama nominee BEFORE Obama nominated Garland.

He said nothing about an opposition party holding the Senate. ONLY that it was inappropriate to consider a SCOTUS appointment in an election year.

That was 10 months before the election.
Now, 45 days before the election, he is trying to rush an appointment

That's politics, dumbass....

In the words of your magical cock-sucking messiah, "Elections have consequences"...

 

[wamose]

The biggest difference is Obama was a lame duck President and Trump isn't. If this were happening 4 years from now, Democrats would have a comparable bitch. But in reality, Trump has a much greater probability of appointing a constitutionalist than Biden. Just look at Kagan and Sotomayor to see the kind of agenda driven, activist judges that Biden would appoint. No thanks. MAGA, viva Trump

 

[Mr Natural]

Let the excuses begin.

 

[rightwinger]

On the other hand, Democrats are despicable in their treatment of Republican nominees, and had they taken the Senate (and Trump won), they would have forced him to nominate a "moderate" like Souter.

All Republican nominees received a confirmation hearing and right to defend their candidacy. In cases where a nominee was not confirmed, the sitting President was allowed to provide a replacement.

Obama was told he would not be allowed to fill the seat even before he made a nomination. Garland, a moderate, was not even given the courtesy of a hearing.

 

[rightwinger]

The biggest difference is Obama was a lame duck President and Trump isn't. If this were happening 4 years from now, Democrats would have a comparable bitch. But in reality, Trump has a much greater probability of appointing a constitutionalist than Biden. Just look at Kagan and Sotomayor to see the kind of agenda driven, activist judges that Biden would appoint. No thanks. MAGA, viva Trump

What is a lame duck?
Anyone in their last four years is technically a lame duck.

In this case, Republicans had not even had a primary or named a candidate.

 

[Obiwan]

The biggest difference is Obama was a lame duck President and Trump isn't. If this were happening 4 years from now, Democrats would have a comparable bitch. But in reality, Trump has a much greater probability of appointing a constitutionalist than Biden. Just look at Kagan and Sotomayor to see the kind of agenda driven, activist judges that Biden would appoint. No thanks. MAGA, viva Trump

What is a lame duck?
Anyone in their last four years is technically a lame duck.

In this case, Republicans had not even had a primary or named a candidate.

So you slept through the Republican Convention???

 

[DGS49]

There appears to be no such thing as a "moderate." These Leftists promise to be fair and rational during the hearings, then revert to knee-jerk form once seated. Kagan and Sotomayor are just the latest examples in a long line. The only "moderate" on the Court now is Roberts, who appears to give precedent more weight than the clear meaning of the Constitution.

See E. above. A Conservative is no threat to any law or to the Constitution. The same cannot be said of Leftists.

 

[Obiwan]

On the other hand, Democrats are despicable in their treatment of Republican nominees, and had they taken the Senate (and Trump won), they would have forced him to nominate a "moderate" like Souter.

All Republican nominees received a confirmation hearing and right to defend their candidacy. In cases where a nominee was not confirmed, the sitting President was allowed to provide a replacement.

Obama was told he would not be allowed to fill the seat even before he made a nomination. Garland, a moderate, was not even given the courtesy of a hearing.

Again, the Republicans (the opposing party) controlled the Senate, and got to call the shots there, dumbass....

Elections have consequences.....

 

[rightwinger]

The biggest difference is Obama was a lame duck President and Trump isn't. If this were happening 4 years from now, Democrats would have a comparable bitch. But in reality, Trump has a much greater probability of appointing a constitutionalist than Biden. Just look at Kagan and Sotomayor to see the kind of agenda driven, activist judges that Biden would appoint. No thanks. MAGA, viva Trump

What is a lame duck?
Anyone in their last four years is technically a lame duck.

In this case, Republicans had not even had a primary or named a candidate.

So you slept through the Republican Convention???

Try to keep up

I am referring to Garland in 2016
Republicans had not even named a candidate

 

[rightwinger]

On the other hand, Democrats are despicable in their treatment of Republican nominees, and had they taken the Senate (and Trump won), they would have forced him to nominate a "moderate" like Souter.

All Republican nominees received a confirmation hearing and right to defend their candidacy. In cases where a nominee was not confirmed, the sitting President was allowed to provide a replacement.

Obama was told he would not be allowed to fill the seat even before he made a nomination. Garland, a moderate, was not even given the courtesy of a hearing.

Again, the Republicans (the opposing party) controlled the Senate, and got to call the shots there, dumbass....

Elections have consequences.....

Has nothing to do with the process

In this case, Republicans are ADMITTING the appointment of SCOTUS judges is strictly political and has nothing to do with the qualification of the candidate.

 

[Obiwan]

On the other hand, Democrats are despicable in their treatment of Republican nominees, and had they taken the Senate (and Trump won), they would have forced him to nominate a "moderate" like Souter.

All Republican nominees received a confirmation hearing and right to defend their candidacy. In cases where a nominee was not confirmed, the sitting President was allowed to provide a replacement.

Obama was told he would not be allowed to fill the seat even before he made a nomination. Garland, a moderate, was not even given the courtesy of a hearing.

Again, the Republicans (the opposing party) controlled the Senate, and got to call the shots there, dumbass....

Elections have consequences.....

Has nothing to do with the process

In this case, Republicans are ADMITTING the appointment of SCOTUS judges is strictly political and has nothing to do with the qualification of the candidate.

And I assume that you're saying the DEMOCRATS don't consider a candidate's political leanings when they nominate them for the SCOTUS????

What a dumbass!!!!

 

[Fueri]

In the halls of power things happen according to who has power.

in 2016 I was against the blocking of Garland. Stated it clearly here. That was a bastardization of the process. The ends certainly served the conservatives, but, IMO the underpinnings of our government were, and are, more important. We're watching that be shredded in hyper speed and the results are not good. In fact those results are playing out in the evolution of a system of government that was neither the vision of the framers nor is in any way functional.

I have zero doubt either that if the dems were in the driver's seat right now they'd be ramming through whoever they could. To assume or state otherwise is absurd. Watching the shit show/tantrum they've embarked on over the past 4 years because they lost an election has been disgusting. Trump is transitory, their evolution into whatever they hell they have become in the red-faced continual rage over their losing is not.

A President has every right to appoint a nominee for a vacancy that happens during their term. The only debate should be over whether or not the Senate has an obligation to hold a vote and, if so, within what time frame. End of story. Trump should nominate and he will. And there will be a vote. We'll watch a total shitstorm of nonsense from here till there and the dems are already plotting their 'revenge' against the actual constitutional process, which is just an extension of the last 4 years of utter embarrassment from them as a party.

 

[2aguy]

There is no need to (try to) defend or justify this. It is what it is, and no one should be surprised at what's happening.

This country is just in a really, really bad place right now.

But will be in a much better place if Trump wins...the economy will recover, the peace process in the middle east will go forward and China and Russia will be kept in check...all of that goes away if biden wins...

 

[2aguy]

On the other hand, Democrats are despicable in their treatment of Republican nominees, and had they taken the Senate (and Trump won), they would have forced him to nominate a "moderate" like Souter.

All Republican nominees received a confirmation hearing and right to defend their candidacy. In cases where a nominee was not confirmed, the sitting President was allowed to provide a replacement.

Obama was told he would not be allowed to fill the seat even before he made a nomination. Garland, a moderate, was not even given the courtesy of a hearing.

Again, the Republicans (the opposing party) controlled the Senate, and got to call the shots there, dumbass....

Elections have consequences.....

Has nothing to do with the process

In this case, Republicans are ADMITTING the appointment of SCOTUS judges is strictly political and has nothing to do with the qualification of the candidate.

Wrong......the people on Trump's list are all highly qualified.......

 

[rightwinger]

On the other hand, Democrats are despicable in their treatment of Republican nominees, and had they taken the Senate (and Trump won), they would have forced him to nominate a "moderate" like Souter.

All Republican nominees received a confirmation hearing and right to defend their candidacy. In cases where a nominee was not confirmed, the sitting President was allowed to provide a replacement.

Obama was told he would not be allowed to fill the seat even before he made a nomination. Garland, a moderate, was not even given the courtesy of a hearing.

Again, the Republicans (the opposing party) controlled the Senate, and got to call the shots there, dumbass....

Elections have consequences.....

Has nothing to do with the process

In this case, Republicans are ADMITTING the appointment of SCOTUS judges is strictly political and has nothing to do with the qualification of the candidate.

Wrong......the people on Trump's list are all highly qualified.......

The point is being able to fill a seat in an election year

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong......the people on Trump's list are all highly qualified.......

So was Merrick Garland