CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[sakinago]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

Please spare us, don't act like the democrats would not have done the same had the tables been turned. And they already have as shown in the article above. So either condem Biden actions, or accept that Congress acted in the way their constituents wanted them too.

 

[PredFan]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

Chickenshit? No, chickenshit would be if they acted on the nomination out of fear that people will criticise them. They are saying fuck you to 0bama and the left. Just like the left did to us for the last 8 years.

 

[sakinago]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

Chickenshit? No, chickenshit would be if they acted on the nomination out of fear that people will criticise them. They are saying fuck you to 0bama and the left. Just like the left did to us for the last 8 years.

I don't think it's wise or decent to act in the way the left and Obama has for the past 8 years. I couldn't stand Obama constantly belittling the right with his never ending straw man arguments and non-sequitars, and main stream media framing the narrative in his favor. I happen to believe strongly in the golden rule "do unto others", not give right back what they did to you. The country is too divided and both sides are too busy listening to what their own side is saying in one big circle jerk. So...to those on the left, can we come together on things like term limits, separation of powers, and other things like making sure the SCOTUS is voting strictly on constitutionality not whatever popular political flavor of the week is out there?

 

[2aguy]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

I think that one way they could fix the problem of the court...where every nomination is life or death between the two parties....appoint more justices to the court....the more justices, the more you have a possibility of diffusing the worst left wing crap on the court.....you might get more moderates, possibly more bickering among the justices...12 justices might be a good number....

 

[sakinago]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

I think that one way they could fix the problem of the court...where every nomination is life or death between the two parties....appoint more justices to the court....the more justices, the more you have a possibility of diffusing the worst left wing crap on the court.....you might get more moderates, possibly more bickering among the justices...12 justices might be a good number....

Or...just make sure they're doing what they're suppose to do, which is strictly voting on constitutionality, not political activism.

 

[2aguy]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

I think that one way they could fix the problem of the court...where every nomination is life or death between the two parties....appoint more justices to the court....the more justices, the more you have a possibility of diffusing the worst left wing crap on the court.....you might get more moderates, possibly more bickering among the justices...12 justices might be a good number....

Or...just make sure they're doing what they're suppose to do, which is strictly voting on constitutionality, not political activism.

That is hard to do....Republicans appoint justices and there is a 50/50 chance they turn lefty as they sit on the court.....lefty justices...stay hard core left wing and rule that way their entire careers....

 

[sakinago]

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

I think that one way they could fix the problem of the court...where every nomination is life or death between the two parties....appoint more justices to the court....the more justices, the more you have a possibility of diffusing the worst left wing crap on the court.....you might get more moderates, possibly more bickering among the justices...12 justices might be a good number....

Or...just make sure they're doing what they're suppose to do, which is strictly voting on constitutionality, not political activism.

That is hard to do....Republicans appoint justices and there is a 50/50 chance they turn lefty as they sit on the court.....lefty justices...stay hard core left wing and rule that way their entire careers....

True it is hard, but it is the solution to the problem and also what is supposed to be done. I don't really see diluting the votes in the SCOTUS as the best solution, since what you said would still exist, just in greater numbers.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

I think that one way they could fix the problem of the court...where every nomination is life or death between the two parties....appoint more justices to the court....the more justices, the more you have a possibility of diffusing the worst left wing crap on the court.....you might get more moderates, possibly more bickering among the justices...12 justices might be a good number....

Or...just make sure they're doing what they're suppose to do, which is strictly voting on constitutionality, not political activism.

That is hard to do....Republicans appoint justices and there is a 50/50 chance they turn lefty as they sit on the court.....lefty justices...stay hard core left wing and rule that way their entire careers....

True it is hard, but it is the solution to the problem and also what is supposed to be done. I don't really see diluting the votes in the SCOTUS as the best solution, since what you said would still exist, just in greater numbers.

If the jutices would judge based on the law (constitution) and not based on ideology, then it would not matter which president puts them on the bench.

 

[PK1]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees
Please spare us, don't act like the democrats would not have done the same had the tables been turned. And they already have as shown in the article above. So either condem Biden actions, or accept that Congress acted in the way their constituents wanted them too.

You have a good point; both major parties should play "fair" and do their jobs as elected officials for their job description.
Perhaps, we need to define "fair", such as a rule: "no SCOTUS nominations during a POTUS election year" ... regardless of which party holds Congressional majorities.

 

[PredFan]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

Chickenshit? No, chickenshit would be if they acted on the nomination out of fear that people will criticise them. They are saying fuck you to 0bama and the left. Just like the left did to us for the last 8 years.

I don't think it's wise or decent to act in the way the left and Obama has for the past 8 years. I couldn't stand Obama constantly belittling the right with his never ending straw man arguments and non-sequitars, and main stream media framing the narrative in his favor. I happen to believe strongly in the golden rule "do unto others", not give right back what they did to you. The country is too divided and both sides are too busy listening to what their own side is saying in one big circle jerk. So...to those on the left, can we come together on things like term limits, separation of powers, and other things like making sure the SCOTUS is voting strictly on constitutionality not whatever popular political flavor of the week is out there?

Hmm...good luck.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

 

[2aguy]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

 

[LoneLaugher]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

Of course you do. Dupe.

 

[FA_Q2]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

They had the power to not nominate him after the hearing. The only reason that I can find that they did not have a hearing was to give political cover to those members in contested races.

IOW, so they could effectively lie to the people. I do not find that 'their duty.' They should have had the balls to not only vote on his nomination but stand up for that vote when facing the voters.

 

[2aguy]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

They had the power to not nominate him after the hearing. The only reason that I can find that they did not have a hearing was to give political cover to those members in contested races.

IOW, so they could effectively lie to the people. I do not find that 'their duty.' They should have had the balls to not only vote on his nomination but stand up for that vote when facing the voters.

sorry....they did the right thing.......he did not belong on the court.

 

[sakinago]

Congress has no obligation at all to even address the pick.

Congress members should do their job.
Yes, Congress does not have to propose & pass legislation, but that's exactly what their job description is.
There's a reason the Constitution allows for 9 SCOTUS members and not 8 or 6 or 4.
Congress should uphold its responsibility for maintaining our system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch.
The Repub Congress members are liberal traitors.

The Constitution did not put number on the justices.....

I stand corrected. The Congress decides. However, Congress has set the # of justices at 9 since 1869, so the current Congress is breaking their "conservative" tradition (since 1869).
To not even review a qualified nomination for 9 months for partisan reasons sets a bad precedent, and is simply chickenshit.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees
Please spare us, don't act like the democrats would not have done the same had the tables been turned. And they already have as shown in the article above. So either condem Biden actions, or accept that Congress acted in the way their constituents wanted them too.

You have a good point; both major parties should play "fair" and do their jobs as elected officials for their job description.
Perhaps, we need to define "fair", such as a rule: "no SCOTUS nominations during a POTUS election year" ... regardless of which party holds Congressional majorities.

I mean the rules are already there, like what if Obama had a democratic controlled congress? Would you still agree with waiting until the next pres to make a nomination? Would you be any happier had this congress not blocked the voting on nominations, but instead voted no to every one of Obamas nominations until the end of his term (which is what would've happened)? The rules have a separation of powers in place, the POTUS makes nominations, the representatives of the people vote yes or no (congressmen), then the representatives of the state vote yes or no (senate). Congress writes and votes on bills, senate then votes on those bills, president gives a thumbs up or down unless 2/3 senate majority vote yes, then pres has no say. Then the bill goes to Supreme Court, court is suppose to determine whether or not it's constitutional. That's how it's suppose to work in a nutshell. There's no reason that 9 UNELECTED officials should be voting their political convictions, it is NOT their place! Their place is to reign in the government IF legislative and executive branches overstep their bounds according to the constitution/BOR, whether they're stepping on our personal rights, or our states rights.

 

[sakinago]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

Of course you do. Dupe.

Your not a very good op, you just respond with name calling to opposition. Some of us actually care about having the honest conversations that the left talks a big game about. You want to take your ball and go home, that's fine, just don't waste our time raining on our parade.

 

[sakinago]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

They had the power to not nominate him after the hearing. The only reason that I can find that they did not have a hearing was to give political cover to those members in contested races.

IOW, so they could effectively lie to the people. I do not find that 'their duty.' They should have had the balls to not only vote on his nomination but stand up for that vote when facing the voters.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees

Again I'll refer you to this little piece of recent history.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

Of course you do. Dupe.

Your not a very good op, you just respond with name calling to opposition. Some of us actually care about having the honest conversations that the left talks a big game about. You want to take your ball and go home, that's fine, just don't waste our time raining on our parade.

I asked for honesty. When I don't get it...i don't pretend to be pleasant,.

 

[sakinago]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

They should have voted on his confirmation, whether they confirmed him or not.

Sorry, I disagree.....a Supreme Court justice can make decisions for 20, 30 years......and those decisions get hard wired into our society.......if a political party has the power, they have the right to make those appointments according to what they see as important.......and not seating a justice is just as important...

Of course you do. Dupe.

Your not a very good op, you just respond with name calling to opposition. Some of us actually care about having the honest conversations that the left talks a big game about. You want to take your ball and go home, that's fine, just don't waste our time raining on our parade.

I asked for honesty. When I don't get it...i don't pretend to be pleasant,.

Get what exactly? You're own opinion fed back to you? I don't think you're looking for honesty.