CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[WillowTree]

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

No. I refer to people like you as "you people", not to Americans.

That should be clear enough.

I'm actually the one standing up for the Constitution here while you and some other dystopian wags are standing for political party partisanship. That is indeed clear enough. Really lets us know who's on what side.

Matter of fact, take a look at the poll in this thread. Three times as many respondents stand for political partisanship as those who stand for Constitutional process.

That speaks volumes right there.

Cry us a lazy old river!

 

[WillowTree]

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

No. I refer to people like you as "you people", not to Americans.

That should be clear enough.

I'm actually the one standing up for the Constitution here while you and some other dystopian wags are standing for political party partisanship. That is indeed clear enough. Really lets us know who's on what side.

So where is the time frame? You got the passage yet?

You don't need a "time frame" when you already have an absolute statement plainly defying Constitutional process.

Well then, sit back and relax, they will get to it in due time.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

No. I refer to people like you as "you people", not to Americans.

That should be clear enough.

I'm actually the one standing up for the Constitution here while you and some other dystopian wags are standing for political party partisanship. That is indeed clear enough. Really lets us know who's on what side.

Matter of fact, take a look at the poll in this thread. Three times as many respondents stand for political partisanship as those who stand for Constitutional process.

That speaks volumes right there.

Again, what Constitutional process was not followed?

 

[peach174]

And you people are warring against it. Ergo, war, and the only purpose of war is to win, which you people won't.

Uh -- "you people"?

You're referring to "Americans" as "you people"?
Can't imagine what you call the Constitution then.

No. I refer to people like you as "you people", not to Americans.

That should be clear enough.

I'm actually the one standing up for the Constitution here while you and some other dystopian wags are standing for political party partisanship. That is indeed clear enough. Really lets us know who's on what side.

Matter of fact, take a look at the poll in this thread. Three times as many respondents stand for political partisanship as those who stand for Constitutional process.

That speaks volumes right there.

I see 9 that are for the Constitution and 3 that are not and the 9 see it that same way.

It's the Constitution that allowed the Repubs to do what they did, which was to delay the vote till after the Nov. 8th elections. All done legally.
The Senate will now vote on the Presidents choice, unless the Dems in the Senate decide to block it and or Repubs don't allow votes for Obamas pick or Repubs keep it on hold till after Trump is sworn in on January.
All done legally under the Constitution.

 

[B. Kidd]

Pogo got constitutionally 'schlonged'. Sometimes one is the 'schlongee', other times the 'schlonger'. Either way that it falls, it's okay as long as it's constitutional.

 

[peach174]

Pogo why was it fine when Senator Joe Biden wanted the same thing in 1992?

Senate Republican Policy Committee.
It was right back then as it is today to let the people decide with the next election.

 

[Faun]

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?

It was a bullshit move which forever changes the Senate's role in confirming judges. Now, the Senate can go a president's entire term, if they so choose, and not give a president's nominees a confirmation hearing.

But it worked in their favor and that's really all they care about. I won't be surprised if the GOP finds themself on the other side of that coin some day.

 

[Faun]

Pogo why was it fine when Senator Joe Biden wanted the same thing in 1992?

Senate Republican Policy Committee.
It was right back then as it is today to let the people decide with the next election.

Joe Biden never wanted the same. That's a false claim by many on the right. What Joe Biden wanted was for no nominees to be considered until after the election so that wouldn't have an effect on the election. If I recall, it amounted to about 60 days they would not have held a hearing.

Not the same thing at all.

 

[peach174]

Pogo why was it fine when Senator Joe Biden wanted the same thing in 1992?

Senate Republican Policy Committee.
It was right back then as it is today to let the people decide with the next election.

Joe Biden never wanted the same. That's a false claim by many on the right. What Joe Biden wanted was for no nominees to be considered until after the election so that wouldn't have an effect on the election. If I recall, it amounted to about 60 days they would not have held a hearing.

Not the same thing at all.

The basic idea behind it is the same . Bitterness & Divisiveness.
Why was 30 days fine just because it was closer to elections than a couple of months minus the summer hiatus of the S.C.?

 

[Spare_change]

Block is a liberal anti gun nut.

We already have 4 of these -- Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

We don't need another wacko like this.

We need less not more.

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.

That's one of the thing's I have never liked about the Repubs when they have been in power, they dont play defence.
For once they did the right thing and played defence for a change.
The people have spoken and we will continue to move more towards the middle rather than continuing to move more far left.
The Supreme Court will continue to reflect that ideology.

"Playing defense" is for politicking --- not governmenting. That's for campaign rhetoric. You don't hold my country hostage just so you can grab more power. That's a no-no. Period.

Put this on your bathroom mirror so you can see it every morning.

You will need to be reminded of it for the next four years.

 

[Faun]

Pogo why was it fine when Senator Joe Biden wanted the same thing in 1992?

Senate Republican Policy Committee.
It was right back then as it is today to let the people decide with the next election.

Joe Biden never wanted the same. That's a false claim by many on the right. What Joe Biden wanted was for no nominees to be considered until after the election so that wouldn't have an effect on the election. If I recall, it amounted to about 60 days they would not have held a hearing.

Not the same thing at all.

The basic idea behind it is the same . Bitterness & Divisiveness.
Why was 30 days fine just because it was closer to elections than a couple of months minus the summer hiatus of the S.C.?

No, the basic idea was not the same. Biden proposed holding off hearings for less than 60 days in the Senate, which never happened because no seat opened up, until after the election, at which time, they would hold hearings for Bush's nominees.

Whereas Republicans announced there would be no hearings for a seat that did open up for 11 months. At least one Senator said there would be no hearings at all had Hillary won.

 

[peach174]

Pogo why was it fine when Senator Joe Biden wanted the same thing in 1992?

Senate Republican Policy Committee.
It was right back then as it is today to let the people decide with the next election.

Joe Biden never wanted the same. That's a false claim by many on the right. What Joe Biden wanted was for no nominees to be considered until after the election so that wouldn't have an effect on the election. If I recall, it amounted to about 60 days they would not have held a hearing.

Not the same thing at all.

The basic idea behind it is the same . Bitterness & Divisiveness.
Why was 30 days fine just because it was closer to elections than a couple of months minus the summer hiatus of the S.C.?

No, the basic idea was not the same. Biden proposed holding off hearings for less than 60 days in the Senate, which never happened because no seat opened up, until after the election, at which time, they would hold hearings for Bush's nominees.

Whereas Republicans announced there would be no hearings for a seat that did open up for 11 months. At least one Senator said there would be no hearings at all had Hillary won.

The bigger cases had been heard before Scalia died.
Of the remaing before June recess only a couple or so tied. Those will be redone and with a full court.
The court has made the lighter cases first since it started in again this October, untill Christmas recess.
The ones upset are the voters for Dems who didnt win to make the court more left are making it into something bigger than it is and had the votes gone the other way the Repubs would be just as upset and making the same type of arguments.
Scalia will be replaced one way or the other.
The court is not in disarray.
There is nothing illegal in what the Majority of the Senate did now or back when Biden did it.
The Constitution gives the majority of the ruling party the right to make their Senate floor rules.
Ignore it all you want but this was really was a very important decision that needed the votes of the people this time.
The S.C. will remain conservative for the next 20 or so years.

 

[Faun]

Pogo why was it fine when Senator Joe Biden wanted the same thing in 1992?

Senate Republican Policy Committee.
It was right back then as it is today to let the people decide with the next election.

Joe Biden never wanted the same. That's a false claim by many on the right. What Joe Biden wanted was for no nominees to be considered until after the election so that wouldn't have an effect on the election. If I recall, it amounted to about 60 days they would not have held a hearing.

Not the same thing at all.

The basic idea behind it is the same . Bitterness & Divisiveness.
Why was 30 days fine just because it was closer to elections than a couple of months minus the summer hiatus of the S.C.?

No, the basic idea was not the same. Biden proposed holding off hearings for less than 60 days in the Senate, which never happened because no seat opened up, until after the election, at which time, they would hold hearings for Bush's nominees.

Whereas Republicans announced there would be no hearings for a seat that did open up for 11 months. At least one Senator said there would be no hearings at all had Hillary won.

The bigger cases had been heard before Scalia died.
Of the remaing before June recess only a couple or so tied. Those will be redone and with a full court.
The court has made the lighter cases first since it started in again this October, untill Christmas recess.
The ones upset are the voters for Dems who didnt win to make the court more left are making it into something bigger than it is and had the votes gone the other way the Repubs would be just as upset and making the same type of arguments.
Scalia will be replaced one way or the other.
The court is not in disarray.
There is nothing illegal in what the Majority of the Senate did now or back when Biden did it.
The Constitution gives the majority of the ruling party the right to make their Senate floor rules.
Ignore it all you want but this was really was a very important decision that needed the votes of the people this time.
The S.C. will remain conservative for the next 20 or so years.

I did not say it was illegal. I said it was bullshit. But politicians never forget and the day will come when Democrats repay the favor.

 

[Fueri]

Totally wrong thing to do, imo.

That the outcome works for me in keeping another lib off the bench is besides the point.

Plenty of ways to justify it, but at the end of the day I'm not happy with these sorts of maneuverings by either side when they can find a loophole to run through. Ye Olde slippery slope.

 

[strollingbones]

sick of the continual gridlock .....everyone makes an issue of the ussc nomination while ignoring the many unfilled seats at lower levels of the justice system.....it is all broken ......

i am sick of people hoping the president fails...that hardly does any good for the country ....but the division is so deep ....people would rather seek massive failure than work thru true issues....

 

[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?

I don't know that it was an abuse of power necessarily, and I wouldn't call it justified. What they did is certainly understandable when one considers that there was a Presidential election just over the horizon and no one can deny that a party in power wants to do all they can to see that SCotUS has a makeup that closely reflect their values. Despite what Biden said in 1992, if we are going to be honest with ourselves we would admit that had what he spoke taken place, any nomination by a President who lost re-election would have been tossed in the dust bin leaving the nomination open for the next President.

Now, I did suggest that should the Republicans lose the election the first thing they might want to do is confirm Garland because at least he is a known quantity and who knows who Hillary might have nominated. In my opinion, Garland was one of the less odious individuals President Obama could have been nominated to the court... Well, when one takes into account President Obama's political inclinations...

You resemble a pretzel.

 

[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?

It was a bullshit move which forever changes the Senate's role in confirming judges. Now, the Senate can go a president's entire term, if they so choose, and not give a president's nominees a confirmation hearing.

But it worked in their favor and that's really all they care about. I won't be surprised if the GOP finds themself on the other side of that coin some day.

They won't.

There is no winning in emulating the poor behavior and standards of those who you know have acted like asses.

The Dems in Congress are not going to do that.

 

[2aguy]

Pogo why was it fine when Senator Joe Biden wanted the same thing in 1992?

Senate Republican Policy Committee.
It was right back then as it is today to let the people decide with the next election.

Joe Biden never wanted the same. That's a false claim by many on the right. What Joe Biden wanted was for no nominees to be considered until after the election so that wouldn't have an effect on the election. If I recall, it amounted to about 60 days they would not have held a hearing.

Not the same thing at all.

The basic idea behind it is the same . Bitterness & Divisiveness.
Why was 30 days fine just because it was closer to elections than a couple of months minus the summer hiatus of the S.C.?

No, the basic idea was not the same. Biden proposed holding off hearings for less than 60 days in the Senate, which never happened because no seat opened up, until after the election, at which time, they would hold hearings for Bush's nominees.

Whereas Republicans announced there would be no hearings for a seat that did open up for 11 months. At least one Senator said there would be no hearings at all had Hillary won.

The number of justices does not have to be 9.......it can be 8, 7, 6 or 100.......and again, the Senate does not have to confirm....they get to decide if they are going to give their consent...and by not holding hearings, they made that pretty clear....

 

[2aguy]

Pogo why was it fine when Senator Joe Biden wanted the same thing in 1992?

Senate Republican Policy Committee.
It was right back then as it is today to let the people decide with the next election.

Joe Biden never wanted the same. That's a false claim by many on the right. What Joe Biden wanted was for no nominees to be considered until after the election so that wouldn't have an effect on the election. If I recall, it amounted to about 60 days they would not have held a hearing.

Not the same thing at all.

The basic idea behind it is the same . Bitterness & Divisiveness.
Why was 30 days fine just because it was closer to elections than a couple of months minus the summer hiatus of the S.C.?

No, the basic idea was not the same. Biden proposed holding off hearings for less than 60 days in the Senate, which never happened because no seat opened up, until after the election, at which time, they would hold hearings for Bush's nominees.

Whereas Republicans announced there would be no hearings for a seat that did open up for 11 months. At least one Senator said there would be no hearings at all had Hillary won.

The bigger cases had been heard before Scalia died.
Of the remaing before June recess only a couple or so tied. Those will be redone and with a full court.
The court has made the lighter cases first since it started in again this October, untill Christmas recess.
The ones upset are the voters for Dems who didnt win to make the court more left are making it into something bigger than it is and had the votes gone the other way the Repubs would be just as upset and making the same type of arguments.
Scalia will be replaced one way or the other.
The court is not in disarray.
There is nothing illegal in what the Majority of the Senate did now or back when Biden did it.
The Constitution gives the majority of the ruling party the right to make their Senate floor rules.
Ignore it all you want but this was really was a very important decision that needed the votes of the people this time.
The S.C. will remain conservative for the next 20 or so years.

I did not say it was illegal. I said it was bullshit. But politicians never forget and the day will come when Democrats repay the favor.

The democrats ended the filibuster for all the other nominations....breaking that tradition....had hilary won and the republicans blocked her nominee, they would have gotten rid of the filibuster for justices.....so you can say they will engage in payback...they already led the way...

 

[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?

It was a bullshit move which forever changes the Senate's role in confirming judges. Now, the Senate can go a president's entire term, if they so choose, and not give a president's nominees a confirmation hearing.

But it worked in their favor and that's really all they care about. I won't be surprised if the GOP finds themself on the other side of that coin some day.

That is called a check and a balance on the power of the President.......that is why it was set up that way by the founders...to limit the ability of any one branch to accumulate power......there was no role change here.....