Who here favors expanding the Supreme Court?

[rightwinger]

Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?

Rewind a couple administrations, George W. Bush was the first president to have one of his judicial nominations blocked by filibuster. I'm pretty well certain that wasn't where the arms race started, either. I'm equally certain that you couldn't tell me where it did, and yet here you are telling me with all confidence that republicans started it. Lol.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

There wasn't a filibuster for Alito. That motion was defeated 72-25. What DID happen was before Bush appointed Alito, he tried to appoint a sensible moderate in Harriet Meyers, and the Flying Monkey Right lost their fucking minds...

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go read up on W's nominees in general. The Dems did some GAMING during his presidency. Garland wasn't shit compared to what he had to put up with, and that's even when the Republicans had the numbers in the senate.

Bush was allowed to fill a vacancy. Obama was not.

Pack the Courts

Translation: Your argument is inconvenient. I'm going to ignore it.

The process worked. Bush offered a candidate that was rejected and he was allowed to pick another.

Republicans refused to vote up or down on Garland and Obama was not allowed to fill the seat

When they filibustered Bush's appointments, they never came up for vote. Votes that they had the numbers to win, confirmed. Those were the rules at the time, so yeah, the process worked.

Just like those were the rules with Garland, and the process worked there, too.

Which nomination was filibustered?
I‘ll give it a Google

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm quickly losing confidence in the SCOTUS as I already have in the free press, FBI and DOJ. If the founders were alive today, who lived under government/monarchy oppression they would cringe at how the protections they put in place have become corrupted.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Go read up on W's nominees in general. The Dems did some GAMING during his presidency. Garland wasn't shit compared to what he had to put up with, and that's even when the Republicans had the numbers in the senate.

I lived through it. Bush got both of his nominees, and the only pushback he got was on Harriet Meyers, FROM HIS OWN PARTY.

Yeah, ignore what I just posted completely.

He got his Supreme Court nominees through, and I'm certain that the people he chose to appoint weren't at all affected by the democrats demonstrating a new willingness to shirk the majority in the senate and filibuster to keep appointments that they didn't like from being brought up for a vote, just like Garland. Yup. All that happened was that Bush got exactly what he wanted and was treated well, and then those evil republicans returned all that good will by playing by rules that were inconvenient to your political goals.

Lol!

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?

Rewind a couple administrations, George W. Bush was the first president to have one of his judicial nominations blocked by filibuster. I'm pretty well certain that wasn't where the arms race started, either. I'm equally certain that you couldn't tell me where it did, and yet here you are telling me with all confidence that republicans started it. Lol.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

There wasn't a filibuster for Alito. That motion was defeated 72-25. What DID happen was before Bush appointed Alito, he tried to appoint a sensible moderate in Harriet Meyers, and the Flying Monkey Right lost their fucking minds...

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go read up on W's nominees in general. The Dems did some GAMING during his presidency. Garland wasn't shit compared to what he had to put up with, and that's even when the Republicans had the numbers in the senate.

Bush was allowed to fill a vacancy. Obama was not.

Pack the Courts

Translation: Your argument is inconvenient. I'm going to ignore it.

The process worked. Bush offered a candidate that was rejected and he was allowed to pick another.

Republicans refused to vote up or down on Garland and Obama was not allowed to fill the seat

When they filibustered Bush's appointments, they never came up for vote. Votes that they had the numbers to win, confirmed. Those were the rules at the time, so yeah, the process worked.

Just like those were the rules with Garland, and the process worked there, too.

Which nomination was filibustered?

If you don't wanna read the link I posted when I brought it up, then don't, but I'm not going to transpose it for you.

 

[JoeB131]

Dems tried to lynch Clarence Thomas then Biden and Kennedy made Anita Hill make up phony sexual harassment charges,

You know, funny thing. Most Democrats feel Biden didn't do enough to stop Clarance Thomas. It seems to me that if both sides are less than happy with the process, then the process was probably fair.

they lied about Bork,

Bork was a crazy person. Reagan never should have nominated him.

On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican senators John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R-CT) voting against him.[39]

lied about Kavanuagh and implemented the Biden, Schumer, Reid strategies on SCOTUS and have reaped the whirlwind; Schumer even threatened SCOTUS with violence.

Uh, maybe if they had an real investigation into Kreepy Kavanaugh, we'd have gotten to the truth.

If you cannot live by the rules set forth in the Constitution maybe you need to find another country

NOthing you are whining about is against the constitution, buddy.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, ignore what I just posted completely.

Because what you wrote was factually inaccurate. Bush got everything he wanted from his SCOTUS picks.

He got his Supreme Court nominees through, and I'm certain that the people he chose to appoint weren't at all affected by the democrats demonstrating a new willingness to shirk the majority in the senate and filibuster to keep appointments that they didn't like from being brought up for a vote, just like Garland. Yup. All that happened was that Bush got exactly what he wanted and was treated well, and then those evil republicans returned all that good will by playing by rules that were inconvenient to your political goals.

Except nobody blocked Alito.. who has no business being on the court to start with.

The problem is, no one you guys have ever appointed is considered a great legal mind... You keep putting these political hacks on hoping they'll undo the 20th Century....

 

[Auld Phart]

So who here agrees with it?

The reasoning in the article was this:

“We can’t go on like this where every time there’s a vacancy, there’s this apocalyptic ideological battle,” he added.

But how would the ideological battle change with more Supreme Court justices? It makes not sense. Essentially, the battles would rage even more as more and more would need to be appointed.

This is a unique situation because Trump was an illegitimate President who got two appointments he didn't deserve...

Of course, we could just wait for Uncle Thomas to retire, and then it will be 5-4 liberals (assuming that Ginsburg survives long enough to get Trump out of office.)

I do think we should do additional reforms. When the Constitution was written, nobody thought we'd have a court with 2/3rds of its members past retirement age.

So we should limit these guys to a 20 year term, with forced retirements of one a year until we get everyone under 20 years. (That means, force the retirements of Uncle Thomas in 2021, Ginsburg in 2022, Bryer in 2023, before we have Roberts retire in 2025, and then everyone else, 20 years after they were first appointed.

We should also require a 2/3rd majority in the Senate to appoint a Supreme Court Justice so we don't get hyper-partisans.

This is a unique situation because Trump was an illegitimate President who got two appointments he didn't deserve...

 

[Auld Phart]

You all cheered when Obama reminded conservatives that "elections have consequences". Yet as soon as YOU don't like the consequences, you turn the game board over and scatter the checkers all over the floor.

The difference is, Trump didn't get the most votes in the election. The people said no. Loudly. Clearly.

So, yeah, maybe it's time to scatter the checkers all over the floor when you realize the other side has been cheating all along.

The difference is, Trump didn't get the most votes in the election. The people said no. Loudly. Clearly.

Doesn't matter.

the EV puts the person in the Oval Office, not the Popular vote

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yeah, ignore what I just posted completely.

Because what you wrote was factually inaccurate. Bush got everything he wanted from his SCOTUS picks.

He got his Supreme Court nominees through, and I'm certain that the people he chose to appoint weren't at all affected by the democrats demonstrating a new willingness to shirk the majority in the senate and filibuster to keep appointments that they didn't like from being brought up for a vote, just like Garland. Yup. All that happened was that Bush got exactly what he wanted and was treated well, and then those evil republicans returned all that good will by playing by rules that were inconvenient to your political goals.

Except nobody blocked Alito.. who has no business being on the court to start with.

The problem is, no one you guys have ever appointed is considered a great legal mind... You keep putting these political hacks on hoping they'll undo the 20th Century....

When did I say Alito?

Where in my link was Alito mentioned?

SCOTUS isn't the only place to which presidents appoint federal judges.

You also don't know that Bush got everything he wanted from his Scotus picks. The Dems established a willingness to go nuclear on his nominations and keep them from coming to the floor for a vote even though the American people had voted enough republicans into the senate to confirm those nominations. Once that happened, it was clear that the only way Bush was getting a SCOTUS justice through was to appease a minority that, by the standard of the rules when Garland was denied, he wouldn't have had to appease. Who knows who he would have appointed for SCOTUS if senate republicans were allowed to vote on all of his previous, lower level appointments.

As far as not appointing great legal minds, you'll forgive me if I laugh my balls off at you for this accusation. Partisan hacks generally determine the quality of a legal mind by how consistently his legal opinions coincide with their politics, and I'd bet quite a sum that you're no different in that regard.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Hold seats open until you have a favorable Presidency.

Ah, yes...

the Biden Plan.

It's also exactly what McConnell did with Obama's last appointment.

 

[JoeB131]

You also don't know that Bush got everything he wanted from his Scotus picks. The Dems established a willingness to go nuclear on his nominations and keep them from coming to the floor for a vote even though the American people had voted enough republicans into the senate to confirm those nominations. Once that happened, it was clear that the only way Bush was getting a SCOTUS justice through was to appease a minority that, by the standard of the rules when Garland was denied, he wouldn't have had to appease. Who knows who he would have appointed for SCOTUS if senate republicans were allowed to vote on all of his previous, lower level appointments.

Actually, you are leaving out the part where John McCain and other moderate Republicans forced Bush's hand with the "Gang of 14" that required him to not appoint knuckle draggers to all the positions.

 

[blackhawk]

The problem with both sides is as the old saying goes they can't think beyond the end of their nose. 2013 Harry Reid and the Democrats use the nuclear option to get cabinet nominees and lower court justices confirmed with a simple majority vote instead of the 60 I have no doubt Reid and the Democrats did this believing they would keep the Senate in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016 and use this to their full advantage. The problem they never considered it seems that they could lose both and they did and the Republicans used it to their full advantage. Now lets flip to the Republicans Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans using the precedent set by Reid and the Democrats used the nuclear option to get the vote for Supreme Court Justices from 60 down to the simple majority vote and they got two nominees on the court by doing so but be assured when the Democrats have the Presidency and Senate again this will bite the Republicans in the ass just like how what Reid did came back to bite the Democrats in it.

 

[Indeependent]

Our founders envisioned a Court System that was outside of political pressure.

That is no longer the case. If Democrats can get away with expanding the courts.....that’s the way it is

The Court System was never outside of political pressure.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You also don't know that Bush got everything he wanted from his Scotus picks. The Dems established a willingness to go nuclear on his nominations and keep them from coming to the floor for a vote even though the American people had voted enough republicans into the senate to confirm those nominations. Once that happened, it was clear that the only way Bush was getting a SCOTUS justice through was to appease a minority that, by the standard of the rules when Garland was denied, he wouldn't have had to appease. Who knows who he would have appointed for SCOTUS if senate republicans were allowed to vote on all of his previous, lower level appointments.

Actually, you are leaving out the part where John McCain and other moderate Republicans forced Bush's hand with the "Gang of 14" that required him to not appoint knuckle draggers to all the positions.

Apparently, so did you when you claimed, in your last post, that Bush got everything he wanted.

The fact of those filibusters remains, tho, bud. McCain doesn't change the fact that judicial appointment gaming is a democrat tradition as much as it is a republican one.

 

[eagle1462010]

The problem with both sides is as the old saying goes they can't think beyond the end of their nose. 2013 Harry Reid and the Democrats use the nuclear option to get cabinet nominees and lower court justices confirmed with a simple majority vote instead of the 60 I have no doubt Reid and the Democrats did this believing they would keep the Senate in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016 and use this to their full advantage. The problem they never considered it seems that they could lose both and they did and the Republicans used it to their full advantage. Now lets flip to the Republicans Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans using the precedent set by Reid and the Democrats used the nuclear option to get the vote for Supreme Court Justices from 60 down to the simple majority vote and they got two nominees on the court by doing so but be assured when the Democrats have the Presidency and Senate again this will bite the Republicans in the ass just like how what Reid did came back to bite the Democrats in it.

Both sides know exactly what they are doing...........whatever it takes to stay in power and appease the lobbyist that made them all millionaires............and NOTHING MORE.

 

[Indeependent]

Yeah, ignore what I just posted completely.

Because what you wrote was factually inaccurate. Bush got everything he wanted from his SCOTUS picks.

He got his Supreme Court nominees through, and I'm certain that the people he chose to appoint weren't at all affected by the democrats demonstrating a new willingness to shirk the majority in the senate and filibuster to keep appointments that they didn't like from being brought up for a vote, just like Garland. Yup. All that happened was that Bush got exactly what he wanted and was treated well, and then those evil republicans returned all that good will by playing by rules that were inconvenient to your political goals.

Except nobody blocked Alito.. who has no business being on the court to start with.

The problem is, no one you guys have ever appointed is considered a great legal mind... You keep putting these political hacks on hoping they'll undo the 20th Century....

Who defines what the definition of a "great legal mind"?
RWers & LWers...

 

[BigDave]

 

[eagle1462010]

Yeah, ignore what I just posted completely.

Because what you wrote was factually inaccurate. Bush got everything he wanted from his SCOTUS picks.

He got his Supreme Court nominees through, and I'm certain that the people he chose to appoint weren't at all affected by the democrats demonstrating a new willingness to shirk the majority in the senate and filibuster to keep appointments that they didn't like from being brought up for a vote, just like Garland. Yup. All that happened was that Bush got exactly what he wanted and was treated well, and then those evil republicans returned all that good will by playing by rules that were inconvenient to your political goals.

Except nobody blocked Alito.. who has no business being on the court to start with.

The problem is, no one you guys have ever appointed is considered a great legal mind... You keep putting these political hacks on hoping they'll undo the 20th Century....

Who defines what the definition of a "great legal mind"?
RWers & LWers...

Under the original constitution..............the States would decide..............as the Senator was an ambassador of that state..............so the State Legislatures had a say in it as defined by the Constitution.........Any Senator.......voting against the will of the State........would BE FIRED.

Now we have the opposite......hard as hell to get rid of a Senator.........and they abuse the power to HADES.

 

[Auld Phart]

Hold seats open until you have a favorable Presidency.

Ah, yes...

the Biden Plan.

It's also exactly what McConnell did with Obama's last appointment.

Biden said it long before McConnell became Senate Majority Leader, when Joe was Judiciary Chairman.

 

[gipper]

The problem with both sides is as the old saying goes they can't think beyond the end of their nose. 2013 Harry Reid and the Democrats use the nuclear option to get cabinet nominees and lower court justices confirmed with a simple majority vote instead of the 60 I have no doubt Reid and the Democrats did this believing they would keep the Senate in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016 and use this to their full advantage. The problem they never considered it seems that they could lose both and they did and the Republicans used it to their full advantage. Now lets flip to the Republicans Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans using the precedent set by Reid and the Democrats used the nuclear option to get the vote for Supreme Court Justices from 60 down to the simple majority vote and they got two nominees on the court by doing so but be assured when the Democrats have the Presidency and Senate again this will bite the Republicans in the ass just like how what Reid did came back to bite the Democrats in it.

It doesn’t really matter which party gets to nominate a justice. In the end, the court is all about continuing the status quo to benefit the ultra wealthy.