Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"'Deserves' is an impossible thing to decide. No one deserves anything. Thank God we don't get what we deserve." - Milton Friedman
I don't think Obama deserved a Supreme Court appointment. I don't think Merritt Garland deserved to be given a hearing. Because why should they? Precedent?
Deserve usually refers to something you've earned. So why did Obama earn an appointment? Did Merritt Garlard deserve a hearing? Why was he even selected?
For that matter, Trump doesn't deserve an appointment either. You can say that he has a right to it. Or make some kind of constitutional claim. But none of these people in Washington D.C. deserve anything.
Obama had a right to an appointment the same way Trump does or doesn't.
Republicans made a choice and now the Supreme Court process will be such that appointments will only occur when the president and the Senate are the same party. The genie can't go back in the bottle.
Again, the argument over the term 'rule' is semantics. It's just a shorthand way of expressing what Biden said in 1992. If you want to post the full quote every time, that's fine.
The main point is that what McConnell did regarding Garland mirrored Biden's proposal. This year certainly would certainly meet the definition of hyper-partisan, but the difference is that in 1992, Democrats controlled the US Senate, whereas now they do not.
There was no rule, a rule would need to be agreed to by both parties or does every statement by Maxine Waters become a rule. The republicans were desperate to come up with a reason and this was the best they could do, no rational human actually believes this. But did you miss the point that the nomination should be put off until after the election, why wasn't Garland put to the floor for a vote after the November 2016 election.
Obama had a right to an appointment the same way Trump does or doesn't.
Republicans made a choice and now the Supreme Court process will be such that appointments will only occur when the president and the Senate are the same party. The genie can't go back in the bottle.
The precedent had already been set. And if the democrats take the senate this year and block Trump's nominee, I promise you I'll never use such a silly word as "deserve" or "right". The senate doesn't have to give a hearing as part of their role of advise and consent.
The refusal of the hearing was supported by the majority in the senate. So effectively, Merritt Garlard was already given a "No" vote, without a hearing.
But, the Democrats were already against Kavanaugh before the hearing as well. But that isn't so much caused by the senators themselves, it is caused by the politicization of the Supreme Court, which has made people crazy.
The precedent had already been set. And if the democrats take the senate this year and block Trump's nominee, I promise you I'll never use such a silly word as "deserve" or "right". The senate doesn't have to give a hearing as part of their role of advise and consent.
The refusal of the hearing was supported by the majority in the senate. So effectively, Merritt Garlard was already given a "No" vote, without a hearing.
But, the Democrats were already against Kavanaugh before the hearing as well. But that isn't so much caused by the senators themselves, it is caused by the politicization of the Supreme Court, which has made people crazy.
The precedent was never set. There was no rule, there was no precedent. Biden made remarks almost 30 years ago, he made them in June, there was no nomination, none of this applies. McConnell said it because he was looking for an excuse.
The heated politicization of the Supreme Court started with Merrick Garland.
And since Ted Cruz, Richard Burr and numerous others said if Hillary was elected, they would hold the seat open for four years or longer, Democrats have no obligation to have hearings for Trump's future nominees - ever.
Moving forward, the president will only get a SCJ if he is the same party as the Senate.
The precedent was never set. There was no rule, there was no precedent. Biden made remarks almost 30 years ago, he made them in June, there was no nomination, none of this applies. McConnell said it because he was looking for an excuse.
The heated politicization of the Supreme Court started with Merrick Garland.
And since Ted Cruz, Richard Burr and numerous others said if Hillary was elected, they would hold the seat open for four years or longer, Democrats have no obligation to have hearings for Trump's future nominees - ever.
Moving forward, the president will only get a SCJ if he is the same party as the Senate.
Exactly.
Now....since it's OK for it to be 10 months or one year, maybe it is OK for it to be 15 months...or 18 months...or until after the midterms...or until the full election.
It's OK for anything....because...because....we can do it.
The precedent was never set. There was no rule, there was no precedent. Biden made remarks almost 30 years ago, he made them in June, there was no nomination, none of this applies. McConnell said it because he was looking for an excuse.
And what would have happened had there been a nomination?
This has been a continuous partisan process for decades. Not just the Biden-rule, but also Harry Reid's "Nuclear option".
I agree that McConnell took it a step further, but both parties have been heading in the same direction for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
The heated politicization of the Supreme Court started with Merrick Garland.
Do you know who Robert Bork is? The Supreme Court has been politicized for decades. They were calling people "activist judges" long before Trump ran for president.
The precedent had already been set. And if the democrats take the senate this year and block Trump's nominee, I promise you I'll never use such a silly word as "deserve" or "right". The senate doesn't have to give a hearing as part of their role of advise and consent.
The refusal of the hearing was supported by the majority in the senate. So effectively, Merritt Garlard was already given a "No" vote, without a hearing.
But, the Democrats were already against Kavanaugh before the hearing as well. But that isn't so much caused by the senators themselves, it is caused by the politicization of the Supreme Court, which has made people crazy.
There was no precedent and claiming blocking of a hearing amounts to a no vote is some very interesting gymnastics. Maybe you have some precedent to explain that statement.
Politicization of the of the supreme court this year after Garland, seriously.
There was no precedent and claiming blocking of a hearing amounts to a no vote is some very interesting gymnastics. Maybe you have some precedent to explain that statement.
What is there to explain? The Republican majority had already made up their mind that they weren't going to vote for Merritt Garland. Which is why the Republicans were all lockstep behind not holding the hearing.
Had there been Republican defectors, they could have joined the minority and demanded the hearing.
The real question is why the Republicans didn't want the hearing if they were already going to vote no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Politicization of the of the supreme court this year after Garland, seriously.
If you think the politicization of the Supreme Court only happened after Garland, you haven't been paying attention.
Do you remember Antonin Scalia at all? Citizens-United? Etc.
Almost every major Supreme Court case in the last decade has been decided 5-4. Including same-sex marriage, gun-rights, political contributions, Bush v. Gore, Obamacare, and many many more.
Sounds fine to me. Nice and dysfunctional, just like I like it.
Ted Cruz, Richard Burr and several other Republicans said if Hillary won the election, they would keep the SCJ seat open for the entire four years and beyond, if need be.
The Senate map in 2020 and 2022 is very favorable to Democrats. Should Trump be re-elected and Democrats take the Senate, would you support Democrats refusing hearings on any Trump Supreme Court nominee for the entirely of Trump's term? As Ted Cruz and the GOP said they would do to Hillary? Call it the Ted Cruz rule?
If they want to appoint judges they need to win elections.
Running on hate America didn't help them but they learned nothing from it and are doing it again.
It doesn't look like appointing judges is all that important to them.
Should Judges be held to the same standard as a.....Congressman lets say???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
