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.
Hey, I always thought the frequently-seen pics were of her sleeping in public. Until someone here informed me that word on the Hill was that she was actually sleeping it off.
Hardly. They are not going to oppose a continuing run of well qualified nominees, if they are such, as Gorsuch was , for 2 years. Aint gonna happen.
Watch. If the (D)'s take the Senate there will not be another Justice voted on unless it's someone they choose. I am not a (D) but they will have every right to do so.
Quote:
The GOP held up the nominee of a lame duck POTUS with less than 9 months til the election to replace him. I didn't approve of it, but it made some logic. They put the issue in the hands of the electorate , and the SC nominee was a big part of the campaign for many voters, mostly GOP ones. It played well for them, but it wasn't pure obstructionism for the sake of simply obstructing a POTUS.
9 months, 12 months, 18 months it's all the same. You can make the logic whatever you want.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,688,469 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
I did not approve of the GOP handling of the Garland nomination, but we are talking apples and oranges.Garland was nominated by a lame duck POTUS 8 months before the 2016 election. Yes, he should have gotten a hearing, but the difference with Garland is that it wasn't obstructionism just for spite. It was the belief that with less than a year until a new POTUS takes office, that the new POTUS should be allowed the nomination, and by virtue of doing this, that the electorate should be allowed a say in who does the nominating. Remember, there was just as much chance that HC would win as the GOP candidate , and that she might rescind the Garland nom and go with a Kagan type instead.
I don't approve of the way the GOP Senate handled the Garland thing, but future obstructionism by a Dem led Senate simply because the nominees would come from a GOP POTUS with 2 years left, and the possibility of reelection for another 4 yrs, isn't the same thing. It would be spite, not a decision to let the next POTUS have a nomination that would be less than a year old when he took office, instead of letting a lame duck POTUS get another nominee as he is heading out the door of his presidency. (Scalia died in Feb, Garland was nominated in March, Trump took over the following January).
It was nothing but spite by McConnell, just like their pact to try to stonewall anything that Obama asked for.
Of course she is holding on until 2021 but what will happen when Trump is reelected ?
It isn't so much His Orangeness being reelected, but which party controls senate. GOP is already down to a 51-49 count and if things don't go their way in November that could change.
Now that Mitch McConnell has chosen the path of going nuclear on judicial appointments they need to keep at least a fifty majority (Pence will break any ties), but if that goes down to even 49, things can and likely will get ugly.
Looking ahead to 2020, even if democrats don't take the WH, again they just need to get a simple majority in senate to throw a spanner into GOP SCOTUS plans.
I did not approve of the GOP handling of the Garland nomination, but we are talking apples and oranges.Garland was nominated by a lame duck POTUS 8 months before the 2016 election. Yes, he should have gotten a hearing, but the difference with Garland is that it wasn't obstructionism just for spite. It was the belief that with less than a year until a new POTUS takes office, that the new POTUS should be allowed the nomination, and by virtue of doing this, that the electorate should be allowed a say in who does the nominating. Remember, there was just as much chance that HC would win as the GOP candidate , and that she might rescind the Garland nom and go with a Kagan type instead.
I don't approve of the way the GOP Senate handled the Garland thing, but future obstructionism by a Dem led Senate simply because the nominees would come from a GOP POTUS with 2 years left, and the possibility of reelection for another 4 yrs, isn't the same thing. It would be spite, not a decision to let the next POTUS have a nomination that would be less than a year old when he took office, instead of letting a lame duck POTUS get another nominee as he is heading out the door of his presidency. (Scalia died in Feb, Garland was nominated in March, Trump took over the following January).
The Democrats shouldn't refuse to seat a conservative justice because of Garland they should do so because a conservative justice is bad for their constituents.
The Democrats need to play to win, and not conform to some norm that has been proven to be non-existent, or else they'll end up out of power, with gerrymandered districts and the GOP doing whatever it takes to increase their political power, including gerrymandering as mentioned suppressing minorities voting etc.
You are a conservative so I understand you don't want a liberal justice but the democrats would be smart not to be suckers and play basketball with one hand behind their backs.
Will it be unpopular sure it will, maybe it will even cost them the senate, or the house but it is certainly worth it not to get a more conservative court, that could impact people's lives in dramatic and permanent ways.
But if Donald Trump appoints a solidly liberal justice, I'm sure the democrats will promptly hold a hearing and seat him/her, so there won't be any spite, it will out doing their job and whatever they can to prevent another conservative from getting on the court, which is something they owe to their constituents.
The democrats need to take the road to winning not the high road.
I greatly admire Ginsburg, but I was furious that she didn't retire during Obama's term.
On the other hand ... we really have no idea how the next year or two will play out, and it would be funny if Trump becomes so loathed that Dem's re-take both houses, then the presidency. And although Obama would have had a fight if he chose a very liberal justice, it could theoretically be much easier if we have a W.H. Dem in the near future.
I did not approve of the GOP handling of the Garland nomination, but we are talking apples and oranges.Garland was nominated by a lame duck POTUS 8 months before the 2016 election. Yes, he should have gotten a hearing, but the difference with Garland is that it wasn't obstructionism just for spite. It was the belief that with less than a year until a new POTUS takes office, that the new POTUS should be allowed the nomination, and by virtue of doing this, that the electorate should be allowed a say in who does the nominating. Remember, there was just as much chance that HC would win as the GOP candidate , and that she might rescind the Garland nom and go with a Kagan type instead.
I don't approve of the way the GOP Senate handled the Garland thing, but future obstructionism by a Dem led Senate simply because the nominees would come from a GOP POTUS with 2 years left, and the possibility of reelection for another 4 yrs, isn't the same thing. It would be spite, not a decision to let the next POTUS have a nomination that would be less than a year old when he took office, instead of letting a lame duck POTUS get another nominee as he is heading out the door of his presidency. (Scalia died in Feb, Garland was nominated in March, Trump took over the following January).
I don't care what it is - IF the Dems find themselves with any kind of majority - they had better block any SCOTUS nomination. Period.
Garland was flat out stolen from Obama by one of the most corrupt players in DC.
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.
