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.
It was a nasty sleazy act by McConnell and his cabal. Then compounded with lies about analogies that did not exist.
Right now Rick Scott is attempting to nominate candidates for the vacancies of retiring Florida justices. He will not be governor in a few months. What makes him think this is ok after all the crap the GOP has put out there about lame ducks? Some republicans are unbelievably hypocritical.
The GOP thinks they should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they can pick judges, make all the rules, blah, blah. I'm sick of their BS, including screaming crazies like Graham. Oh, he's angry? Check out Twitter, Lindsay--you will see many many people who are much angrier about you and the GOP.
McConnell and Co. tried to screw Obama as much as they possibly could. Not even holding a hearing for the nominee was truly despicable and has now set an actual precedent for the future. The garbage excuses they made are all full of holes.
FACT: The 13 presidents who have filled Supreme Court vacancies during a presidential election year are:
George Washington (1796, Justice Samuel Chase and Chief Justice Oliver Elsworth)
Thomas Jefferson (1804, Justice William Johnson)
Andrew Jackson (1836, Justice Philip Barbour and Chief Justice Roger Taney)
Abraham Lincoln (1864, Chief Justice Salmon Chase)
Ulysses S. Grant (1872, Justice Ward Hunt)
Rutherford Hayes (1880, Justice William Woods)
Grover Cleveland (1888, Justice Lucius Lamar and Chief Justice Melville Fuller)
Benjamin Harrison (1892, Justice George Shiras, Jr.)
William Taft (1912, Justice Mahlon Pitney)
Woodrow Wilson (1916, Justices Louis Brandeis and John Clarke)
Herbert Hoover (1932, Justice Benjamin Cardozo)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1940, Justice Frank Murphy)
Ronald Reagan (1988, Justice Anthony Kennedy)
It was a nasty sleazy act by McConnell and his cabal. Then compounded with lies about analogies that did not exist.
Right now Rick Scott is attempting to nominate candidates for the vacancies of retiring Florida justices. He will not be governor in a few months. What makes him think this is ok after all the crap the GOP has put out there about lame ducks? Some republicans are unbelievably hypocritical.
The GOP thinks they should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they can pick judges, make all the rules, blah, blah. I'm sick of their BS, including screaming crazies like Graham. Oh, he's angry? Check out Twitter, Lindsay--you will see many many people who are much angrier about you and the GOP.
McConnell and Co. tried to screw Obama as much as they possibly could. Not even holding a hearing for the nominee was truly despicable and has now set an actual precedent for the future. The garbage excuses they made are all full of holes.
FACT: The 13 presidents who have filled Supreme Court vacancies during a presidential election year are:
George Washington (1796, Justice Samuel Chase and Chief Justice Oliver Elsworth)
Thomas Jefferson (1804, Justice William Johnson)
Andrew Jackson (1836, Justice Philip Barbour and Chief Justice Roger Taney)
Abraham Lincoln (1864, Chief Justice Salmon Chase)
Ulysses S. Grant (1872, Justice Ward Hunt)
Rutherford Hayes (1880, Justice William Woods)
Grover Cleveland (1888, Justice Lucius Lamar and Chief Justice Melville Fuller)
Benjamin Harrison (1892, Justice George Shiras, Jr.)
William Taft (1912, Justice Mahlon Pitney)
Woodrow Wilson (1916, Justices Louis Brandeis and John Clarke)
Herbert Hoover (1932, Justice Benjamin Cardozo)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1940, Justice Frank Murphy)
Ronald Reagan (1988, Justice Anthony Kennedy)
I was responding to the OP’s assertion that D senators didn’t deserve the hearing. Why do you think that a Supreme Court nomination is merely about what individual senators do or do not deserve? Seems to me it’s about a somewhat larger group than that.
It’s true that the Constitution doesn’t require public confirmation hearings. However, I pity the first person to seriously propose that we do away with them. That would mean that the Senate could bar the public from its deliberations, and I doubt there are many voters who would stand for that
well we have very different ideas about "pity"
I pity America for what we are currently seeing.
I pity a future America where we decide to get rid of the constitution. Its gonna happen.
but I certainly don't pity America because the Senate provided its Constitutionally required advice and consent... they did that with Garland. Just because you didn't like its form doesn't mean it wasn't
1. proper
2. complete
3. in line with precedent
Democrats had done enough to anger their constituents, that those constituents voted them out of the majority in the Senate. So they no longer had the votes in the committees they needed.
Yet we keep hearing, in regard to confirmation hearings for Garland, that the Republicans should have given them "what is rightfully theirs" and held hearings.
"What is rightfully theirs" is what the voters decided they should have. You got a problem with that?
Basically, the Democrats blew it.
Elections have consequences. One of them is that, if you lose, you can't dictate what the Senate does any more.
Of course, Garland deserved an up or down vote! The Senate had no reason to withhold it other than being nasty and irresponsible. They would have been free to vote against him...and THAT'S where the "elections have consequences" should have taken place, not with playing free and loose with the Senate rules.
If Garland went to the floor for a vote they would have had little reason to reject him and if they did so it would be on their record.
I agree with you, which is why I said, "The real question is why the Republicans didn't want the hearing if they were already going to vote no?"
The answer is simple, politics.
Not holding a hearing was politically-advantageous(especially since they could hide behind the "Joe-Biden rule" as an excuse). And holding the hearing was politically-disadvantageous, because it would have made them look petty, and could have hurt many Republicans in swing-states(who could instead appear blameless).
But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether Merritt Garland "deserved" a hearing. He didn't. And Brett Kavanaugh doesn't deserve a hearing either.
When has politics ever been about what is fair? "The people" wouldn't know fair if it slapped them upside the face.
If the shoe had been on the other foot, the shoe would have been on the other foot. None of these people give a crap about you.
Do you think Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer are your friends? Grow up.
I agree with you, which is why I said, "The real question is why the Republicans didn't want the hearing if they were already going to vote no?"
The answer is simple, politics.
Not holding a hearing was politically-advantageous(especially since they could hide behind the "Joe-Biden rule" as an excuse). And holding the hearing was politically-disadvantageous, because it would have made them look petty, and could have hurt many Republicans in swing-states(who could instead appear blameless).
But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether Merritt Garland "deserved" a hearing. He didn't. And Brett Kavanaugh doesn't deserve a hearing either.
When has politics ever been about what is fair? "The people" wouldn't know fair if it slapped them upside the face.
If the shoe had been on the other foot, the shoe would have been on the other foot. None of these people give a crap about you.
Do you think Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer are your friends? Grow up.
There is a process in place, just because you can do something doesn't mean its smart to do something so blatant and raise the level of division between the parties. Anyone who things that it is a good idea to have a totally dysfunctional partisan government doesn't understand where this is all heading.
Reagan and Tip O'Neill were at opposite ends of the political spectrum but they could compromise, not today.
There is a process in place, just because you can do something doesn't mean its smart to do something so blatant and raise the level of division between the parties. Anyone who things that it is a good idea to have a totally dysfunctional partisan government doesn't understand where this is all heading.
Reagan and Tip O'Neill were at opposite ends of the political spectrum but they could compromise, not today.
Where is it heading? And why is compromise a good thing? Would you compromise with the devil?
I think the American people deserved a hearing on Garland. Who by all accounts is a well-respected jurist.
Except he would have been the fourth liberal Jew on a nine person court. For the sake of "diversity", there are already two too many.
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.
