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.
No they won't 'repeal' Roe V Wade. Because they aren't stupid enough to use those words. They will nullify it, however, down to nothing.
But don't worry - wealthy conservatives will still be able to get abortions for their mistresses.
That is Mitch McConnell's strategy. He's the one that refused to let the Senate vote on Garland. And NOW - he's trying to move the goal posts when asked if Trump should be allowed to fill any potential empty seat in the year 2020.
He broke it. Now, Democrats will have to fix it.
LOL. So all those votes for Clinton were just a 'conspiracy'? Don't think so.
In bold.
Won't wealthy democrats be able to get abortions for their mistresses?
As for the rest. The democrat party couldn't fix an election for Hillary, and they tried hard. They aren't interested in making the lives of the common people any better.
Is that stain bigger or smaller than the one the GOP left by denying Obama his right to have his SCOTUS voted on?
Obama had no such “right”, despite the unprecedented lightening speed in which he nominated the guy. The senate did in essence give “Advice and Consent” at the time, it was “not right now”. I suppose they could have just voted him down or they could have launched a character assignation smear campaign on him instead. I suspect the real reason they didn’t just vote him down prior to the election, which again they could have done, is that they planned on voting him in if Hillary won, since he was not a rabid liberal and her pick most likely would have been. I personally think they should have voted on him right after the election, and voted him down, just to shut everyone up.
Look, if the Democrats get control of the senate as a result of the 2018 midterms, and another opening comes up, they will be in a place to freeze any nomination Trump makes, using whatever political tap dance they think they can get away with. This way if the Democrats win both the presidency and the senate majority in 2020 they can place the next justice. But that’s the kicker, the people have to decide this is important enough of an issue to vote for senatorial Democrat candidates. It’s not looking like that will happen.
I fervently hope nothing happens that requires one of those justices to be replaced in 2020, if the Republicans retain the senate, as they are expected to do. Because, mark my word, they will indeed choose to exercise their “Advice and Consent” to place that justice on the bench immediately and all hell will break loose. It will make this last go around look like small potatoes.
But, to answer your question, it was a significantly larger stain. It will be looked at by historians as a telling incident in part of a mass hysteria movement along the lines of the Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism, and Satanic Ritual Child Abuse. In other words, a time in which the power of government was misused to destroy targeted individuals in order to pander to fear merchants with a platform. Not attractive legacies in history and we are currently living through it.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
That's the problem, democrats don't play dirty. They had judges ready to go under the Obama presidency, but the GOP kept playing games to keep stalling until "I like beer" and sexually assaulting women guy came around.
At this point playing dirty games like the GOP seems like the only way to win, but that's where the democrats falter, they won't stoop to those levels,....
Playing dirty? Accusing people of a incident fueled by alcohol over 30 years ago and taking a hazy statement as gospel? Hearsay is wrong unless strong evidence backs it. And that was lackingnhere. Quit convicting on hearsay.
Bottom line is the Senate has final authority here. It can do anything it wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
There is no rule that Supreme Court judges can’t be approved during an election year.
The only constitutional rule is:
The President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court...
So had Hillary won the Presidency the Republican controlled Senate could have refused to vote on Hillary's nomination, and if Kennedy had retired, they could have refused to vote on her second choice. We might actually only have 7 members of the Supreme Court today. There is no constitutional requirement as to the size of the court and initially there was only the Chief Justice and 5 associate justices.
The 9 member Supreme Court was established on 9. Jan. 1838. President Johnson replaced Abraham Lincoln when he died, but he was possibly the most unpopular President to ever hold the office. The Senate hated him so badly that they altered the size of the court twice so that he would not be able to appoint any justices.
On 10. May. 1863 a 10th position was created. Andrew Johnson was Preisdent from April 15, 1865 – March 4, 1869 and when a positions became available on 30. May. 1865 and 5. Jul. 1867 the Senate simply ended those chairs. After Johnson's term ended and U. Grant became President, the 9th position was created again on 21. Mar. 1870.
So bottom line is the Senate has final authority here. It can do anything it wants.
The 9 member Supreme Court was established on 9. Jan. 1838. President Johnson replaced Abraham Lincoln when he died, but he was possibly the most unpopular President to ever hold the office. The Senate hated him so badly that they altered the size of the court twice so that he would not be able to appoint any justices.
The Senate alone can not alter the size, it takes both houses, like any other law.
28 U.S. Code § 1 - Number of justices; quorum
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869.)
At one time there were 11 Justices, through attrition, it wittled down.
Bottom line is the Senate has final authority here. It can do anything it wants.
The only constitutional rule is:
The President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court...
So had Hillary won the Presidency the Republican controlled Senate could have refused to vote on Hillary's nomination, and if Kennedy had retired, they could have refused to vote on her second choice. We might actually only have 7 members of the Supreme Court today. There is no constitutional requirement as to the size of the court and initially there was only the Chief Justice and 5 associate justices.
The 9 member Supreme Court was established on 9. Jan. 1838. President Johnson replaced Abraham Lincoln when he died, but he was possibly the most unpopular President to ever hold the office. The Senate hated him so badly that they altered the size of the court twice so that he would not be able to appoint any justices.
On 10. May. 1863 a 10th position was created. Andrew Johnson was Preisdent from April 15, 1865 – March 4, 1869 and when a positions became available on 30. May. 1865 and 5. Jul. 1867 the Senate simply ended those chairs. After Johnson's term ended and U. Grant became President, the 9th position was created again on 21. Mar. 1870.
So bottom line is the Senate has final authority here. It can do anything it wants.
These silly liberals don't do their research. Good job.
Hey let's give it a try. Let's raise it up to 11 Justices right now and if in 30 years we don't like it we'll go back to 9. I usually don't have progressive ideas but here's one.
That's the problem, democrats don't play dirty. They had judges ready to go under the Obama presidency, but the GOP kept playing games to keep stalling until "I like beer" and sexually assaulting women guy came around.
At this point playing dirty games like the GOP seems like the only way to win, but that's where the democrats falter, they won't stoop to those levels,....
When did playing dirty first become a thing in your recollection? The first similar mess I remember was Clarence Thomas. They dug up Anita Hill, a woman that by every indication had no issues with Clarence Thomas until she saw an opportunity to thwart his SCOTUS appointment. I doubt this was the first such case. Do you have an example of the GOP playing dirty with SCOTUS nomination earlier than that?
We also have the aforementioned FDR looking to stack the Supreme Court when they didn't do his majesty's bidding. That might have cost him his presidency if he'd actually gone through with it. If the Democrats stack the Supreme Court at the next possible opportunity, it might end their political party entirely, so I don't recommend it. Also worth mentioning, the Democrats were the ones who implemented the nuclear option where a simple majority in the Senate is all that is needed and you can't filibuster the process. That was their thing and a precedent set by them. Refusing to answer questions and getting away with it was a precedent set by Ruth Ginsberg, so once again the Democrats set the precedent. In all honesty, I think the Republicans have been a bunch of timid little mice far too often. Like an hen-pecked husband, they let the Dems badger them into all kinds of nonsense. But Republicans rarely ever change the rules of the game to favor their side. That is much more a Democrat thing to do.
Much of this comes down to what it means to be Liberal and what it means to be Conservative. Conservatives tend to want to keep doing things the same way. Liberals tend to push boundaries and change the game. You need both for a stable society to exist.
Much of this comes down to what it means to be Liberal and what it means to be Conservative. Conservatives tend to want to keep doing things the same way. Liberals tend to push boundaries and change the game. You need both for a stable society to exist.
In other words ..
Conservatives want to keep our Constitutional Republic intact whereas, Liberals wish to turn us into Venezuela.
I don't really care much for your definition of a "stable society."
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.
