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.
He's not owed anything. When it was clear he had no support in the Senate, the nomination should have been withdrawn and a better candidate should have been picked. Instead we just get people whining that God King Barry didn't get his way. There's no way to take any of that seriously.
A up or down vote in your world is....he has his way? What nonsense. GOP refused to do their job. They refused to vote. Much like when they refused to hear witnesses recently.....
Nice attempt to influence your own poll. Maybe you should be a pollster for the MSM.
Here is a news flash for you. Obama was a termed out president, so he was not coming back, thus a "lame duck".
Trump can and is likely to win a 2nd term, thus is no lame duck.
If Trump doesn't get elected he will effectively have had 5 years to choose a SCJ, while Obama had 7. So the guy who lost an election gets more time than his actual term to choose, while the guy who never lost gets less. Makes perfect sense.
We're used to that from mewling Democrat losers, in part because they've been losing so often recently.
Mitch knew that Presidents don't choose the next USSC justice.
Presidents and the Senate choose them.
The Constitution requires that the Senate give "advice and consent" on any Supreme Court nominee, for them to become a Justice. And it's up to the Senate to decide what method they use to do that.
Refusing to discuss a nominee, is their way of doing that sometimes. Completely legal, completely constitutional.
If the President wants to get his nominee onto the bench, maybe he should pick a nominee the Senate will approve.
The only problem is that mewling, whiny Democrats didn't like the Senate following the Constitution so clearly. And they've never stopped complaining about it since. Not that their complaints matter.
When a Democratic Senate pulls a stunt like McConnell's, I'm sure you will support that 100% as well.
A up or down vote in your world is....he has his way? What nonsense. GOP refused to do their job. They refused to vote. Much like when they refused to hear witnesses recently.....
Wasting time just to give Democrats a platform to whine when the candidate has no support in the Senate is what you are claiming was "owed"
It seems you are a big fan of worthless political grandstanding.... the rest of the country isn't.
The senate was obligated to take a up and down vote on Merrick Garland. He was nominated because he was considered moderate and Obama knew that was his only chance getting him confirmed. That was not the issue with Kagan and Sotomayor because the democrats held the senate which made it possible to confirm further left justices. The senate could have given Garland a no vote but Mitch did not want to take a chance on him getting confirmed so he refused to even take a vote.
If the Dems take back the White house and the Senate i'd love for them to just start confirming liberal judges left and right see the look on Moscow Mitches face if hes still in the Senate.
I'm sure the Republicans will whine about returning the filibuster for judges when the Dems hold the majority.
The whole trick is this: If you don't control the Presidency or the Senate, you don't get to stop the process in order to wait for the next POTUS. In fact, it was the Democrats who changed the rules to make it easier for them to install federal judges. The GOP took over the Senate and has been making efficient use of that simplification.
There is a very good reason why Ruth Bader Ginsberg has not retired yet. She knows perfectly well that if she steps down while Trump is still in office, her replacement will be a Conservative justice 100% guaranteed.
If the roles were reversed and a Conservative justice were right on death's door, with a Democrat POTUS and Senate, we all know perfectly well that they would absolutely not put in a Conservative justice. They'd install the most Liberal justice they could get and everyone knows it.
Still can't wrap my head around this. If ideological leanings of judges are more important than the document they interpret, the document is deeply flawed and ultimately irrelevant, secondary at best.
Its amazing how far right this site leans based on the results, a better poll would be how many agreed with McConnell back in 2016 but now changed their minds because it appears the next president and possibly the senate will be democratic.
I recall all the excuses not to vote 9 months before an election, the Biden non-rule, its too divisive to have a pick just before an election, the senate is just there to advise, heard it all.
SO now the song has changed. Like McConnell stated, "we shouldn't legislate like we're in power forever", then he went out an broke his own rule.
So how many of you that voted " yes it should " changed your minds from 2016, too bad this wasn't a public poll I need a laugh.
A judge that has a detectable left/right lean in their rulings should be disqualified from the Supreme Court outright.
Why?
Judges interpret existing laws. Are you suggesting all decisions should be the same? I think you want a computer not a human being.
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.
