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.
This is a hilarious example of your hypocrisy, whining about something you were pushing for just 4 years ago.
4 years ago the president nominated someone to fill a SCOTUS seat and there wasn't support in the Senate to confirm them.
Today the president is planning on nominating someone to fill a SCOTUS seat and we'll see if there's support in the Senate to confirm them.
It's the exact same rules as there were then.....you are just upset that you didn't get your way then, and you likely won't get your way now and that's why we see this hypocritical nonsense from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
If the Senate supported the pick, they'd have moved forward with it. They chose instead not to waste time on a non-starter.
The argument last time was between Democrats saying "YOU HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A VOTE" and the Republicans saying "No, we really don't have to if we don't want to, and we think our constituents would prefer we not"......and the Republicans were right and were rewarded by voters for that stance.
Today the argument is between Democrats saying "YOU CAN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH A VOTE" and the Republicans saying "Well, yeah we really can, and that's what we were voted into office to do"
The hypocrisy is by Democrats who are taking an opposite stance today than they did 4 years ago. The Republicans are merely arguing that the choice is theirs, it was then, it is now.
We'll see how voters react, but it doesn't really matter in the short term, the Republicans control the White House and Senate, it's completely their choice....it's what they ran on, it's what the voters put them in office to do.
This is what a lot of people are missing. We had a Democrat president and a Republican controlled Senate. What would the point of holding hearings for Garland have been? Waste of time - the Senate wasn't going to confirm him.
There's a difference between "stacking the court" which would essentially be Democrats deciding to burn down the entire system because they can't win without changing the rules and merely nominating judges when natural vacancies occur. Stacking the court would almost certainly lead to members of congress being killed by the public because it would be outright corruption and tyranny on display.
While extremists might support that kind of thing, the consequences would be dire.
Please spare us the holier than thou attitude. We all know that there has been ample "corruption and tyranny" by both sides over the past decade. What the Republicans are doing now is hypocritical and opportunistic. But it IS perfectly legal. If the dems try to stack the court, that would be lamentable, but it would also be perfectly legal.
This is what a lot of people are missing. We had a Democrat president and a Republican controlled Senate. What would the point of holding hearings for Garland have been? Waste of time - the Senate wasn't going to confirm him.
Again, we don't know that. And if the senate voted not to confirm Garland, it may have influenced voter decisions. The senate majority leader prevented that from happening, which took the decision out of voter hands. Do you see how that prevented the will of the people from being represented in this process?
That's not quite what happened, but feel free to continue that fantasy.
They didn't want a vote because Garland would have likely been confirmed, it would have been difficult for them to come up with a reason to vote against a moderate judge. Grassley helped them avoid going on record.
Please spare us the holier than thou attitude. We all know that there has been ample "corruption and tyranny" by both sides over the past decade. What the Republicans are doing now is hypocritical and opportunistic. But it IS perfectly legal. If the dems try to stack the court, that would be lamentable, but it would also be perfectly legal.
Well, I'm just telling you about the consequences of it, feel free to ignore the warning just like you guys did when Republicans told you what would happen if the filibuster was ditched to confirm judges.
Any move to stack the court will not end well for Democrats....but if that's the game they want to play, their terms are acceptable as the meme goes.
It would be a call for civil war and the start of helicopter rides.
If Democrats are sane, and that's no guarantee, they just take the L and work towards leading within the confines of the Constitution if they happen to take power. The other options will end in a LOT of bloodshed and the destruction of the entire system.
They didn't want a vote because Garland would have likely been confirmed, it would have been difficult for them to come up with a reason to vote against a moderate judge. Grassley helped them avoid going on record.
No, he certainly wouldn't have been, a hearing would have just provided the Democrats with a platform to grandstand leading up to an election and given Garland had very little support in the Senate and no chance of confirmation, there was no reason to give them that platform.
This is what a lot of people are missing. We had a Democrat president and a Republican controlled Senate. What would the point of holding hearings for Garland have been? Waste of time - the Senate wasn't going to confirm him.
They would have gone on record as voting against a perfectly qualified nominee.
There was a time when judges and Supreme Court justices were approved based on their qualifications. I wish it were still that way. As long as a nominee has the right education and experience, and is not subject to any criminal or corruption charges, I think they should be approved, regardless of their political leanings. That went out of fashion starting with Robert Bork, and its been a sheet-show ever since.
This is what a lot of people are missing. We had a Democrat president and a Republican controlled Senate. What would the point of holding hearings for Garland have been? Waste of time - the Senate wasn't going to confirm him.
There have been plenty of more liberal judges confirmed in the past, although democrats were in the majority neither would have been confirmed if some republicans didn't cross over. Garland had similar credentials to Kavanaugh although Garland was more moderate. No reason to expect he wouldn't be approved.
Prior to 2016, whenever a Democrat President nominated a SCJ, the Republicans in the Senate voted according to their view of the person's qualifications. Many R's voted yes. In the previous few decades, however, when ever a Republican President nominated a SCJ, the Democrats in the Senate voted lock step against the selection.
What McConnell did in 2016 was a payback for those partisan votes of the past by the Dems, regardless of qualifications. You reap what you sow.
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.
