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.
The only rule I'm aware of that was changed was the rule on cloture (AKA closing the debate on a nominee.) It used to take 60 votes for cloture for any federal judge. The rule was changed by a Harry Reid led Democrat controlled Senate in 2013 to allow for a simple 50 vote majority for cloture. At the time, McConnell said, "You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." He wasn't wrong. The Republicans won out, retaking the Senate the following year and the GOP have used that very political f-ckery by the Democrats against them.
The 60 vote cloture rule was the most effective tool in existence to avoid the over-politicization of the courts. Unless one party had a 60 vote super-majority while all voting in lockstep (almost never happens), then no federal or Supreme Court judge/justice could be confirmed without some modicum of good will from the minority party. I would be 100% in favor of restoring that rule, but I really don't know how you put that genie back in the bottle when it makes it so easy for the majority to effortlessly slam through federal judges.
If you are saying that some rule exists that any nominee the President sends to the Senate must be voted on, no such rule exists -- which is underscored by the fact that more than 10 SCOTUS vacancies have lasted 300+ days and more than 5 SCOTUS vacancies have lasted more than 500 days. There is absolutely no rule saying that the Senate can't simply ignore every nominee the President sends them. It has happened many many times and it will no doubt happen again many times.
They did not have a debate on Garland, he was not even considered in the Judiciary Committee it had nothing to do with doing away with the filibuster, besides the filibuster only changed in the lower courts not the supreme court. McConnell also did away with the blue slip recommendations in home states appointing judges from across the country in home state courts.
McConnell also stated "we shouldn't legislate as if we will be in power forever" when he took office then he went and did exactly that raising the stakes.
I would support a return to 60 vote rule but if you look at the history the last 20 years it was definitely abused. This hyper partisanship in the courts is bad for the country, we are starting to look like a banana republic.
We actually don't know that there wasn't support in the Senate. The Senate majority leader made the decision not to bring it to a vote. In fact, by doing so, he shielded Republican Senators who would have had to answer to their constituents voting one way or the other - doesn't that sound like McConnel subverted the will of the people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfrex
No, the senate did not have a chance to support or not support the pick. The Republican party made a strategic decision to let the blame fall on McConnell instead of giving voters the ability to voice their opinion on their elected senator's decision. That is a subversion of democracy.
McConnell is up for re-election now, sounds to me, based on how you feel, like you should definitely not vote for him.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
McConnell is up for re-election now, sounds to me, based on how you feel, like you should definitely not vote for him.
I don't have a say in McConnell's election, but with the way the senate in this country works, a Kentucky resident's vote carries twice the weight of mine. So, thanks I guess?
People might have expected Romney to take a more principled stand or at least recognize the outrageous hypocrisy in this. But, he and every other Republican leader know that this is the end of the line for their control of the government. If they let this one slip away it could be a long, long time before there is another.
Luckily, Democrats are rioting, looting, and burning down their cities which all but ensures Republicans staying in power.
When the alternative to Republican is lawlessness, the choice becomes crystal clear.
exactly right....democrats did not control the senate at the time....
They are all ignoring....or scamming ....the fact democrats did not control the senate and could not have gotten enough votes....it was not going to happen in the first place
...going through with it would have been a total waste of time
It fun to see all these excuses like they didn't have enough votes for Garland, if that were true they could have just allowed the vote rather than making up some fantastic excuse and creating this circus. Besides both Kagan and Sotomayor who were far to the left of Garland received republican votes to push them past 60. Seems like they created quite the controversy in 2016 if they were so sure Garland wouldn't be approved, what would be the harm of a floor vote. Anyway never heard that from McConnell or anyone else, just the Biden Rule.
Assuming what you claim is true and he didn't get the votes then it would be on to the next nominee, but that would have been pointless since all the senate leadership said the next president should make the selection. This was never about Garland, it was about McConnell and Grassley.
Reelection of Trump would mean more of the same, isn’t the law and order president still in power.
There is "law and order" in places that voted for Trump. The only places where there is trouble is in cities and states that foolishly voted for Democrats at the state and local levels who are enabling and encouraging DNC terrorists.
If people want that to stop, they'll vote against those Democrats....if not, they deserve having their cities burn. You get what you vote for.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,166 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19460
Puerto Rico and DC as states.
AOC might try and expand the US even further, I mean what about Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic and the Bahamas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Democrats
Democrats are not admitting defeat. But they are looking beyond election day, to the possibility of blocking the appointment – if Mr Biden wins and they take the Senate – or, for progressives in particular, to the nuclear option: enlarging or restructuring the supreme court (and, potentially, adding Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states, rebalancing the Senate).
AOC might try and expand the US even further, I mean what about Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic and the Bahamas.
The Florida Keys could be a state too. Someone tried to do that once
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.
