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.
Your linked chart does not provide D vs R votes, only those that voted yea or nay. So it is hard to say how much D support there was without further investigation.
The margins are sufficient that it is readily apparent the vast majority were bipartisan votes and not party line (or "in lock step" as you put it).
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.
On the key issues that divide our country, Garland is a leftist. Plain and simple. What critical issue do you think he would not have voted along with the leftists on?
This is a serious question to you and anyone else that keeps pushing the "moderate" line with Garland.
Thomas has stated that such rumors were untrue, though I can't speak to Alito. As far as I'm concerned, neither will be inclined to retire under a Dem president, but we'll see!
On the key issues that divide our country, Garland is a leftist. Plain and simple. What critical issue do you think he would not have voted along with the leftists on?
This is a serious question to you and anyone else that keeps pushing the "moderate" line with Garland.
The same people who suggest Garland was a "moderate" are the same people who would tell you that Obama is a "moderate".
By their definitions, any actual moderate would be "right wing"
Like I've said before this will bite Republicans in the rear when Dems take the senate next year. They will start ramming through nominees to the court without Republicans having a say at all and it will be marvelous.
Thomas and Bryer might be retiring during Bidens term so the Dems should play it crooked like Republicans. I still think they should stack the court but seems Feinstein has some opposition to it.
not only do you assume a Biden and Senate win, you assume that if no SCOTUS appointment is made that the Dems claims over the last 2 days are just bluster and not actually revealing their intentions.
Me, I think it lays bare their intentions. They've been talking about undoing everything Trump for 4 years. Getting rid of the Electoral College that has served ALL citizens. Court-packing to water down Kavanaugh. Asserting several items as "rights" that would be Constitutional challenges.
Now your just making stuff up, there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't be confirmed and that's why he wasn't even allowed to get out of committee. If that were true they could have avoided all this by just holding a vote, they didn't want to do that because he would likely be confirmed so they came up with some outlandish reason.
I'm betting the wealthy donors and lobbyists got in touch and threatened them when Scalia passed, Garland was too moderate to make the Federalist List.
The really amazing thing is that the Democrats are still whining about the fact that they weren't allowed to put one of theirs on the Supreme Court, while at the same time throwing a massive tantrum about the fact that the Republicans are trying to put one of there's on.
Everyone gambled in 2016:
Ruth Bader Ginsberg bet the farm on Hillary winning and hoped that the Senate would flip too, opening the way for a more Far Left replacement for her.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg once again bet the farm that in spite of her failing health, she would live long enough for a Democrat President and Senate.
Anthony Scalia hadn't retired yet in 2016 because he didn't want to be replaced by a Liberal justice. He gambled that he'd live long enough to see a Republican presidency and Senate.
In 2016, the Republican Senate gambled that they'd retain the Senate, and hoped Trump would win so they could put in a more Conservative replacement for Scalia.
The Democrats went all in trying to lecture the Republicans on a bunch of high minded -- and completely made up -- principles about the Constitution, duty and doing the right thing. Their gamble was that they could guilt-trip the Republicans into taking action that the Democrats would never in a million years take if the positions were reversed.
Mitch McConnell made the fairly safe bet that by never letting a nominee get to the floor for a vote, it would take the heat off of vulnerable Republican Senators who would have voted "No" anyways.
Some people bet and won. Some people bet and lost. Both parties play stupid little games when it's time to replace a Supreme Court justice. They also try to pretend that they are upholding high and holy ideals, but every single one of them is lying. It's just round 115 of the same game of trying to get the Supreme Court on their side of politics.
The really amazing thing is that the Democrats are still whining about the fact that they weren't allowed to put one of theirs on the Supreme Court, while at the same time throwing a massive tantrum about the fact that the Republicans are trying to put one of there's on.
Everyone gambled in 2016:
Ruth Bader Ginsberg bet the farm on Hillary winning and hoped that the Senate would flip too, opening the way for a more Far Left replacement for her.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg once again bet the farm that in spite of her failing health, she would live long enough for a Democrat President and Senate.
Anthony Scalia hadn't retired yet in 2016 because he didn't want to be replaced by a Liberal justice. He gambled that he'd live long enough to see a Republican presidency and Senate.
In 2016, the Republican Senate gambled that they'd retain the Senate, and hoped Trump would win so they could put in a more Conservative replacement for Scalia.
The Democrats went all in trying to lecture the Republicans on a bunch of high minded -- and completely made up -- principles about the Constitution, duty and doing the right thing. Their gamble was that they could guilt-trip the Republicans into taking action that the Democrats would never in a million years take if the positions were reversed.
Mitch McConnell made the fairly safe bet that by never letting a nominee get to the floor for a vote, it would take the heat off of vulnerable Republican Senators who would have voted "No" anyways.
Some people bet and won. Some people bet and lost. Both parties play stupid little games when it's time to replace a Supreme Court justice. They also try to pretend that they are upholding high and holy ideals, but every single one of them is lying. It's just round 115 of the same game of trying to get the Supreme Court on their side of politics.
Good post. I didn't realize that Scalia was 79 when he passed; I thought he was much younger for some reaosn. And it didn't help that he was a heavy chain smoker either.
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.
