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 Dems could pack the court anytime they want. Even if Trump said no i will wait till after the election because you all asked me to play nice, lets say Trump did that. Lets pretend Trump loses or perhaps in 2024, if the Dems got the power, they could pack the court any time they wanted. then when Trump says hey i listened to you and did not pick Judge Amy before the election, they woudl say "sorry, not sorry, too bad - we're going to pack the court".
so Trump WAS elected but in 2016. So he IS doing what they are asking. They are asking him to not put forth Amy. They claim the Justice should be elected by the president elected, well he WAS elected in 2016.
Yep. But instead of using the Barrett confirmation as an excuse to pack the Courts, Dems would go back to Merrick Garland
The GOP can't be concerned with such threats and must govern as they are constitutionally enabled to govern.
Advice and consent. Consent doesn't have to be positive.
Many justices have been rejected.
gArland was never heard or considerer. The Senate refused to fulfill their constitutional duty, and I fear that will become the norm when the Senate and WH are from opposing parties.
gArland was never heard or considerer. The Senate refused to fulfill their constitutional duty, and I fear that will become the norm when the Senate and WH are from opposing parties.
Inherent in offering advice and consent is the right to refuse to offer advice and consent. The act of refusing to offer advice and consent is the Senate telling the president that they reject his nominee. The Constitution doesn't specify how this advice and consent role be accomplished, so it is up the Senate. It is fair that you and others took issue with how the GOP behaved with Merrick Garland, but they certainly did fulfil their constitutional duty.
gArland was never heard or considerer. The Senate refused to fulfill their constitutional duty, and I fear that will become the norm when the Senate and WH are from opposing parties.
The requirement is the advice and consent of the US Senate. The US Senate did indeed advise that there weren't enough votes even in committee to confirm Garland, therefore consent was lacking.
Yep. But instead of using the Barrett confirmation as an excuse to pack the Courts, Dems would go back to Merrick Garland
The GOP can't be concerned with such threats and must govern as they are constitutionally enabled to govern.
I never thought of that, but GOOD POINT! they keep dragging Garland's name as an unforgivable sin to perpetuity. im so sick of it. the Dems WILL pack the courts and every other trick in the book, no matter what the Republicans do to cater to them. so im glad the Repubs are standing strong.
Lindsay Graham i think said everything changed when he saw how they treated Kavanaugh, i.e. they treated him so bad, not fairly so thats when they changed the game. so now, no more good will being nice guy decisions, when the Repubs have a chance to better things that they want, they will now take the chance. not give it up. which i agree with.
gArland was never heard or considerer. The Senate refused to fulfill their constitutional duty, and I fear that will become the norm when the Senate and WH are from opposing parties.
They had his record. They considered him. They said he wasn't getting in. Its not the first time a president has failed to get his nominee in during election year. Joe Biden said HW wasn't going to if one came open. Garland was a victim of the Biden rule. And all the Dems whining is nothing but hypocritical crocodile tears. They try to stop any Republican even in the middle of the term.
Kavanaugh 48 no votes
Gorsuch 45 no votes
Kagan 37 no votes
Sotomayor 31 no votes
Alito 42 no votes
Roberts 22 no votes
Breyer 9 no votes
Ginsburg 3 no votes
Thomas 48 no votes
Souter 9 no votes
And Bork was rejected.
Nixon's Carswell and Haynesworth were rejected until Nixon appointed Blackmun who became a hardcore liberal on the court.
Other than that, you have to go back to Herbert Hoover to get more than 11 no votes.
The Democrats keep upping the ante and then whine when Republicans push back.
W.'s Harriet Miers was never given a vote. Neither were LBJ's promotion of Abe Fortas to Chief Justice and Thornberry to replace Fortas.
And this nomination is not being "rushed." Justices have been approved in as little as 8 days. And Barrett was approved in September 2017 by the Senate for her current job, so she is not an unknown.
Inherent in offering advice and consent is the right to refuse to offer advice and consent.
Unfortunately refusing to hear nominees from opposing parties is now the new normal. It DOES boil down to refusal to fulfill Constitutional duties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
They had his record. They considered him. They said he wasn't getting in. Its not the first time a president has failed to get his nominee in during election year. Joe Biden said HW wasn't going to if one came open. Garland was a victim of the Biden rule. And all the Dems whining is nothing but hypocritical crocodile tears. They try to stop any Republican even in the middle of the term.
Kavanaugh 48 no votes
Gorsuch 45 no votes
Kagan 37 no votes
Sotomayor 31 no votes
Alito 42 no votes
Roberts 22 no votes
Breyer 9 no votes
Ginsburg 3 no votes
Thomas 48 no votes
Souter 9 no votes
And Bork was rejected.
Nixon's Carswell and Haynesworth were rejected until Nixon appointed Blackmun who became a hardcore liberal on the court.
Other than that, you have to go back to Herbert Hoover to get more than 11 no votes.
The Democrats keep upping the ante and then whine when Republicans push back.
Bork was heard, and voted upon, but lost the vote. With Garland there was no hearing, no voting, no nothing. The GOP simply said "nah, we're not even going to talk about it". After Borg, Reagan nominated another person, who was confirmed with unanimous vote. Note, that the Dems controlled the Senate at that time.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 10-17-2020 at 10:42 AM..
Miers withdrew her nomination after taking a ton of criticism from her own party. What were they supposed to do? Fortas was confirmed in 1965.
So you are confirming my point. Sometimes nominees never get a vote.
Fortas was nominated for Chief Justice in 1968 after Warren retired. LBJ withdrew that nomination when people told him he would not be approved. A guy named Thornberry was nominated to fill the seat Fortas would vacate when he moved to Chief Justice. His nomination became moot when Fortas's seat was no longer open so his was also withdrawn.
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.
