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.
By breaking the committee's own rules and advancing her without a quorum, Justice Barrett's nomination will now be just as tainted and legally controversial as Justices 10 and 11 will be.
You do realize that ACB's nomination could have been advanced to the full Senate without a vote in the Judiciary Committee. So if she is confirmed by the full Senate there can be no issue of her rightful place on the Court being "tainted or illegally controversial".
I will agree that there is a certain hypocrisy in the ACB being nominated and confirmed given what happened to Garland ........ but let us not be too self-righteous about this because I have not an iota of doubt that if the roles had been reversed, the Democrats would not have hesitated for a moment to advance a liberal to the Court if they held the presidency and control of the Senate.
By breaking the committee's own rules and advancing her without a quorum, Justice Barrett's nomination will now be just as tainted and legally controversial as Justices 10 and 11 will be.
Rules weren't broken. See Rule XXVI.7, which explicitly allowed such a vote: https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate. Only if you listen to the likes of CNN would you think that any rule was being broken.
Dems rely on judiciary committee specific rules to make their argument, but when there is conflict between committee rules and general Senate rules, the general Senate rule trumps.
You do realize that ACB's nomination could have been advanced to the full Senate without a vote in the Judiciary Committee. So if she is confirmed by the full Senate there can be no issue of her rightful place on the Court being "tainted or illegally controversial".
I will agree that there is a certain hypocrisy in the ACB being nominated and confirmed given what happened to Garland ........ but let us not be too self-righteous about this because I have not an iota of doubt that if the roles had been reversed, the Democrats would not have hesitated for a moment to advance a liberal to the Court if they held the presidency and control of the Senate.
Not in the least, if anything, Biden going along with the complete morons who want to pack the court and destroy the entire system leading to bloodshed is likely enough to swing enough states away from him to ensure a 2nd term for Trump and a Republican majority at least in the Senate.
Dream on, 45 million votes in so far at Biden +8. His lead isn’t going anywhere.
Dream on, 45 million votes in so far at Biden +8. His lead isn’t going anywhere.
Almost 10% of the nation already voted, this is the GOP that indicated in 2016 the voters should have a say in the next pick. Boy has their story changed.
Almost 10% of the nation already voted, this is the GOP that indicated in 2016 the voters should have a say in the next pick. Boy has their story changed.
And the Democrats took the opposite tack when it came to Garland. They said that Obama had the right to nominate and the Senate should do their duty ..... except the Democrats did not control the Senate.
RGB specifically said that the president's term lasts for four years and does not end with the final year of his term. So Trump nominated and the Senate - in the control of the Republicans - chose to advance the ACB nomination.
It is expediency on both sides ...... neither has any kind of moral upper hand
I loved the speech that Senator Lee (i think that is his name) how he recounted the history of the Supreme Court justices and how a lot of the previous judges got treated so horribly. and how the Dems have tried to make the Supreme Court political.
and the cut outs were atrocious.. how stupid and childish they are. they ought to have better decorum.
She is through the first hurdle. Mitch should call for the full vote now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
I have to agree. I wanted a delayed confirmation to as close to election day as possible, but the PA case from the other day shows that we needed her on the Court yesterday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grlzrl
They have to wait 4 days, I think it it.
McConnell will introduce the nomination and call for cloture on Friday. There is expected to be a procedural vote on Sunday, with the final confirmation vote on Monday.
The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. Thursday and vote to report Barrett's nomination at 1 p.m. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has then said he will bring Barrett's nomination to the Senate floor on Friday, setting up a procedural vote on Sunday and a final vote on Monday.
Almost 10% of the nation already voted, this is the GOP that indicated in 2016 the voters should have a say in the next pick. Boy has their story changed.
We’re at closer to 30% voted.
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.
