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.
I would say that she should not be considered for the court until she has attended four more years of college and earns a degree in biology with at least a 3.0 GPA. That seems to be necessary for her... er, I mean "it."
I disagree that they did. The framework that governs these things is in the Constitution. Just like the Constitution allows for Congress to set the size of the Supreme Court (outside of the Chief Justice), the Constitution stipulates that the Senate shall provide advice and consent for presidential nominees. That's exactly what the Senate did with Merrick Garland. As I've explained many times in different circumstances, inherent in the advice and consent role is the right to refuse advice and consent. As advice and consent are not rubber stamps, the Senate can express its disapproval of a candidate by refusing to hold hearings. The Supreme Court has been at 9 justices for more than 150 years. Nothing that the GOP did or didn't do changed that number.
Now, I suppose that one can claim that by refusing to hold hearings, the Senate decided to go against the existing framework in that they chose to disregard existing Senate practice on how to handle matters. But a couple of things. The GOP didn't make up that rule. No, Democrats have long stated that they would engage in the same practice, seen here when Senator Schumer (back when the Dems had the majority) said that the Senate should not confirm another Bush nominee to the Supreme Court: https://www.politico.com/story/2007/...t-picks-005146 Realistically, the only way to prevent confirmation is to refuse to hold votes as once you allow for a vote you don't really control how every member of your caucus is going to vote.
The dems HATE IT when the repubs do what the dems promised to do if gotten the chance.
"when Senator Schumer (back when the Dems had the majority" and harry reid as the SML
When the party of the President has the majority in both the House and Senate, approval of any appointment is inevitable. All of the time spent arguing is simply wasted, and could be better spent actually doing some constructive leadership, perhaps negotiating on issues where some people might actually be persuaded to vote against their party line.
Burr is on his way out the door. He could have just said, I need to continue an income stream, so as a good GOP member, I will vote against a very qualified person.
The last court packing was done by the GOP. Moscow Mitch refused to place Garland on the court. Obama's choice.
From what I read, Burr says that her answer on the subject--which was received from their "meeting" (I didn't take that to mean congressional testimony, but rather one of the one-on-one meetings the nominee has had with senators)--was unsatisfactory.
But neither Gorsuch's nor Barrett's appointments represented court-packing as the term has historically been known to mean; Democrats tried to redefine the term for the past few nominations under Trump, but that was pure BS.
Still, for me, this still is a rather stranger thing to use as the reason for being against her nomination, especially when we are learning more on the sordid details of her soft-on-child abusers/would-be-abusers approach in sentencing, among other things.
Jackson has not been out of line with other judges in her sentencing considerations, many justices who have recently been appointed to courts under Trump did the same. Explained in detail at the hearing is the reasoning and considerations in reduced sentencing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
I disagree that they did. The framework that governs these things is in the Constitution. Just like the Constitution allows for Congress to set the size of the Supreme Court (outside of the Chief Justice), the Constitution stipulates that the Senate shall provide advice and consent for presidential nominees. That's exactly what the Senate did with Merrick Garland. As I've explained many times in different circumstances, inherent in the advice and consent role is the right to refuse advice and consent. As advice and consent are not rubber stamps, the Senate can express its disapproval of a candidate by refusing to hold hearings. The Supreme Court has been at 9 justices for more than 150 years. Nothing that the GOP did or didn't do changed that number.
Now, I suppose that one can claim that by refusing to hold hearings, the Senate decided to go against the existing framework in that they chose to disregard existing Senate practice on how to handle matters. But a couple of things. The GOP didn't make up that rule. No, Democrats have long stated that they would engage in the same practice, seen here when Senator Schumer (back when the Dems had the majority) said that the Senate should not confirm another Bush nominee to the Supreme Court: https://www.politico.com/story/2007/...t-picks-005146 Realistically, the only way to prevent confirmation is to refuse to hold votes as once you allow for a vote you don't really control how every member of your caucus is going to vote.
They blocked Garland period, there was never a good reason for blocking him in committee, there was never a Biden Rule. A rule needs to be agreed upon by both sides like the filibuster, just saying that a rule was in place due to a statement made 30 years ago doesn't amount to an agreement. Besides as we later learned with ACB we didn't need to wait for the next president to make a selection with 10 million votes already being cast. The republicans were in a panic when Scalia died and just came up with any excuse they could manufacture regarding Garland, they didn't want the vote to reach the floor because there was no reason not to approve his selection. He was approved by a large majority to the DC court and served 20 years, there was no reason to not have a floor vote.
Jackson has not been out of line with other judges in her sentencing considerations, many justices who have recently been appointed to courts under Trump did the same. Explained in detail at the hearing is the reasoning and considerations in reduced sentencing.
They blocked Garland period, there was never a good reason for blocking him in committee, there was never a Biden Rule. A rule needs to be agreed upon by both sides like the filibuster, just saying that a rule was in place due to a statement made 30 years ago doesn't amount to an agreement. Besides as we later learned with ACB we didn't need to wait for the next president to make a selection with 10 million votes already being cast. The republicans were in a panic when Scalia died and just came up with any excuse they could manufacture regarding Garland, they didn't want the vote to reach the floor because there was no reason not to approve his selection. He was approved by a large majority to the DC court and served 20 years, there was no reason to not have a floor vote.
"A rule needs to be agreed upon by both sides like the filibuster,
Wrong. They VOTE and when 1 party has the majority.......!
"They blocked Garland period.
You need to keep up.
It has been brought up over and over, that the DEM SML hary rerd, and his sidekick kery, threatened W. Bush to NOT appoint in his last year in office for they would NOT act on it.
"A rule needs to be agreed upon by both sides like the filibuster,
Wrong. They VOTE and when 1 party has the majority.......!
"They blocked Garland period.
You need to keep up.
It has been brought up over and over, that the DEM SML hary rerd, and his sidekick kery, threatened W. Bush to NOT appoint in his last year in office for they would NOT act on it.
The DEMS CREATED it.
But NOW!
It had nothing to do with the filibuster, there was a Biden rule when they didn't allow floor vote for Gorsuch blocking him in committee, then when ACB came along the rule suddenly went away.
Educate yourself, the filibuster previously required 60 voted in the senate, tough to have a floor vote when it doesn't leave the committee.
It had nothing to do with the filibuster, there was a Biden rule when they didn't allow floor vote for Gorsuch blocking him in committee, then when ACB came along the rule suddenly went away.
Educate yourself, the filibuster previously required 60 voted in the senate, tough to have a floor vote when it doesn't leave the committee.
"It had nothing to do with the filibuster,"
Never claimed it did.
Try to keep up!
"Educate yourself"
You first!
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.
