• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Republicans block any nominee from Hillary indefinitely?

Should Republicans block any Hillary SC nominee's?

  • Total voters
    51
The Supreme Court has become such a partisan and political entity that the only way to make it fair is to have four liberal justices and four conservative ones. Ties be damned.
 
Moderate Right said:
The Supreme Court has become such a partisan and political entity that the only way to make it fair is to have four liberal justices and four conservative ones. Ties be damned.
Click to expand...

Funny you guys didn't think that way when it was 5 justices leaning to the right.
 
Moderate Right said:
Actually, I did. The Supreme Court should not be a partisan entity, ever.
Click to expand...

Where are your posts before Scalia died about your desire for the SCTOUS to go down to 8 justices?
 
WorldWatcher said:
A cloture vote requires 2/3rds vote. Consent or rejection of a nominee is based on a simple majority, i.e. 51 votes according to the Constitution. So a cloture vote does not answer the question as to wether the Senate consents or rejects a nominee.



>>>>
Click to expand...

The cloture vote was changed from 2/3rds to 60% in 1975. No, it is not in reality an up or down vote, but it is a vote. More than what they are giving Garland. But my point is with 54 current senators, there is no need for the GOP to with hold or filibuster as they are in control. If they don't want him confirmed, vote him down. They have the votes and will have until next year depending on this election to deny him the nomination. Show some guts and vote.
 
Perotista said:
The cloture vote was changed from 2/3rds to 60% in 1975. No, it is not in reality an up or down vote, but it is a vote. More than what they are giving Garland. But my point is with 54 current senators, there is no need for the GOP to with hold or filibuster as they are in control. If they don't want him confirmed, vote him down. They have the votes and will have until next year depending on this election to deny him the nomination. Show some guts and vote.
Click to expand...



On that we agree.


I don't see the problem with bringing a Garland vote to the floor, except of course it puts GOP Senators on record as voting against a well qualified moderate for the court. Something they could have been held accountable for at the polls. This cowardly way, they get to hide behind McConnell.



>>>>
 
Your Star said:
The elected president should be able to select a SCOTUS judge.

God damn whiny conservatives need to grow the **** up.
Click to expand...

Nothing is stopping her from NOMINATING. She should not be able to select anyone she chooses. No more than the Senate should be able to. They have to AGREE.
 
WorldWatcher said:
On that we agree.


I don't see the problem with bringing a Garland vote to the floor, except of course it puts GOP Senators on record as voting against a well qualified moderate for the court. Something they could have been held accountable for at the polls. This cowardly way, they get to hide behind McConnell.



>>>>
Click to expand...

They represent the people who vote for them (or against) dont they? If those people dont want them to vote that way, why should they?
 
jonny5 said:
They represent the people who vote for them (or against) dont they? If those people dont want them to vote that way, why should they?
Click to expand...


Please highlight where I said that if the people don't want them to confirm a nominee that they can't vote in the negative?


A link if you please.




I don't have an issue with a down vote, I have an issue with my parties Senate Leadership refusing to do their jobs.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
On that we agree.


I don't see the problem with bringing a Garland vote to the floor, except of course it puts GOP Senators on record as voting against a well qualified moderate for the court. Something they could have been held accountable for at the polls. This cowardly way, they get to hide behind McConnell.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Our glorious elected officials do that all the time. It's not only McConnell, it was Reid too when he was senate majority leader. He tabled a lot of bills whether than allow a vote which might force some of his Democratic senators to choose between his party's agenda or the wishes of the people in those senator's states. Reid was the master politician at this. McConnell doesn't have the finesse Reid had. He is coarser, but both are cut from the same cloth.

The only thing either cares about or cared about is maintaining their majority. I have no use for either one as both utilized their position to stop votes the American people deserved. The way I see it, it is the senate's duty to take all bills sent to them, debate them, change and amend them if they want, but vote on them. The same with all these nominations. They should be acted on in a timely manner.

Its one thing if one is in the minority, if one doesn't like a nominee to filibuster that nominee in order to get the president to change him. That is normal operations and part of the senates traditional workings. But if one is in the majority, just have the debate and vote and if you don't want the nominee confirmed, vote him down and be done with it. The Republicans will rue the day they didn't give Garland his vote. The odds are stacked in having Clinton wining the presidency and the Democrats regaining control of the senate. Watch for Hillary to nominate far more liberal judges than Garland.

The bad part is all of this is political agendas drive who is nominated, confirmed or denied or just put on hold than a judges judicial qualifications. Qualifications mean nothing these days, just political philosophy, ideology and agenda.
 
Bucky said:
I think this is a brilliant suggestion by Ted Cruz. As justice Breyer stated:



Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: No ninth justice, no problem - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court is working fine right now. If another seat were opened during Hillary reign, Republicans should strongly consider leaving 1-2-3 seats vacant indefinitely. This type of strategy could preserve our democracy from radical judges who create laws themselves.
Click to expand...

No, that's not how the game is played. Hillary will put someone up first who is an ideologue, probably far leftist or leftist. That nominee will get caught up in all the red tape and blah, eventually being scuttled for a Republocrat nominee, one who will support Party Power. Then that nominee will make it through and get the position. That way both sides can say they tried. Hillary can say she tried to get her judge through, but the Republican led Congress wouldn't let it, so they other judge was nominated. The GOP can claim they blocked Hillary's attempt to legislate from the bench, but had to compromise eventually and elected the second nominee.

Meanwhile the Republocrat structure in aggregate gets another Party friendly judge. And that's how the game is played.
 
Henrin said:
So how do you think the monetary system works anyway? Are you aware the government borrows from future GDP? Sure, what he said is stupid, but how our entire system works is pretty stupid when you think about it.
Click to expand...

Whether our system is stupid or not isn't the ****ing point Henrin. Seriously, can you ever stay on topic? Even if you think the system is stupid, that doesn't mean we should hand the job of over seeing it to someone who doesn't even begin to understand it and would only make it worse.
 
Bucky said:
I think this is a brilliant suggestion by Ted Cruz. As justice Breyer stated:



Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: No ninth justice, no problem - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court is working fine right now. If another seat were opened during Hillary reign, Republicans should strongly consider leaving 1-2-3 seats vacant indefinitely. This type of strategy could preserve our democracy from radical judges who create laws themselves.
Click to expand...

ANYONE who can answer this question without knowing who the nominee is should be immediately impeached. "We don't like the president" is not a valid reason to block a nomination. People need to get over their partisan bs and work toward an actually better America. Not just keeping a party in power.
 
Praxas said:
Where are your posts before Scalia died about your desire for the SCTOUS to go down to 8 justices?
Click to expand...

Give me a break. I only joined last October and he died in the middle of February. People weren't posting about the Supreme Court much BEFORE his death. Actually, I might have some posts maybe but if you want to see them then YOU do the searching. It's not worth my time. If you don't believe me, hey, it's a free country. I have ALWAYS been against the court having any partisan judges of any kind. Not even one. If we have to have partisan judges then they should be equally divided, no matter who is president. It should be law. Otherwise, we should pick nine non partisan judges.
 
Bucky said:
Not necessarily. If the Democrats put forth a legitimate candidate for presidency, I don't see Republicans objecting.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I hope they obstruct and get voted out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom