• 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!

McConnell: Americans ‘will not tolerate’ Dems blocking SCOTUS nominee

roughdraft274 said:
I don't like it either. I think it's a much better idea for democrats to work with Trump to get done what they agree with him on.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example why Dems keep brining cupcakes to a knife fight and wondering why they get their ass kicked .
 
coldjoint said:
Payback? Maybe the Republicans should ram through a life changing bill affecting 20% of the economy without one Democratic vote. That would be payback. Stop whining, you lost.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should keep repealing and not have a replacement, proving what liars the corrupt GOP house is .
 
You mean like they wouldn't tolerate repubs blocking SCOTUS like they have been for like a year? It's still Obama's pick, no reason not to block it
 
poweRob said:
If I'm not mistaken, that doesn't apply to SCOTUS appointements.
Click to expand...

Grassley has already threatened to do it to SCOTUS as well as legislation.

You see, only DEMs are expected to fall on the sword .
 
poweRob said:
If I'm not mistaken, that doesn't apply to SCOTUS appointements.
Click to expand...

It doesn't apply to scotus appointments or to legislation.

If we tell the more die hard conservatives a couple dozen more times they might figure it out sooner or later. Possibly, lol.
 
Anagram said:
I really don't like that "they did it first, so let's do it back" strategy. It just leads to a race to the bottom with both parties "justifying" things they know are wrong because the other side did something to them first.
Click to expand...

Too damn bad. They have 15 days to approve Garland or they can **** off

In fact, some republicans were saying they would never approve a Hillary appointment, after saying let the voters decide who makes the replacement (even though they decided on Obama in 2012). So i see no reason whatsoever to capitulate on this
 
roughdraft274 said:
I\This is the kind of issue I hate because if everything were reversed I think the leadership in it's entirety of both parties would be arguing the exact opposite of what they are now. Democrats would be arguing that they had the right to block the appointment and republicans would be arguing that they shouldn't support anyone appointed by the new president cause it was stolen from them. And 75% of all supporters would switch sides accordingly.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree. This is one issue where I think the parties' arguments would be reversed if their roles were reversed. It's frustrating, because it can't be proven, with the slight nuances they're hanging their hat on. but I don't think Republicans would've supported Democratic obstructionism if RBG had died with 11 months left in Bush's term. And I don't think Democrats would be alright with Republican obstructionism after Obama won, even if he had only won via the electoral college.

To me it was wrong when the republicans did it. If it were within 3-6 months of the election then I think it's fair to say lets wait for the new president, and I'm not even sure about 6 months. But what the republicans did was bull**** plain and simple. And I'm aware the democrats have tried to pull the same bull**** in the past.
Click to expand...

It was. But I'm a big believer in not fighting bull**** with bull****. Because that "justifies" new bull**** for the Republicans the next time they want to do something that they shouldn't do.
 
coldjoint said:
Blocking a Supreme Court appointment in a presidential election year was the right thing to do. Blocking one now is petty.
Click to expand...

I agree. Obama had his turn appointing SCOTUS nominees and there was a long standing precedent for the outgoing lame duck President to not make an appointment in a Presidential election year. Had Hillary been elected instead of Trump, and she consented to Obama's appointment, he would have almost certainly been confirmed in short order. The GOP might have confirmed him anyway because it wasn't a terrible appointment and Hillary's might have been much worse.

But those of us who want an impartial court that rules according to the Constitution and the existing law did not want the court lost to a leftist politically correct social engineering group of justices even for as long as it would take for the next vacancy to occur.

So we breathed a sigh of relief when we saw Trump's list of potential nominees and we are keeping our fingers crossed that he will stick with that caliber of SCOTUS justice when he makes his nomination.
 
azgreg said:
McConnell: Americans ‘will not tolerate’ Dems blocking SCOTUS nominee | TheHill



Senator Turtle is such a hypocritical mother****er.
Click to expand...

Captain America said:
Americans tolerated the republicans doing it so why does he think they won't tolerate the democrats doing it?

What's good for the goose........
Click to expand...

There are 18 Democratic senators up for reelection in 2018. Of those, 11 are from states Trump carried. The Repubs will get the 60 votes they need for their SCOTUS nominees.
 
chromium said:
Too damn bad. They have 15 days to approve Garland or they can **** off

In fact, some republicans were saying they would never approve a Hillary appointment, after saying let the voters decide who makes the replacement (even though they decided on Obama in 2012). So i see no reason whatsoever to capitulate on this
Click to expand...

And the people saying that they would never approve any Hillary appointment were wrong. But so is what the Democrats are doing now. This back and forth is going to make it impossible for any President to get a SCOTUS justice through in the future. That's not a good thing.
 
coldjoint said:
Blocking a Supreme Court appointment in a presidential election year was the right thing to do. Blocking one now is petty.
Click to expand...

We all know if say Ginsburg croaked in 2020 and dems blocked any Trump appointment, you'd be crying hysterically of how petty they are

Reality is the party of no has been blocking tons of federal appointments for years now

It?s Not Just Merrick Garland: Republicans Are Blocking So Many Nominees It?s Caused a Judicial Emergency - The Daily Beast

"Over the past 16 months, the Senate has confirmed 17 lifetime-appointment judges. In the same period in 2007-08, the Democrat-led Senate confirmed 45"

"And it’s not just judges. The Congressional Research Service found that President Obama has had the fewest presidential nominees confirmed in decades: 198, compared with 345 for George W. Bush"

So yes this is unprecedented and it's time for revenge

WHY is it unprecedented. Well, my theory is he's black and that has always infuriated the republican base
 
Last edited:
Anagram said:
It was. But I'm a big believer in not fighting bull**** with bull****. Because that "justifies" new bull**** for the Republicans the next time they want to do something that they shouldn't do.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good until the political party that refuses to pull the same stunts has to tell their party supporters that we have a supreme court that has swung sharply to the right simply because we didn't want to get dirty like they did. It's a losing political argument. Sad but true in my opinion. I think it sucks but if you or I were a paid political consultant and our job was to advise the dems to do whatever helps them politically I'd have to say that fighting all Trump SC nominees until Garland gets a vote would be the best option.
 
chromium said:
Too damn bad. They have 15 days to approve Garland or they can **** off

In fact, some republicans were saying they would never approve a Hillary appointment, after saying let the voters decide who makes the replacement (even though they decided on Obama in 2012). So i see no reason whatsoever to capitulate on this
Click to expand...

Repubs will get the votes they need. Please see #35.
 
roughdraft274 said:
It doesn't apply to scotus appointments or to legislation.

If we tell the more die hard conservatives a couple dozen more times they might figure it out sooner or later. Possibly, lol.
Click to expand...

But it could. The Democrats aren't the only ones who can bring in legislation to change the requirements.
 
Absentglare said:
There's a meaningful difference that i see: republicans have obstructed for about a year while democrats seem to have not yet obstructed.
Click to expand...

Bob murdered a guy. Paul hasn't murdered a guy yet but conspires to. Both will still get 10-25 years in prison either way
 
Anagram said:
And the people saying that they would never approve any Hillary appointment were wrong. But so is what the Democrats are doing now. This back and forth is going to make it impossible for any President to get a SCOTUS justice through in the future. That's not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Garland was even an appeasement choice, a total moderate who had unanimous support by repubs on his previous position. They're only doing this now because politics, because they want it to be THEIR choice, which was really stupid because now they might see 2-3 SCOTUS openings blocked. IF Trump gets to appoint anyone it must be someone along the lines of Garland and not another zealot like Scalia. Otherwise the democrats might as well disband altogether. That level of capitulation is unacceptable
 
Jack Hays said:
There are 18 Democratic senators up for reelection in 2018. Of those, 11 are from states Trump carried. The Repubs will get the 60 votes they need for their SCOTUS nominees.
Click to expand...

I count 10. I doubt it. Democrats only need to hold 3. Nelson, Stabenow, Manchin, and Casey are very popular and almost untouchable. Tester, Heitkamp, and Donnelly are reasonably popular, the best possible Democrats for their state, and won't be easy to knock off. Baldwin and Brown won't be easy to knock off either. McCaskill's probably gone, unless there's another Aiken though. Plus there's the fact that midterms are usually bad for the party in power and that voters in the past have seemed to want to avoid having one party with all the power.
 
chromium said:
We all know if say Ginsburg croaked in 2020 and dems blocked any Trump appointment, you'd be crying hysterically of how petty they are

Reality is the party of no has been blocking tons of federal appointments for years now

It?s Not Just Merrick Garland: Republicans Are Blocking So Many Nominees It?s Caused a Judicial Emergency - The Daily Beast

"Over the past 16 months, the Senate has confirmed 17 lifetime-appointment judges. In the same period in 2007-08, the Democrat-led Senate confirmed 45"

"And it’s not just judges. The Congressional Research Service found that President Obama has had the fewest presidential nominees confirmed in decades: 198, compared with 345 for George W. Bush"

So yes this is unprecedented and it's time for revenge

WHY is it unprecedented. Well, my theory is he's black and that has always infuriated the republican base
Click to expand...

Bush and Obama both appointed 325 judges.


[h=3]List of Presidents of the United States by judicial appointments ...[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_judicial_appoin...
 
Anagram said:
I count 10. I doubt it. Democrats only need to hold 3. Nelson, Stabenow, Manchin, and Casey are very popular and almost untouchable. Tester, Heitkamp, and Donnelly are reasonably popular, the best possible Democrats for their state, and won't be easy to knock off. Baldwin and Brown won't be easy to knock off either. McCaskill's probably gone, unless there's another Aiken though. Plus there's the fact that midterms are usually bad for the party in power and that voters in the past have seemed to want to avoid having one party with all the power.
Click to expand...

The 11th is Maine, which Trump partially carried.
 
Anagram said:
I count 10. I doubt it. Democrats only need to hold 3. Nelson, Stabenow, Manchin, and Casey are very popular and almost untouchable. Tester, Heitkamp, and Donnelly are reasonably popular, the best possible Democrats for their state, and won't be easy to knock off. Baldwin and Brown won't be easy to knock off either. McCaskill's probably gone, unless there's another Aiken though. Plus there's the fact that midterms are usually bad for the party in power and that voters in the past have seemed to want to avoid having one party with all the power.
Click to expand...

We shall see.
 
Jack Hays said:
The 11th is Maine, which Trump partially carried.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count that since the whole state votes for Senator and Clinton carried the whe state. Regardless, King is probably the most popular politician there in 20 years.
 
Anagram said:
I wholeheartedly agree. This is one issue where I think the parties' arguments would be reversed if their roles were reversed. It's frustrating, because it can't be proven, with the slight nuances they're hanging their hat on. but I don't think Republicans would've supported Democratic obstructionism if RBG had died with 11 months left in Bush's term. And I don't think Democrats would be alright with Republican obstructionism after Obama won, even if he had only won via the electoral college.



It was. But I'm a big believer in not fighting bull**** with bull****. Because that "justifies" new bull**** for the Republicans the next time they want to do something that they shouldn't do.
Click to expand...

It's on the voters to force the parties to work together, but they never do. Name one senator who was replaced because he blocked Garland's hearing along with ever other sensible legislation. So it's the voters' fault as always. Consequently the dems have no reason to not return the favor

It's too late to undo any of this, and i don't want to hear any whining by conservatives when it happens, when liberals aren't represented at all by either party
 
Anagram said:
I wouldn't count that since the whole state votes for Senator and Clinton carried the whe state. Regardless, King is probably the most popular politician there in 20 years.
Click to expand...

And he got that way by cultivating a reputation down the middle. He's a very possible Trump voter re the SCOTUS.
 
chromium said:
Too damn bad. They have 15 days to approve Garland or they can **** off

In fact, some republicans were saying they would never approve a Hillary appointment, after saying let the voters decide who makes the replacement (even though they decided on Obama in 2012). So i see no reason whatsoever to capitulate on this
Click to expand...

:lamo

I'm sure they'll take that under advisement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom