• 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!

Garland's seat wasn't stolen, the system worked as intended. Educate yourselves

Renae said:
I had a good talk with someone over this. "Why not just vote the guy down?"
Answer was: "Why, so Obama could nominate another judge?"
Click to expand...

I don't know that there was enough time to nominate another judge.

He wouldn't have been confirmed, and nobody could bitch about him not being given a hearing later, as they are now.

I know of two people on the right on this board who wanted the GOP to give him a hearing - me and TurtleDude. I don't remember others.
 
Visbek said:
No one is saying that the Republican treatment Garland was illegal.

Rather, it was obstructionist bull****.

They didn't give him any sort of hearing. They didn't even consider his merits. He didn't even make it to a committee. They did not advise or consent. They didn't even SAY they were going to advise or consent. McConnell explicitly said "we won't consider anyone nominated by Obama." What they did was obstruct.

This follows the rules. It is NOT what the system was designed for. It's not an example of the system at work. It's an example of a broken system.

We should note that it's only a matter of time before this haunts Republicans. What will you say, if Democrats win the Senate, and block any Trump SCOTUS nominees in his final year? Or for the rest of his term?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, did you just make up a word I did not use? You did! I never said illegal. I said STOLEN.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Translation: The GOP wanted it therefore it's justified. I'm sure when the Democrats block something you want you'll start talking about how partisanism is ruining the country and the Democrats should come together for America.



K, then you believe anytime the congress can obstruct for partisan reasons, they always should. I hope you hold this same sentiment in 2018 and 2020 if the makeup changes.
Click to expand...
You asked a question...I answered. That is 'why'.

I fully expect the rats to pull the same ploy should they gain power in 2018 or 2020. I expected it of HRC. Frankly, that is why I am not heartbroken over Trumps election. I did not vote for him but given the choice between HRC and Trump...HRC would have given us more Ginsbergs. Trump has given us what appears to be another Roberts.
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't know that there was enough time to nominate another judge.

He wouldn't have been confirmed, and nobody could bitch about him not being given a hearing later, as they are now.

I know of two people on the right on this board who wanted the GOP to give him a hearing - me and TurtleDude. I don't remember others.
Click to expand...

Meh, a hearing why? They weren't gonna vote yea in the end and they didn't wanna bother wasting their time. Why go through the motions of pretending just for looks. They sent a message, to the President, to the Dem's and to their base. It worked, and the GOP kept the senate. Like I said, high stakes political gamesmanship and they actually won that battle.
 
Renae said:
The Senate then must give their advice, and their consent.

Because the GOP controlled the Senate, they chose to withhold their consent.
Click to expand...

So they must give their consent by voting, either up or down, but they refused to do that, even though thats what they "must" do?

You just pointed out that they failed to do their job in your very first post. Good job.
 
roughdraft274 said:
So they must give their consent by voting, either up or down, but they refused to do that, even though thats what they "must" do?

You just pointed out that they failed to do their job in your very first post. Good job.
Click to expand...

No, they chose to use an alternative means. Do show where they HAVE to do it a certain way? You can't.
 
Renae said:
Meh, a hearing why? They weren't gonna vote yea in the end and they didn't wanna bother wasting their time. Why go through the motions of pretending just for looks. They sent a message, to the President, to the Dem's and to their base. It worked, and the GOP kept the senate. Like I said, high stakes political gamesmanship and they actually won that battle.
Click to expand...

Because I'm not a partisan, because I believe in doing the right thing, because I think it's better for the country for the political parties to work together instead of all of this obnoxious gridlock, and because one day the tables will be turned and the Democrats will screw the Republicans and I won't find that amusing.

That's why I'm not a hack and why I don't think kiddie games are cool in these situations.
 
Renae said:
No, they chose to use an alternative means. Do show where they HAVE to do it a certain way? You can't.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said before. You said they are required to give their advise and consent and that they withheld their consent. Those are your words. Quit arguing with yourself. This is what happens when you try to be clever and don't think about what you're arguing Renae.
 
roughdraft274 said:
That's not what you said before. You said they are required to give their advise and consent and that they withheld their consent. Those are your words. Quit arguing with yourself. This is what happens when you try to be clever and don't think about what you're arguing Renae.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one flailing to make a coherent point. By their actions, they clearly did not consent to give the man a hearing. Seeing, that works. Or ultimately to consent to the nomination. See, that works too. You're trying to play "we first must define what is, IS!" games, and that never ends well. Stop. Seriously, it's silly.
 
tres borrachos said:
Because I'm not a partisan, because I believe in doing the right thing, because I think it's better for the country for the political parties to work together instead of all of this obnoxious gridlock, and because one day the tables will be turned and the Democrats will screw the Republicans and I won't find that amusing.

That's why I'm not a hack and why I don't think kiddie games are cool in these situations.
Click to expand...
For both parties to work together would require compromise, and in the last 20 years we've seen that die. Some say it was Gingrich that poisoned that well, I tend to agree the well got it's real poison when a good man was dishonestly attacked, that would be Robert Bork.

The REAL problem honestly, is the shortsightedness of both parties and the reality of money, the 24 hour news cycle and a population full of people that can tell who the Kardashians partied with but can't tell you jack about how anything in Government works.
 
Visbek said:
No one is saying that the Republican treatment Garland was illegal.

Rather, it was obstructionist bull****.

They didn't give him any sort of hearing. They didn't even consider his merits. He didn't even make it to a committee. They did not advise or consent. They didn't even SAY they were going to advise or consent. McConnell explicitly said "we won't consider anyone nominated by Obama." What they did was obstruct.

This follows the rules. It is NOT what the system was designed for. It's not an example of the system at work. It's an example of a broken system.

We should note that it's only a matter of time before this haunts Republicans. What will you say, if Democrats win the Senate, and block any Trump SCOTUS nominees in his final year? Or for the rest of his term?
Click to expand...

Exactly. What the Republicans did was completely legal. It was stupid and not in the best interest of the country but legal.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that constitutionally the Senate has to do something with the nomination or not but as far as I can tell constitutionally the Senate is free to ignore the nomination and show their lack of consent by inaction. Again it's stupid and as you say indicative of a broken system but again within the law.
 
ocean515 said:
How does one steal something that doesn't exist? Garland was never going to be confirmed.

EX President Obama broke with tradition and attempted to fill a seat in the closing months of his Presidency. I would be shocked to learn he expected Garland to be confirmed. It was just a political move in an election year to try and get voters twisted over the Republicans rejection of Garland. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Baloney. Scalia's seat was empty for over a year and there have been 8 Supreme Court nominations during an election year. All of them had a hearing and 6 were confirmed. It was the GOP that broke with tradition.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm sorry, you seem to be confused.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes I am confused. Here's what I'm confused by:

tres borrachos said:
But they ignored Obama's Constitutional right by not even having the hearings.
Click to expand...

What Constitutional Right are you speaking of, and how was not having hearings "ignoring" that right?

He does have het right to nominate Garland, and he absolutely did do that. His right wasn't ignored, it absolutely occurred. They choose not to have hearings, but that's not ignoring his right.

As to the last part....ROFL. Give me a ****ing break. I'm "partisan" on this because of...what? Because I've stated, repeatedly (including in the quoted post) and for some time, that they were wrong to not give him a hearing and I was against such action...but that I don't see it as "stealing" or that any kind of constitutional right has been ignored?

Thinking there's nothing constitutionally wrong or out of sorts with the Republicans actions, and AGREEING with taking those actions, are not one in the same. No constitutional rights were ignored; both side engaged in the constitutional rights they were vested with. Obama nominated, and the senate chose not to give consent. The MANNER in which they did not give consent is definitely troubling and not one I support, but the constitutional nature of it all is legitimate.
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
Exactly. What the Republicans did was completely legal. It was stupid and not in the best interest of the country but legal.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that constitutionally the Senate has to do something with the nomination or not but as far as I can tell constitutionally the Senate is free to ignore the nomination and show their lack of consent by inaction. Again it's stupid and as you say indicative of a broken system but again within the law.
Click to expand...
The Senate isn't required by the letter of the Constitution to act within a certain time frame. They violated the spirit, not the letter.

We should note that a refusal to review a nominee is not always illegitimate. E.g. when FDR tried to pack the court, Congress opposed him; if he had actually tried to appoint a 10th and 11th justice, they would have been well within their rights to thwart his actions.

However, it's screamingly obvious that McConnell et al were acting out of sheer partisanship. I don't see how that was in any way the intent of that particular check and balance.
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't know that there was enough time to nominate another judge.

He wouldn't have been confirmed, and nobody could bitch about him not being given a hearing later, as they are now.

I know of two people on the right on this board who wanted the GOP to give him a hearing - me and TurtleDude. I don't remember others.
Click to expand...
I wanted him to have not only a hearing but also to be sent forward for confirmation. It was absolutely right for Obama to submit a nominee and it was absolutely politics that were employed by the GOP to prevent him from being seated. I think the only other relevant factor here is can anyone be surprised that the republicans showed the democrats that they too can play politics with Supreme Court nominees. Its beyond hypocritical for leftists to feign outrage over any of this.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes. Yes I am confused. Here's what I'm confused by:



What Constitutional Right are you speaking of, and how was not having hearings "ignoring" that right?

He does have het right to nominate Garland, and he absolutely did do that. His right wasn't ignored, it absolutely occurred. They choose not to have hearings, but that's not ignoring his right.

As to the last part....ROFL. Give me a ****ing break. I'm "partisan" on this because of...what? Because I've stated, repeatedly (including in the quoted post) and for some time, that they were wrong to not give him a hearing and I was against such action...but that I don't see it as "stealing" or that any kind of constitutional right has been ignored?
Click to expand...

His right was ignored because they never even hosted a hearing to give or decline consent.

I also never said anything about "stealing", said that there was no "stealing" of the seat, and in fact I said that in my first post in this thread which for some odd reason you ignored.

Sorry that I don't believe a word you said about thinking he deserved a hearing based on your meltdown about my post.
 
Renae said:
I'm not the one flailing to make a coherent point.
Click to expand...

It's very obvious that you're not, nor even attempting to make a coherent point. You don't need to remind me.
 
tres borrachos said:
Because I'm not a partisan, because I believe in doing the right thing, because I think it's better for the country for the political parties to work together instead of all of this obnoxious gridlock, and because one day the tables will be turned and the Democrats will screw the Republicans and I won't find that amusing.

That's why I'm not a hack and why I don't think kiddie games are cool in these situations.
Click to expand...

Democrats never play nice while in power or really any time whatsoever and you expect the republicans to play nice? Bleh. No matter what republicans do democrats will play dirty 100% of the time, so they either get down in the mud with them or get their ass handed to them.
 
VanceMack said:
You asked a question...I answered. That is 'why'.

I fully expect the rats to pull the same ploy should they gain power in 2018 or 2020. I expected it of HRC. Frankly, that is why I am not heartbroken over Trumps election. I did not vote for him but given the choice between HRC and Trump...HRC would have given us more Ginsbergs. Trump has given us what appears to be another Roberts.
Click to expand...

Roberts is terrible though. :(
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, Clarence Thomas got a hearing and was confirmed by members of both parties. Even in the "most contentious confirmation process of its time" people from both sides put their country and historical protocol above partisan bull****. You can not compare that to the GOP flat out preventing a confirmation hearing from even beginning. They did not for one second consider his nomination, nor did they provide any reasons why he would be unfit for the supreme court.

The entire reason they obstructed it was because they wanted it for themselves and had zero to do with Garland. Is that really how you think our government has and should work? Talk about unprecedented. Flat out stealing a supreme court nomination from a democratically elected president who had every right and precedent to fill the seat. There is no rule anywhere saying you can't fill a seat in your last year in office, there is however constitutional law that states congress must give a confirmation hearing unless they have a legitimate reason to oppose the nominee. Wanting it for yourself is not a legitimate reason and it spits in the face of our constitution and historical precedents.



No. Was our constitution written to allow partisans in congress to block a supreme court nomination for no reason other than wanting it for themselves? You talk about breaking a "tradition" that you can't actually point to and has no basis in law, yet think the GOP being in dereliction of their constitutional responsibilities is perfectly ok.
Click to expand...

Why should the senate reject the current pick for SCOTUS then? Obama is no longer president. What's done is done. What? You want your pick to come back? You want a democrat in that seat right?

Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The partisan division of the United States is out of control. God help us in the next election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So it's your opinion that congressional review process for supreme court nominees is there to be a partisan hatchet that should be used as a weapon any chance the majority power gets the chance? Talk about breaking with precedent. Yes, it's theft, the GOP wanted the seat so they did everything in their power to obstruct and cry to get it. It's this "party over country" mentality you and others have that have caused over a decade of partisan gridlock. I hope the Dems play by your rules and block and obstruct literally everything they can to get their way.
Click to expand...

Was Robert Bork's seat on the Supreme Court stolen? The Democrats had a majority of 54 seats in the Senate when Reagan nominated Bork. They did hold hearings in which that man was demonized with the politics of personal destruction that I had never witnessed except perhaps in the Clarence Thomas hearings that were brutal. Bork, imminently qualified, was not confirmed. Justice Thomas was narrowly confirmed in a 52 to 48 vote only because a few courageous and honorable Democrats were willing to do their jobs and voted Aye.

That the Republicans did not put Judge Garland through that terrible process only to be voted down was an act of mercy, not theft. His reputation and credibility remain intact so that the next Democratic President can nominate him again and he can start the process on a level playing field.
 
Henrin said:
Roberts is terrible though. :(
Click to expand...

Roberts waffled once. And I would bet he regrets it. But he did indeed waffle...no doubt.
 
By the way, I just watched the Senate confirm Judge Gorsuch and he will be seated on the Supreme Court. The final vote was 55 to 49 I believe. Two, maybe three, honorable Democratic Senators voted Aye.
 
Renae said:
For all the crying about "STOLEN SEAT!!" in regards to Obama's choice for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, it's really simple.
You don't get how the system works, cause it worked just fine.

The President gets to nominate ANYONE. You, Me, TD or Bob from Accounting. Or he could choose a well qualified jurist, as they are wont to do.

The Senate then must give their advice, and their consent.

Because the GOP controlled the Senate, they chose to withhold their consent. Garland's seat wasn't stolen, he was rejected. Well, less he the person as much as Obama, in a high stakes game of political gamesmanship. Had Hillary won, it would have been game over for the matter and Garland would have been seated fairly quickly. (Assuming Hillary didn't choose another in his stead)

So stop bellyaching. The Democrats lacked the votes, Obama failed to present a compelling reason the GOP should act and the GOP chose to use their Constitutionally granted power to deny consent.

End.
Of.
Story.
Click to expand...

Imagine the meltdown if the Dems had been able to do the same maneuver to get Garland on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom