• 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!

Will the GOP ever allow a Dem president to nominate a SCOTUS member?

natsb said:
Nope, I said reasonable. Reasonable would be someone who rules on the law the way it is written. Garland would have join the Sotomayor faction; a faction that needs to be expunged.
Click to expand...

Garland is just as qualified as Gorsuch.
 
NIMBY said:
GOPs have already answered this question last year, as far as being in control of the Senate, and GOPartisans are now engaged in defending that position by falsely equating it to anything DEMs have done .
Click to expand...

What's wrong with following the Biden rule?
 
azgreg said:
Relevance?
Click to expand...

Oh, I know, politically speaking, it is super easy for democrats to disregard what they have espoused in the past, all for the ends of getting what they want. But the fact is, that when it was a republican in office, democrats like Biden, and Schumer were all telling that President, NOT to even attempt to nominate a possible candidate for a seat in SCOTUS during an election year....But, when it was a democrat in, and democrats saw a possibility to flip the power in SCOTUS, well then forget what they said before, it's all about cryin' about how unfair it is that their pick didn't get a hearing....

Well, it's done now...Too bad, get over it. Garland is NOT going to be a justice. Period. And at this point I can only hope that Kennedy, or Ginsburg decides to retire so that Trump can get a couple more and make democrats squeal like little piggy's.
 
independentusa said:
If Clinton wins, more in GOP say no to full Supreme Court | PBS NewsHour

GOPers say that if Clinton was elected that they would not allow her to nomintate a SCOTUS member even if they had to hold the seat open another four years. So, if the GOP controls the Senate, will they ever allow a Dem to nominate a SCOTUS member in the future?
Click to expand...

That is the main problem with our government. People appointed to the Supreme Court need to work for the people not the democrats of the republicans. If our government represents the people then it should not matter. Unfortunately both parties are owned by the rich and powerful not the people so the person they appoint is also their puppet. Now it does matter which puppet master they serve the left or right. It is clear they do not serve the people or it would not matter.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, I know, politically speaking, it is super easy for democrats to disregard what they have espoused in the past, all for the ends of getting what they want. But the fact is, that when it was a republican in office, democrats like Biden, and Schumer were all telling that President, NOT to even attempt to nominate a possible candidate for a seat in SCOTUS during an election year....But, when it was a democrat in, and democrats saw a possibility to flip the power in SCOTUS, well then forget what they said before, it's all about cryin' about how unfair it is that their pick didn't get a hearing....

Well, it's done now...Too bad, get over it. Garland is NOT going to be a justice. Period. And at this point I can only hope that Kennedy, or Ginsburg decides to retire so that Trump can get a couple more and make democrats squeal like little piggy's.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Had nothing to do with natsb's question or my response to him.
 
VanceMack said:
Going forward, I dont know that anyone can expect the GOP to respond any differently than the rats did during this SCOTUS seating process. There was no legitimate reason to oppose Gorsuch...and yet they near unanimously did. Now...I dont know if the GOP will respond in kind when the next democrat president nominates a candidate...but I suspect they will. If so...well...the rats have shown the way. There wont be anything to get upset about.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the GOP would be against a Democrat's nomination just to get even. I believe they would look at the merits of the candidate. If presented with another Sotomayor/Garland type person, then that person should be rejected. If presented with a rational jurist, then they would proceed through the process.
 
The Senate cannot prevent any President from making nominations to the Supreme Court.
 
azgreg said:
Thanks for the reply. Had nothing to do with natsb's question or my response to him.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the reality doesn't make it go away....The fact remains that when it was politically expedient for democrats to warn a sitting President NOT to nominate a SCOTUS candidate during an election year, when the President was a Republican, then that is accepted, and fine. However, when a Republican congress refuses to hear a nomination of a Democrat President in an election year, well lordy, hand out the earplugs from all the screaming from Democrats.
 
j-mac said:
Ignoring the reality doesn't make it go away....The fact remains that when it was politically expedient for democrats to warn a sitting President NOT to nominate a SCOTUS candidate during an election year, when the President was a Republican, then that is accepted, and fine. However, when a Republican congress refuses to hear a nomination of a Democrat President in an election year, well lordy, hand out the earplugs from all the screaming from Democrats.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring anything. I wasn't in favor of the practice under Biden and I'm not in favor of it under McConnell. Both of them are pieces of **** for it.
 
natsb said:
I disagree that the GOP would be against a Democrat's nomination just to get even. I believe they would look at the merits of the candidate. If presented with another Sotomayor/Garland type person, then that person should be rejected. If presented with a rational jurist, then they would proceed through the process.
Click to expand...
That presupposes that only the rats in the senate are mindless partisan twats.

I dont buy it.
 
azgreg said:
I'm not ignoring anything. I wasn't in favor of the practice under Biden and I'm not in favor of it under McConnell. Both of them are pieces of **** for it.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough...It is notable though that this phony standard of 60 votes to get anything past cloture has been misused as well, and recent in its current form of use. I for one think it may be a good thing to have it gone.
 
Fishking said:
If that would have happened they would reap the negative results in the election. It's much easier to make the case for the < 1 year for Obama, seeing how they had plenty of Democrats saying the same thing, to include the Vice President.

Doing it for Hillary would have been very bad. Hell, I thought it was super stupid for them to announce that they didn't plan on holding a hearing for Obama's guy, even if that was their intent. It's stupid to show your hand. They probably could have easily delayed the process in procedure or rejected a few as not being acceptable (e.g rejected Garland for being weak on 2nd Amendment and making Obama pick someone else).
Click to expand...

McConnell had to appeal to his right-wing base. Denying Garland a hearing helped delegitimize Obama which really helped fired up the base right before the election.
 
lurchadams said:
McConnell had to appeal to his right-wing base. Denying Garland a hearing helped delegitimize Obama which really helped fired up the base right before the election.
Click to expand...

And he was sticking to 80 plus years of precedent, as well as exactly what Joe Biden was talking about in '92 when Bush 41 might have nominated a candidate to the court....But hey, liberals didn't get their way so none of that matters right?
 
azgreg said:
Garland is just as qualified as Gorsuch.
Click to expand...

Only if one were to view "qualified" as a series of check boxes. Did he go to the right schools, clerk for the right courts, have sufficient years under his belt? Sure.

When I say qualified, I am specifically talking about a jurist who follows the rule of the law and defends the Constitution versus a jurist who views the Constitution as a living document, and picks and choses the parts he will or will not support.
 
lurchadams said:
McConnell had to appeal to his right-wing base. Denying Garland a hearing helped delegitimize Obama which really helped fired up the base right before the election.
Click to expand...

Short-term vs long-term game.
 
j-mac said:
And he was sticking to 80 plus years of precedent, as well as exactly what Joe Biden was talking about in '92 when Bush 41 might have nominated a candidate to the court....But hey, liberals didn't get their way so none of that matters right?
Click to expand...

Except for the SEVEN Justices placed on the USSC during a presidential election year since 1912.

But heh, conservatives don't have history on their side so they invent it .
 
lurchadams said:
McConnell had to appeal to his right-wing base. Denying Garland a hearing helped delegitimize Obama which really helped fired up the base right before the election.
Click to expand...

Obama picking a DEM centrist was one of the many reasons that progressives weren't excited enough to vote in GOP numbers.

Republicans like McConnell spent 8 years trying to nullify Obama's elections, especially with the current president and his faux angry base.

As for DEMs, they simply didn't turn out in the 4 RED states that stayed red and the 6 blue states that turned red .
 
j-mac said:
Ignoring the reality doesn't make it go away....The fact remains that when it was politically expedient for democrats to warn a sitting President NOT to nominate a SCOTUS candidate during an election year, when the President was a Republican, then that is accepted, and fine. However, when a Republican congress refuses to hear a nomination of a Democrat President in an election year, well lordy, hand out the earplugs from all the screaming from Democrats.
Click to expand...

When did the Demicrats actually apply the McConnell presidential rule on USSC picks?

Remember when Kennedy was seated during the presidential year of 1988 with a majority DEM Senate ?
 
Moderate Right said:
What's wrong with following the Biden rule?
Click to expand...

When was the McConnell rule ever applied by Democrats?

4 years earlier, a majority DEM SENATE actually seated Kennedy during the 1988 presidential election.

And it was McConnell's nuclear option rule in 2005 that was FIRST threatened by Frist/McConnell .
 
lurchadams said:
McConnell had to appeal to his right-wing base. Denying Garland a hearing helped delegitimize Obama which really helped fired up the base right before the election.
Click to expand...

McConnell did it, not to appeal to his base, but because the SC has become the true base of political power in Washington. Politically, his move was brilliant. If liberals are pissed its because they didn't get to do it first. (Because you know darn well that if this had happened in the final year of the Bush Administration, Reid would never have held hearings for the Bush SC appointee.)
 
Fletch said:
McConnell did it, not to appeal to his base, but because the SC has become the true base of political power in Washington. Politically, his move was brilliant. If liberals are pissed its because they didn't get to do it first. (Because you know darn well that if this had happened in the final year of the Bush Administration, Reid would never have held hearings for the Bush SC appointee.)
Click to expand...

I don't know that .. but with the GOP having done it, the next time the Dems have the majority (if they ever will again) they'll do it next time for sure.
 
lurchadams said:
I don't know that ..
Click to expand...
Yes you do.
but with the GOP having done it, the next time the Dems have the majority (if they ever will again) they'll do it next time for sure.
Click to expand...
The gloves are off with regard to judicial appointments because, as I said, that is the real power in our government. But in regard to the OP, a president of one party trying to get a candidate through a senate controlled by the other party is going to have to make concessions. It might just be the best way to get a true mainstream justice rather than ideologues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom