• 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?

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...
What if the GOP didn't move ANY legislation with Clinton in office, what if.. they impeached her on DAY one, what if they voted to throw out the election, what if they chose to ignore her, what if they what if'd all day?

What if...
 
Of course they would. The Democrats would just need to nominate a reasonable candidate.
 
Renae said:
What if the GOP didn't move ANY legislation with Clinton in office, what if.. they impeached her on DAY one, what if they voted to throw out the election, what if they chose to ignore her, what if they what if'd all day?
Click to expand...

I see you have a clear understanding of McConnell .
 
Renae said:
What if the GOP didn't move ANY legislation with Clinton in office, what if.. they impeached her on DAY one, what if they voted to throw out the election, what if they chose to ignore her, what if they what if'd all day?

What if...
Click to expand...

Thank Sweet Lord we don't have to worry about a President Clinton.
 
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...

Democrats need to flip the Senate in the next 6 years and make the GOP rue the day it nuked their corporate approved SCOTUS pick in. Of course this scenario requires the Democrats to shirk their corporate overlords as well..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sure. Before then we'll just run the number of Justices up to 13 or so - all young and all conservative.
 
Winston said:
Democrats need to flip the Senate in the next 6 years and make the GOP rue the day it nuked their corporate approved SCOTUS pick in. Of course this scenario requires the Democrats to shirk their corporate overlords as well..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

GOPs only lost 2 of 24 Senate seats in last year's POTUS election and defended their 10, a dreadful DEM performance. DEMs will surely lose seats overall next year, with 25 up compared to 9 for GOPs.

The House and state legislatures and governors are the prizes next year, along with minimizing Senate losses.

With GOPs in charge of a USSC that gave us Citizens United 1.0/2.0, DEMs have no choice but to fight smear money with defense money. DEMs can't have their hands tied behind their backs.

The KS-4 CD goes off tomorrow and the GOP smear job is in full swing, along with visits from Pence and Cruz. The DEMs in GA-6 and MT-AL are also under withering multi-million dollar smear jobs full of lies .
 
natsb said:
Of course they would. The Democrats would just need to nominate a reasonable candidate.
Click to expand...

Someone like.....oh, I don't know.....possibly.....Merrick Garland?
 
Consider they've "allowed" such a thing FAR more than they have "not allowed" it, including twice under President Obama, making an assumption that they would never allow it again is ridiculous. Especially when it's basically off the backs of what one blowhard said to donors in private during the election season. It's no more likely or reasonable to suggest than asking if Democrat a Republican to nominate a SCOTUS member since they fillibustered this one nominee.
 
Harry Reid redefined the world as we know it for senate procedures unless some form of in-stone changes are made. The majority party will rule the day from now forward. So if there is an 'opposition' party in place, all future presidents can expect major roadblocks and obstacles.
 
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...

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).
 
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...

What a ridiculous post. Are you assuming that Republicans will always control the Senate? Not likely. Harry Reid found that going nuclear came back to bite him in the ass. Now the Republicans may eventually get a taste of Reid's medicine themselves. If the Republicans were smart they should learn from history and change the rules back before too long and not make any assumptions about the future being their's.
 
Moderate Right said:
What a ridiculous post. Are you assuming that Republicans will always control the Senate? Not likely. Harry Reid found that going nuclear came back to bite him in the ass. Now the Republicans may eventually get a taste of Reid's medicine themselves. If the Republicans were smart they should learn from history and change the rules back before too long and not make any assumptions about the future being their's.
Click to expand...

But they won't. If there's one thing pols aren't known for, it's foresight.
 
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...

I tend to look at it the same way. I didn't like how they handled the Garland situation, but it is hard to fault them for taking the gamble on it when Democrats have threatened to do so against Republican Presidents even when there was no vacancies. I find it hilarious that people on the left get so upset over Republicans using the very same strategies that Democrats come up with.
 
Nap said:
I tend to look at it the same way. I didn't like how they handled the Garland situation, but it is hard to fault them for taking the gamble on it when Democrats have threatened to do so against Republican Presidents even when there was no vacancies. I find it hilarious that people on the left get so upset over Republicans using the very same strategies that Democrats come up with.
Click to expand...

Right, but announcing it was stupid, even if that was their intent. Like I said, they could have delayed it in procedure, rejected a few recommendations, made it not a super priority, get distracted with something else even if they had to make something up, ect....they could have eaten up that < 1 year in no-time and never have blatantly said they had no intention of accepting an Obama appointee.
 
Fishking said:
Right, but announcing it was stupid, even if that was their intent. Like I said, they could have delayed it in procedure, rejected a few recommendations, made it not a super priority, get distracted with something else even if they had to make something up, ect....they could have eaten up that < 1 year in no-time and never have blatantly said they had no intention of accepting an Obama appointee.
Click to expand...

I wasn't disagreeing with you :p

In fact, I think they should have gave him a hearing and confirm him unless there were valid reasons not to. This way should Democrats tried to threaten that tactic again they would always be able to say we gave you Garland. Now that the precedent has been set for the majority party to withhold hearings/confirmations we now have opened up a potential headache moving forward.

While the hypocrisy from the Democrats is truly hilarious to me. Watching the Republicans give up on principles to use their tactics is just another reason why I abandoned that party.
 
rocket88 said:
But they won't. If there's one thing pols aren't known for, it's foresight.
Click to expand...

That's because they are arrogant in thinking that the voters will always be in their corner. Dems just found this out the hard way when they thought Hillary was a shoe in that couldn't lose. Hell, Hillary hadn't even bothered to write a concession speech. Both sides make the mistake in thinking that it is only about getting out the vote of their bases. Presidential elections are not decided by Democrats or Republicans but by independents and moderates.
 
azgreg said:
Someone like.....oh, I don't know.....possibly.....Merrick Garland?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
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.
 
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...

Hopefully not. Dem. SCOTUS picks tend to be of the type that likes to re-interpret the Constitution, not apply it as written. We need NO SCOTUS judges like that. If that means that the Senate refuses to approve any Dem. candidates for the duration, then so be it. If the Dems want to get the judges they want appointed, then start nominating judges who will ONLY apply the Constitution and not try to change it.
 
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...

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 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom