• 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!

Next SCOTUS Vacancy

Rexedgar

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
63,237
Reaction score
52,936
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Now that the Sekulow-Dowd letter has been revealed, it is going to draw more attention to the SCOTUS and next appointment. There was a report that Justice Kennedy was wanting to retire, but was talked into staying on longer. Scalia died while sitting as a Judge, iirc. I wonder who is on the Presidential short list as the next to be nominated. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't all confirmations of Justices take place in the Senate?
 
Trump should not be allowed to appoint someone in the last year of his Presidency.
 
Maccabee said:
Should that be a rule for all future presidents?
Click to expand...

Well, hell. Guess it should be now.

Never was before, but a bunch of ****ing do-nothings decided to take an appointment from a president they didn't like (or an appointment they were afraid of).
 
Rexedgar said:
Let’s get past this one and we can talk about it......
Click to expand...

I'm asking in the name of fairness. If he wants our current president to not be able to appoint judges in his last year, then he should be ok with implementing that rule to any future president.
 
Maccabee said:
I'm asking in the name of fairness. If he wants our current president to not be able to appoint judges in his last year, then he should be ok with implementing that rule to any future president.
Click to expand...

I’m thinking the poster is referring to Merrick (sp?) Garland.
 
disneydude said:
Trump should not be allowed to appoint someone in the last year of his Presidency.
Click to expand...

It's nice that you feel that way, but unless you get a constitutional amendment passed, he absolutely should be ALLOWED to appoint someone.

Now whether or not he should succeed is another issue. If the Democrats are able to win the Senate in 2018, then while I may dislike and disapprove of them blocking a nomination all of Trumps final year (much like I disliked and disapproved of Republicans from doing it), they would be well within their rights to do so. HOWEVER, there is a difference between being denied something procedural and simply not being allowed to actually do it. If Democrats fail to win the Senate, than Trump may very well may be able to appoint someone his final year, and that is entirely appropriate.
 
disneydude said:
Trump should not be allowed to appoint someone in the last year of his Presidency.
Click to expand...

and we have likes for a comment so many were outraged about during the last administration.
 
Zyphlin said:
It's nice that you feel that way, but unless you get a constitutional amendment passed, he absolutely should be ALLOWED to appoint someone.

Now whether or not he should succeed is another issue. If the Democrats are able to win the Senate in 2018, then while I may dislike and disapprove of them blocking a nomination all of Trumps final year (much like I disliked and disapproved of Republicans from doing it), they would be well within their rights to do so. HOWEVER, there is a difference between being denied something procedural and simply not being allowed to actually do it. If Democrats fail to win the Senate, than Trump may very well may be able to appoint someone his final year, and that is entirely appropriate.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Lovebug said:
and we have likes for a comment so many were outraged about during the last administration.
Click to expand...

It was bull**** regardless of who did it.

And the fact they'd lose thier **** if the tables were turned makes it more so.
 
What if...? said:
It was bull**** regardless of who did it.

And the fact they'd lose thier **** if the tables were turned makes it more so.
Click to expand...

So lets now discuss the topic. Next Scotus vacancy could be both Ginsburg, although she might be holding off until the fall elections. Kennedy is another.
 
Zyphlin said:
It's nice that you feel that way, but unless you get a constitutional amendment passed, he absolutely should be ALLOWED to appoint someone.

Now whether or not he should succeed is another issue. If the Democrats are able to win the Senate in 2018, then while I may dislike and disapprove of them blocking a nomination all of Trumps final year (much like I disliked and disapproved of Republicans from doing it), they would be well within their rights to do so. HOWEVER, there is a difference between being denied something procedural and simply not being allowed to actually do it. If Democrats fail to win the Senate, than Trump may very well may be able to appoint someone his final year, and that is entirely appropriate.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....well Trump and the Republicans certainly played by that rule. I agree with you though that there is a different between procedure and what is allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom