Mitch McConnell's rotating list of reasons to block Dem SCOTUS appts

If and when another Democratic president is elected, if the GOP holds the Senate, should Mitch McConnell be allowed to establish a perma-ban on SCOTUS noms and appointments?

A rotating list of excuses and reasons could be brought into the debate but the POLL question asks if it is legitimate for the Senate Majority Leader to continue blocking SCOTUS appointments purely on party grounds.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

If and when another Democratic president is elected, if the GOP holds the Senate, should Mitch McConnell be allowed to establish a perma-ban on SCOTUS noms and appointments?

A rotating list of excuses and reasons could be brought into the debate but the POLL question asks if it is legitimate for the Senate Majority Leader to continue blocking SCOTUS appointments purely on party grounds.

Click to expand...

You should probably not count your chickens.

Let's wait to see if another Democrat ever gets elected President...if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs...hell, if McConnell is even alive or in the Senate if/when that happens.

Anyway, the answer to your poll is: Legit

Checkerboard Strangler said:

If and when another Democratic president is elected, if the GOP holds the Senate, should Mitch McConnell be allowed to establish a perma-ban on SCOTUS noms and appointments?

A rotating list of excuses and reasons could be brought into the debate but the POLL question asks if it is legitimate for the Senate Majority Leader to continue blocking SCOTUS appointments purely on party grounds.

Click to expand...

he should block them by any means possible. Democracy ain't meant to be pretty. it's wallowing with the pigs on both sides, and the pigs love it. That's why decent, honest people won't get into it.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

If and when another Democratic president is elected, if the GOP holds the Senate, should Mitch McConnell be allowed to establish a perma-ban on SCOTUS noms and appointments?

A rotating list of excuses and reasons could be brought into the debate but the POLL question asks if it is legitimate for the Senate Majority Leader to continue blocking SCOTUS appointments purely on party grounds.

Click to expand...

No, of course it's not legitimate. It shouldn't have been done to Obama and it shouldn't be done in the future.

If he does try, I expect major negative consequences for the Republican party and McConnell personally, including a potential impeachment attempt if Democrats control the House.

It is not a Constitutional crisis. :no:

Appointments to the Courts and to the cabinet occur with advice and consent of the Senate. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2.

People think this requires some kind of process, i.e. committee review.

Not at all. If a majority of the members of the Senate want an appointment they can simply call for a vote for the appointment without any other process. If the majority of the Senate don't like the appointment, they can either vote against or simply refuse to vote at all, in this way "advising" the President that the choice is not acceptable and to try again.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

If and when another Democratic president is elected, if the GOP holds the Senate, should Mitch McConnell be allowed to establish a perma-ban on SCOTUS noms and appointments?

A rotating list of excuses and reasons could be brought into the debate but the POLL question asks if it is legitimate for the Senate Majority Leader to continue blocking SCOTUS appointments purely on party grounds.

Click to expand...

In such a scenario it would not be necessary to block the Democratic president's picks. We could just have the president nominate someone and the Senate could vote them down. Then the president could make a different nomination and the Senate could then vote them down too. Fact is, McConnell with Garland was only following the very same procedure that Biden, Schumer, and others declared they wanted to follow. And, McConnell did some learning from the master, Harry Reid. Harry Reid refused to do any compromising with Republicans so he initiated the nuclear option and showed McConnell how it worked so that no compromises needed to be made. You have to give McConnell some credit though because he refused, even over Trump's wishes, to go nuclear on everything. Obamacare would be gone right now if McConnell had gone nuclear at that time.

Captain Adverse said:

It is not a Constitutional crisis. :no:

Appointments to the Courts and to the cabinet occur with advice and consent of the Senate. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2.

People think this requires some kind of process, i.e. committee review.

Not at all. If a majority of the members of the Senate want an appointment they can simply call for a vote for the appointment without any other process. If the majority of the Senate don't like the appointment, they can either vote against or simply refuse to vote at all, in this way "advising" the President that the choice is not acceptable and to try again.

Click to expand...

In the case of Garland, the majority probably would have voted yes. It was McConnell's call to do nothing, insuring the seat would be kept open. I missed where Obama was asked to submit a different candidate... This is old news though.

Interesting that you defend this "role" of the Legislative Branch. I assume you also defend Congress's right to control the purse and reject Trump's "Emergency" wall bit?

vote him out.

JMR said:

In the case of Garland, the majority probably would have voted yes. It was McConnell's call to do nothing, insuring the seat would be kept open. I missed where Obama was asked to submit a different candidate... This is old news though.

Click to expand...

Where in my post did I state that the Senate had to "ask" the President to submit a new candidate?

JMR said:

Interesting that you defend this "role" of the Legislative Branch. I assume you also defend Congress's right to control the purse and reject Trump's "Emergency" wall bit?

Click to expand...

Typical fallacious deflection from the topic by challenging the credibility of the person posting. :roll:

Captain Adverse said:

Well, I oppose declaring national emergencies to circumvent Congresses' power to tax and spend. I think it is a very bad precedent, and hope that the Courts rule so. So I am among that 60%.

Click to expand...

I have a pretty solid foundation for my views, ideals, and beliefs. I stand by my Forum post history.

Try again. :coffeepap:

Captain Adverse said:

Where in my post did I state that the Senate had to "ask" the President to submit a new candidate?



Typical fallacious deflection from the topic by challenging the credibility of the person posting. :roll:



I have a pretty solid foundation for my views, ideals, and beliefs. I stand by my Forum post history.

Try again. :coffeepap:

Click to expand...

Your words:

they can either vote against or simply refuse to vote at all, in this way "advising" the President that the choice is not acceptable and to try again.

Click to expand...

It is obvious to all that the decision to not act on Garland was to keep the seat open, and was not the Senate advising and consenting on a particular candidate. This was new territory being staked out to maintain power, and should not be defended as the role of the Senate. The reason I questioned your credibility.

It is sound judgment to be against Trump circumventing Congress. On that we can agree.

JMR said:

Your words:

It is obvious to all that the decision to not act on Garland was to keep the seat open, and was not the Senate advising and consenting on a particular candidate. This was new territory being staked out to maintain power, and should not be defended as the role of the Senate. The reason I questioned your credibility.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. By their "action" in choosing not to even review Mr. Garland, they were "advising" President Obama that they would not act on this choice for Justice of the Supreme Court.

President Obama could have submitted another name, and another, and another until either one that the Majority Leader felt would be "balanced" enough could be voted on, or until time ran out and the next President submitted a choice. :shrug:

Captain Adverse said:

Incorrect. By their "action" in choosing not to even review Mr. Garland, they were "advising" President Obama that they would not act on this choice for Justice of the Supreme Court.

President Obama could have submitted another name, and another, and another until either one that the Majority Leader felt would be "balanced" enough could be voted on, or until time ran out and the next President submitted a choice. :shrug:

Click to expand...

That is a laughable attempt to excuse the action of Mitch McConnell, while trying (failing) to defend the Senate's role in denying a hearing to a very moderate justice. I take back my good thoughts about your credibility.