Should Supreme Court appt.hearings be delayed?

[Port & Starboard]

Yes, but that would be the normal way things worked in the past. What McConnell did is not like what had happened before.

The nuclear option, that's because McConnell said, and I quote, that they were "The Party of No." Republicans need to stop cheating, which uncoincidentally, is the concern now.

Maddow has a degree in public policy, and went on to be a Rhodes scholar, getting her PHD (the Brits call it DPhil) at Oxford.

Not a dummy.

Ummm……….the left loved the rules when they were in power.

LOL.....there have been a couple thousand people with degrees who ran this country without one iota of change for blacks, poverty in general, or shrinking the national debt.

So, wth are you trying to spout?

 

[Harshaw]

I know to not even say that about everybody who voted for Trump. The die hards, of course, they are different, but I happen to know many Trump voters who relied on saying, "yeah, but he can be impeached." I think a lot of people who voted Hillary didn't trust her being president either.

This is nothing more than an opinion on your part.

If you vote to nominate someone for President, then you're voting for that person to have all the powers of the President.

If you vote to nominate that person while under he/she is under criminal investigation, then you're indicating, conclusively, that you don't mind that person having all the powers of the President while they're under criminal investigation.

Though I will conceded to a caveat -- such a voter may also be stupid. But if the voter isn't stupid, then it's conclusive.

 

[Harshaw]

As is the track record of the GOP. Legislature's should not be in charge of drawing district lines, they cannot be trusted to do it properly.

Of course the GOP track record is bleak. But you were the one who said:

It is usually not the Dems doing the gerrymandering, not that it will make a difference November is going to be rough for the GOP.

I never said Republicans don't do it.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Maddow has a degree in public policy, and went on to be a Rhodes scholar, getting her PHD (the Brits call it DPhil) at Oxford.

Not a dummy.

So, she just plays a dummy on TV?

 

[Moon]

The blue slip (a gentlemen's agreement, much like the filibuster) was killed for circuit court judges. I'm not aware of blue slips applying to SCOTUS picks, though if they do we can see them vaporizing quickly.

Filibuster was a Senate rule that required a vote to change. Blue slips are an informal mechanism completely up to the discretion of the Judiciary Committee Chairman. Blue slips have been around for about 100 years and only two chairmen have required two positive blue slips from the nominee's state to hold hearings.

 

[veritas1]

All lifetime appointments should be delayed until after the investigation on the basis that there are so many unanswered questions about his behavior and his relations to a hostile foreign government. Finally, they should be delayed until we have a clear understanding of how his businesses are profiting as a result of his position. That would include a full audit of his businesses as well as the full release of his tax returns.

I will go so far as to say that this should be applied retroactively. In other words, all past appointments should be put on permanent suspension until all of the above issues have been resolved.

IOW, push it off indefinitely and, hopefully, deny Trump his SC selection. That isn't going to work.

 

[Cardinal]

IOW, push it off indefinitely and, hopefully, deny Trump his SC selection. That isn't going to work.

No, not push it off indefinitely. The post you responded to was quite specific in what I required.

Filibuster was a Senate rule that required a vote to change. Blue slips are an informal mechanism completely up to the discretion of the Judiciary Committee Chairman. Blue slips have been around for about 100 years and only two chairmen have required two positive blue slips from the nominee's state to hold hearings.

I'm not sure how anything you've said refutes me or addresses my point.

 

[Roadvirus]

All they can do is not show-up for roll call in the Senate, or threaten to let the government run out of money.

And look like morons doing it. Not a good way to get re-elected.

 

[veritas1]

No, not push it off indefinitely. The post you responded to was quite specific in what I required.



I'm not sure how anything you've said refutes me or addresses my point.

Those investigations could be particularly long winded and it would behoove Democrats to push them right up to the 2020 election. Then, under their scenario, they take back the WH and get to fill the SC vacancy. Like I said, it's not going to work.

 

[Moon]

No, not push it off indefinitely. The post you responded to was quite specific in what I required.



I'm not sure how anything you've said refutes me or addresses my point.

Just adding some detail. My perception was that you felt any change to the blue slips was a big deal.

 

[Cardinal]

Those investigations could be particularly long winded and it would behoove Democrats to push them right up to the 2020 election. Then, under their scenario, they take back the WH and get to fill the SC vacancy. Like I said, it's not going to work.

Your post is a meaningless non-sequitur to my post.

 

[late]

So, she just plays a dummy on TV?

If this was baseball, she would be the guy always swinging for the fences.

Sometimes she gets a home run, like Flint, and sometimes she misses.

She is really good at explaining complicated situations.

 

[trblmkr]

No, you just play a dummy here.

 

[Cardinal]

Just adding some detail. My perception was that you felt any change to the blue slips was a big deal.

Well, in addition to the filibuster, they are. There was little reason for congressmen to call for the impeachment of a lifetime judicial nominee if they were given a voice in their selection. Now? If nominations are made in the current situation:

1)Congressmen of the opposition party are barred from having a voice in the selection process.
2)The President's loyalty to our country is in question as his behavior to a hostile foreign power can only be labeled "obsequious."
3)The President has lied 100% of the time concerning his relations with said country, and
4)The President has refused to divest his businesses, refuses to show his tax returns and appears to be breaking the Emoluments Clause in plain sight.
5)The President is known to demand loyalty oaths.

...then under no circumstances should lifetime nominations be considered until all of the above issues have been resolved. Congressmen in the minority now have zero voice in the process, and we know next to nothing about the interests of the person making permanent changes to the face of the country culturally and legally.

 

[veritas1]

Your post is a meaningless non-sequitur to my post.

Did you not post this?

All lifetime appointments should be delayed until after the investigation on the basis that there are so many unanswered questions about his behavior and his relations to a hostile foreign government. Finally, they should be delayed until we have a clear understanding of how his businesses are profiting as a result of his position. That would include a full audit of his businesses as well as the full release of his tax returns.

So how is my response not relevant?

 

[calamity]

Sen. Corey Booker is pushing to get the hearings pushed back until after the election.

"I think it is questionable that we should be considering a nominee from a president who has a history of demanding these loyalty tests and we could be responsible for participating in something that could undermine that investigation.

I do not believe that this committee should or can in good conscience consider a nominee put forward by this president until that investigation is concluded. Not only do I believe that we should abide by the rule set by [Majority Leader] McConnell, but I think we should look at the larger moment that we're in American history and that conflict of interest that is clearly present in this president."

If you run across a law prof discussing this, I'd like to see it.

Currently the second video: Dems push to stall SCOTUS confirmation

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc ? Latest News & Video

Yep. No SCOTUS confirmations until Mueller's investigation is complete and Trump has been impeached.

But, I hope the GOP ram an asshole through and everyone gets pissed. THe Blue wave cometh.

 

[veritas1]

Yep. No SCOTUS confirmations until Mueller's investigation is complete and Trump has been impeached.

:lamo

You guys are practically guaranteeing Trump until 2025.

 

[PLizzy]

If liberals start gerrymandering the crap out of states, that's when the supreme court will overturn it... :lol:

Not if we stack it they won't.

 

[PLizzy]

:lamo

You guys are practically guaranteeing Trump until 2025.

The political winds will shift and when they do, we'll pay you guys back ten fold. So try not to get too used to power because it doesn't last forever.

 

[PLizzy]

And look like morons doing it. Not a good way to get re-elected.

Worked for you guys several times. :shrug:

 

[DarkWizard12]

Sen. Corey Booker is pushing to get the hearings pushed back until after the election.

"I think it is questionable that we should be considering a nominee from a president who has a history of demanding these loyalty tests and we could be responsible for participating in something that could undermine that investigation.

I do not believe that this committee should or can in good conscience consider a nominee put forward by this president until that investigation is concluded. Not only do I believe that we should abide by the rule set by [Majority Leader] McConnell, but I think we should look at the larger moment that we're in American history and that conflict of interest that is clearly present in this president."

If you run across a law prof discussing this, I'd like to see it.

Currently the second video: Dems push to stall SCOTUS confirmation

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc ? Latest News & Video

the problem is there is no filibuster, so the democrats have no tools to fight this with.

 

[veritas1]

The political winds will shift and when they do, we'll pay you guys back ten fold. So try not to get too used to power because it doesn't last forever.

You aren't going to be doing it following the nutter fringe. That is suicidal.

 

[late]

the problem is there is no filibuster, so the democrats have no tools to fight this with.

You are prob right, but at the moment I am more interested in legal side of it. Assuming you get cooperation from a few senators like Snow, is it a good idea? Is it legally kosher?

 

[PLizzy]

You aren't going to be doing it following the nutter fringe. That is suicidal.

Again, that seemed to work just fine for you guys.

You guys will end up regretting all the precedents you're setting - give it time.

 

[late]

You aren't going to be doing it following the nutter fringe. That is suicidal.

Dems are clustered around where Ike was on the political spectrum.

Since 1980, and the rise of the propaganda machines, the country has been dragged to the extreme Right. The suicidal nutter fringe...