Should Supreme Court appt.hearings be delayed?

[Acadia]

I have no problem with Trump exercising his constitutional duty to name a new nominee. I do think that whoever that is should promise and subsequently honor their promise to recuse themselves from any case that eventually gets to the Court regarding the possible crimes Trump may be accused of since they owe their very existence not he Court largely to Trump. I would clearly see that as a huge possible conflict of interest which compromises them.

Otherwise it allows Trump to hand pick the juror who may decide his fate and that puts him above the law.

What "juror"?

 

[vesper]

Justice will be served

You're darn right it will. The next Supreme Court jurist will be confirmed and it will be before the midterms.

 

[vegas giants]

You're darn right it will. The next Supreme Court jurist will be confirmed and it will be before the midterms.

We shall see

 

[haymarket]

Regardless of the reason, the President gets to hand pick the successor to a retiring judge.

No proposed candidate ever be required to promise to rule on a possible future case. Especially since there is no reason to believe that case will ever come before his court.

I have given you the solid reasons why they should be precisely that in this case. Either that or demand delay of the appointment and/or confirmation until the Trump matter is settled and we know the chances of that happening.

 

[haymarket]

What "juror"?

The Justice on the Court who acts as a juror deciding the fate of Trump. I thought that was pretty clear from my statements.

You are aware that Justices on the Court are often referred to as "jurists", aren't you?

: an individual having a thorough knowledge of law; especially : judge. the state's top jurist violated the U.S. Constitution when he banned the filming. —National Law Journal.
Jurist | Definition of Jurist by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jurist

 

[jimbo]

I have given you the solid reasons why they should be precisely that in this case. Either that or demand delay of the appointment and/or confirmation until the Trump matter is settled and we know the chances of that happening.

What Trump matter? The left has been at the "Trump matter" for a couple years and have come up empty. The "matter" will never be settled until Hillary is crowned President.

The only reason the left would like a delay is because after the people spoke in 2016 the left lost all political power and now are grasping at straws.

 

[SheWolf]

I tried. Have a good evening.

You're saying that since x is a fact, then statement y is also fact or implicitly true.

 

[late]

This post is a great joke because you people literally said this about Obama.

Politics as temper tantrum.

 

[late]

Yes, notice how we've taken over the media, the universities and Hollywood? I mean liberals hardly have a voice anymore.

That's nonresponsive, counselor.

What I said was accurate, you didn't refute because you can't.

 

[Mr Person]

I think it's completely fair given Mcconnell's record. He held up a nominee for over a year. Democrats should fight him on this.

While I think two wrongs don't make a right, I also think a need for pragmatism and a balanced court outweighs the moral status of Democrat politicians: they need to get right down in the mud. If they don't, they'll consistently lose.

I see no reason for a delay. Congress has a Constituional responsibility to seat a Justice. I felt that way when Republicans skirted their duty for political gain and I still feel that way.

But what about the above?


Falling on one's sword isn't a realistic approach if the supporters of the people who first took the low road do not give a **** about whether their political opponents stay on the high road. Nobody who voted for Trumpism is going to vote Democrat if the Democrats say "even though the GOP refused to do its duty and obstructed Garland, we're going to let this sail through because we're better than that."

I've seen enough over the last few decades. I'd rather them take the low road than let themselves get steamrolled through naivety.





caveat: they don't have the power to stop the GOP now, anyway. So Trump's pick is getting pushed through unless he's too much for the GOP to stomach. So in this particular context, the best approach is problem for them to stay on the message for a while that remember: THIS is what can happen if you protest vote against a Democrat candidate you don't like.

I could make this into an essay on why I also say I hate strict two party rule. But I won't. Too many changes that are irrelevant to this thread would have to be made (and won't be, thanks to two-party rule) to turn us into a bit more of a representative democracy.

 

[Mr Person]

You're saying that since x is a fact, then statement y is also fact or implicitly true.

He's treating a relativistic statement - that one might vote for Hillary even though she was technically under yet another "investigation" which like all the others came to nothing (at the time, it was into that perv's laptop) - as an absolute statement that one does not care about whether someone exercises the powers of President if they are under investigation (any investigation, no matter the context, history, or other considerations).

It's a game. He's shifting implied claims about what certain words must mean when you say them to twist what you said. That way you keep fighting about what you said, instead of the validity of the original subject (relative loyalty of Hillary supporters to Hillary and Trump supporters loyalty to Trump).

 

[haymarket]

What Trump matter?

With that dishonest question soaked in denial - you have just proven yourself unworthy of wasting of another minute on you.

 

[smallvoice]

Card,you get wilder and wilder with every post.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

She is really good at explaining complicated situations.

Bigly wrongly. :lamo

 

[smallvoice]

Got ANY facts to support your claims?

 

[smallvoice]

Psst, clam, you heard it first here: there won't be a Blue wave.

 

[ludin]

These are not remotely similar situations. In other words, putting trump's appointments on hold now is not the same situation as what the Republicans did in Obama's last year.

Yet trump is not under investigation.

 

[smallvoice]

Got a reference to support that claim?

 

[smallvoice]

Yeah, the next time the Dems are in power they will give the Republicans the ability to fight them...great idea. (Ain't happening)

 

[hanger4]

I have no problem with Trump exercising his constitutional duty to name a new nominee. I do think that whoever that is should promise and subsequently honor their promise to recuse themselves from any case that eventually gets to the Court regarding the possible crimes Trump may be accused of since they owe their very existence not he Court largely to Trump. I would clearly see that as a huge possible conflict of interest which compromises them.

Otherwise it allows Trump to hand pick the juror who may decide his fate and that puts him above the law.

Dayum, you're assuming a lot.

BTW, should Justices recuse themselves from cases involving Senators the voted for appointment ??

 

[eohrnberger]

Even by the Dem's own 'Biden Rule' there's no restriction of appointing a SCOTUS prior to a mid term.
'Change the rules so we have an advantage' is what this smells like, so utter bull****.

 

[hanger4]

Even by the Dem's own 'Biden Rule' there's no restriction of appointing a SCOTUS prior to a mid term.
'Change the rules so we have an advantage' is what this smells like, so utter bull****.

The left is just throwing anything they can find upon the proverbial wall, things ain't a lookin real good fer em rite now.

 

[eohrnberger]

The left is just throwing anything they can find upon the proverbial wall, things ain't a lookin real good fer em rite now.

This isn't any sort of a new trend. For decades now, the left has been throwing any manner of **** up against the wall (political opponents) to see what sticks, and then continue on with that.

Quite tiring for anyone looking for any ounce of honesty in public policy debate.

 

[Cardinal]

For decades now, the left has been throwing any manner of **** up against the wall (political opponents) to see what sticks, and then continue on with that.

Quite tiring for anyone looking for any ounce of honesty in public policy debate.

See: Plutonium One, Pizzagate, Benghazi, Marc Rich.

 

[Roadvirus]

The left is just throwing anything they can find upon the proverbial wall, things ain't a lookin real good fer em rite now.

The Left is throwing **** to see what sticks. The problem is it's being thrown right back at them.