Should Supreme Court appt.hearings be delayed?

[Excon]

nah, and they shouldn't have been blocked by the Republicans last time, either.

Blocked? iLOL Not giving advice and consent is not blocking. There is no requirement to give advise and consent to those they do not approve of, and there is certainly no reason to hold hearings and a vote for a person you know is not going to be approved.

the court is going to veer far right, so let's get it over with.

Far right? iLOL Returning to the center is not veering "far right".

 

[Excon]

I saw a headline saying one of the people on Trump's list has previously argued that presidents shouldn't be inconvenienced by investigations. That says it all.

No it doesn't say it all, as that is a valid legal argument in regards to the position of the Office of the President.

---

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.

iLOL No.
Not even if we didn't know that he is not a target of the investigation.

Yep, I saw that too. That's also an omen of the most important question: if the investigation of trump makes it to SCOTUS, will trump's appointed Justices recuse themselves? That guy's answer strongly suggests that he won't.

That is not a reason for recusal and has never been.
If anyone should recuse their self from any case involving the President it should be Ginsburg, as she already publicly made her bias against the President known.

---

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.

No.
There exists no reason for a Judge to recuse their self simply because a case may involve the person who nominated and appointed them to the bench.
That is not a reasonable position to take.

 

[Tennyson]

nah, and they shouldn't have been blocked by the Republicans last time, either. the court is going to veer far right, so let's get it over with.

Neither a passive act of not voting on a Supreme Court nominee, or an active resolution to not vote on a Supreme Court nominee, is not blocking. The act and history of the passive act of not voting was the basis for the advise and consent clause of Article II.

 

[late]

Show anything I stated which is not factual. Your problem is that you don't like the facts presented and so, do not address them.

Alt-facts.

You know, lies.

 

[NotreDame]

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.

Can you define conflict of interest? It is a phrase invoked by people on all sides but nobody has bothered to define the phrase. It is rather necessary to define the phrase before anyone can legitimately determine the nominee would have a conflict of interest.

 

[NotreDame]

I saw a headline saying one of the people on Trump's list has previously argued that presidents shouldn't be inconvenienced by investigations. That says it all.

Do you know when he ventured this opinion?

 

[NotreDame]

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.

What's your argument in favor of recusal?

 

[haymarket]

Can you define conflict of interest? It is a phrase invoked by people on all sides but nobody has bothered to define the phrase. It is rather necessary to define the phrase before anyone can legitimately determine the nominee would have a conflict of interest.

In this case its Trump picking a juror/jurist that may possible decide his own case.

 

[Helix]

Blocked? iLOL Not giving advice and consent is not blocking. There is no requirement to give advise and consent to those they do not approve of, and there is certainly no reason to hold hearings and a vote for a person you know is not going to be approved.

yep, blocked. Obama wasn't allowed a hearing on his nominee for about a year.

Far right? iLOL Returning to the center is not veering "far right".

we'll see.

 

[Helix]

Neither a passive act of not voting on a Supreme Court nominee, or an active resolution to not vote on a Supreme Court nominee, is not blocking. The act and history of the passive act of not voting was the basis for the advise and consent clause of Article II.

Garland was effectively blocked for about a year. this is not a debatable point.

 

[NotreDame]

In this case its Trump picking a juror/jurist that may possible decide his own case.

Ok but under that standard every justice has a conflict of interest because it’s always possible a case directly involving the President can materialize.


At the moment there’s no open litigation directly involving Trump and the Mueller investigation. It is also unknown whether there ever will be litigation directly involving Trump and the Mueller investigation. Trump presently is in a situation as other Presidents, with the mere possibility of some day in the future the nominating President could be directly involved in a case before SCOTUS in which their nominee will be on the Court.

But such a possibility didn’t create a conflict of interest for those other Presidents and it shouldn’t here when A) There’s no pending litigation directly involving Trump and the Mueller investigation B) it’s unknown whether any such litigation will ever occur and C) the likelihood of such litigation is unknown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Excon]

yep, blocked. Obama wasn't allowed a hearing on his nominee for about a year.

No.
There is no requirement that they must give a hearing for a claim of "blocked" to be true.
Your claim is false.

we'll see.

iLOL
The Founders and the original Court would be center and every left leaning justice today is far left of that center. So there is nothing to see. The decisions will be heading back towards the center.

 

[Fiddytree]

It's a moot point, but if we were to take this seriously and everything we do is a bit of a gamble I would say no.

I would rather they do it as soon as possible than drag this out for months, increase GOP voter enthusiasm, kill off the "Blue Wave," unseat Democratic Senators in red states, and edge toward fillibuster-proofing the Senate.

Kennedy's seat is gone. That's just the reality.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[Nap]

Maybe they should gerrymander... :lol:

Lol, You think Democrats don't gerrymander?

 

[haymarket]

Ok but under that standard every justice has a conflict of interest because it’s always possible a case directly involving the President can materialize.

Allow me to be more specific: a case involving the President and his own criminal actions.

 

[Nap]

It's a moot point, but if we were to take this seriously and everything we do is a bit of a gamble I would say no.

I would rather they do it as soon as possible than drag this out for months, increase GOP voter enthusiasm, kill off the "Blue Wave," unseat Democratic Senators in red states, and edge toward fillibuster-proofing the Senate.

Kennedy's seat is gone. That's just the reality.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

I was thinking the same thing. While a gamble, I think it would actually be smart for McConnell to use the seat as a carrot on the stick to draw out Republicans to vote. Democrats are more fired up at the moment and so the Republicans need a little more incentive to ensure their majority. Even if the gamble doesn't pay off, you would have Democrats blocking Trump's pick for over 2 years which likely benefit the Republicans in 2020. Going to be interesting either way.

 

[Tennyson]

Garland was effectively blocked for about a year. this is not a debatable point.

There is no such thing as being blocked under the advise and consent clause of Article II. The foundation and origination of the clause was based on active and passive (not voting by ignoring the nomination) doctrines. Being "blocked" has no constitutional basis or historical basis.

 

[NotreDame]

Allow me to be more specific: a case involving the President and his own criminal actions.

However, it’s unknown whether any criminal case in which Trump is the defendant will ever occur. Right now, the known probability of a criminal case against Trump is unknown.

There shouldn’t be a delay in nominating or a presently existing conflict of interest on the basis of some day in the future Trump could be a defendant in a criminal case.

A present conflict of interest can’t be said to exist on the basis Trump might be a defendant in a criminal case at some point in the future. There may never be any criminal charges file against Trump and presently it’s equally possible no criminal charges against Trump materialize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

However, it’s unknown whether any criminal case in which Trump is the defendant will ever occur. Right now, the known probability of a criminal case against Trump is unknown.

There shouldn’t be a delay in nominating or a presently existing conflict of interest on the basis of some day in the future Trump could be a defendant in a criminal case.

A present conflict of interest can’t be said to exist on the basis Trump might be a defendant in a criminal case at some point in the future. There may never be any criminal charges file against Trump and presently it’s equally possible no criminal charges against Trump materialize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

all you need to point out that the president is not under investigation and that pretty much shuts down his non-existent argument.

 

[ludin]

I was thinking the same thing. While a gamble, I think it would actually be smart for McConnell to use the seat as a carrot on the stick to draw out Republicans to vote. Democrats are more fired up at the moment and so the Republicans need a little more incentive to ensure their majority. Even if the gamble doesn't pay off, you would have Democrats blocking Trump's pick for over 2 years which likely benefit the Republicans in 2020. Going to be interesting either way.

this would be stupid. there is no way that they are not going to put a judge on the bench while they have the ability to do so.
it is a good chance that they will lose the senate and well it isn't worth waiting 2 years and possibly lose the presidency over.

a judge will be appointed before that.

 

[RAMOSS]

all you need to point out that the president is not under investigation and that pretty much shuts down his non-existent argument.

Correction. He is not a 'target'. There is a difference between not being under investigation and not being a 'target'. Why are you giving misinformation?

 

[haymarket]

However, it’s unknown whether any criminal case in which Trump is the defendant will ever occur. Right now, the known probability of a criminal case against Trump is unknown.

There shouldn’t be a delay in nominating or a presently existing conflict of interest on the basis of some day in the future Trump could be a defendant in a criminal case.

A present conflict of interest can’t be said to exist on the basis Trump might be a defendant in a criminal case at some point in the future. There may never be any criminal charges file against Trump and presently it’s equally possible no criminal charges against Trump materialize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because of his position and precedent, the odds of a formal criminal case against Trump are against it. If anything , the old Watergate designation of UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR is the most probably. But that still makes it a possible eventual criminal case and it also assuredly makes Trump the focal point of a criminal case against his fellow conspirators.

There shouldn’t be a delay in nominating or a presently existing conflict of interest on the basis of some day in the future Trump could be a defendant in a criminal case.

By delay are you talking about the McConnell rule where a SC nominee is NOT considered during an election year?

 

[jonny5]

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

As with Obama, I think there should be normal process. President nominate, congress consider and vote yes or no. If the people dont like it, they should vote everyone out.

 

[jonny5]

Supreme court says it's ok. Citizens United needs to be overturned. I don't see anybody want the swamp drained could say otherwise, but Trump is not going to appoint that kind of judge.

The constitution says its ok. If you dont like that groups supporting ideas is speech, then change the constitution.

 

[Renae]

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.

They don't have the power to do it, but if you want to ensure more GOP Senators, by all means, have that fight..