Should Supreme Court appt.hearings be delayed?

[Perotista]

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 there is no doubt McConnell never allowed a vote on Garland which I think was totally wrong and very stupid on McConnell's part. One shouldn't think even if a vote on the Senate floor had taken place, he would have been confirmed. The Republicans had 54 senators, more than enough to vote him down. The fact was, whether the vote took place or not, held hostage or not, Garland wasn't about to be confirmed. Not having a vote on Garland was in my opinion one of the biggest political mistakes McConnell ever made. I firmly believe every nominee deserves a fair hearing and an up and down vote. Just don't go thinking if the vote occurred, Garland or any other Obama nominee would have been confirmed.

As for when the vote takes place on Kennedy's replacement, I really don't care. Then ex-senate majority leader Reid's first use of the nuclear option basically made any hearing or vote on the senate floor when the senate is controlled by the same party that holds the presidency either irrelevant or a done deal. What was Reid thinking, that the Democrats would control the senate and the presidency forever? That once Republicans took control of the senate and had a president of their own, they wouldn't ever use it? Stupid, totally stupid to strip the minority party of one of their basic rights. To eliminate any check on the power of the presidency in the nomination process by the senate when the senate is in the hands of the same party. Just for a short term political gain with no thought of the future.

I loved the way it was when 60 votes were needed for cloture and confirmation. That meant at least a few senators of the opposing party had to go vote aye or agree on any nominee. This meant for the most part, no extreme right or left nominee would be confirmed. That is all history now thanks to ex-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Now either party can nominate and place on the SCOTUS the most extreme left or right justices they want as long as the president and the senate is of the same party. When that happens, there is no checks or balance, basically no advice and consent, just a push.

 

[trouble13]

Yes it should

Then you better get on Mueller to make his case because without that business message forward and Trump is presumed innocent.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

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?

i am not. if there is an investigation and they are not investigating me then i am not under investigation.
that is what target means. if i was a target then they would be investigating me but they aren't.

 

[SheWolf]

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

The GOP will not maintain power, so you may want to think about your arrogance

 

[SheWolf]

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

If my money is speech I should be about to buy drugs hookers and hitmen.

 

[Renae]

The GOP will not maintain power, so you may want to think about your arrogance

My arrogance?
Please, I was pointing out that if the Dem's try to play that game it will merely motivate GOP voters, which I'm fine with. Thanks to the ARROGANCE of Harry Reid the nuclear war was fought and so far has bitten the Dem's in the ass, this will be no different.

 

[SheWolf]

My arrogance?
Please, I was pointing out that if the Dem's try to play that game it will merely motivate GOP voters, which I'm fine with. Thanks to the ARROGANCE of Harry Reid the nuclear war was fought and so far has bitten the Dem's in the ass, this will be no different.

You can bitten in your ass too. That's all I am saying. I am tired of this kind of division and arrogance.

 

[jonny5]

If my money is speech I should be about to buy drugs hookers and hitmen.

Murder is unconstitutional. And simply purchasing something is obviously not speech, but certainly outside of federal power. You should be able to buy drugs and hookers because the federal govt doesnt have the power to stop you. (states are a different matter).

 

[SheWolf]

Murder is unconstitutional. And simply purchasing something is obviously not speech, but certainly outside of federal power. You should be able to buy drugs and hookers because the federal govt doesnt have the power to stop you. (states are a different matter).

Purchasing something isn't murder. Paying off a hitman shouldn't be a crime. A financial transaction shouldn't be a crime, because it's free speech. Actually killing somebody should still be a crime

 

[Mustachio]

Yeah.

Any credibility to this went out the window as soon as more than 55% of Democratic Party primary voters voted to nominate for President someone who was under criminal investigation at the time.

This is transparent and sad.

And Trump was being sued for conning people out of their life savings. I guess that's... transparent and sad? Your comment is definitely ironic seeing as Trump was actually guilty.

 

[Renae]

You can bitten in your ass too. That's all I am saying. I am tired of this kind of division and arrogance.

I think you first need to recognize arrogance, I wasn't being arrogant I was pointing out how SCOTUS picks tend to really motivate GOP voters, because we realize that is the last bulwark against erosions of liberty we have left.

 

[Harshaw]

And Trump was being sued for conning people out of their life savings. I guess that's... transparent and sad? Your comment is definitely ironic seeing as Trump was actually guilty.

None of that negates the point.

 

[Nap]

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.

Think about this, Trump wouldn't be President if not for the SCOTUS pick. There were many that voted for him purely for that appointment.

 

[KLATTU]

What can the Democrats do about it?

 

[ludin]

Think about this, Trump wouldn't be President if not for the SCOTUS pick. There were many that voted for him purely for that appointment.

yea and now they have given him the power to make that pick so he will do so in just a few days.

 

[ludin]

What can the Democrats do about it?

other than they usual whine and crying? nothing.

 

[KLATTU]

The way I see it, the Deomcrats took an incredibly stupid gamble when they changed the voting rules. They assumed they would run the Senate for a long time.

The Republicans took an even stupider gamble when they delayed th eGarland nomination. The chance of that one paying off were about 100 to 1.
But hey, it paid off.

Nothing principled about either, but then that's par for the course, isn't it?

 

[jonny5]

Purchasing something isn't murder. Paying off a hitman shouldn't be a crime. A financial transaction shouldn't be a crime, because it's free speech. Actually killing somebody should still be a crime

And yet your not supporting your argument, just stating your opinion. Clearly conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, and the hiring evidence of said crime. Whether it was speech or not is moot, as either way it would be in conflict with the right to live.

There is no such conflict with material support for political ideas. Whats most important here is that there is a clear rule against govt infringing on speech, and a clear rule on govt protecting life.

 

[Mustachio]

None of that negates the point.

It does if your point is that neither candidate should have gotten their party's nomination

 

[gdgyva]

It does if your point is that neither candidate should have gotten their party's nomination

but BOTH of them did get the nominations

and THESE were the only choices afforded to us

two huge **** sandwiches

only question was...which one was worse

for me, they both stank...and i couldnt vote for either

i think a LOT of people made that stand

but Trump was the final decision...for good or bad...

 

[SheWolf]

And yet your not supporting your argument, just stating your opinion. Clearly conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, and the hiring evidence of said crime. Whether it was speech or not is moot, as either way it would be in conflict with the right to live.

There is no such conflict with material support for political ideas. Whats most important here is that there is a clear rule against govt infringing on speech, and a clear rule on govt protecting life.

If you think money is speech, then I am constitutionally protected to pay a person in a transaction. The financial exchange itself shouldn't be a crime

 

[Harshaw]

It does if your point is that neither candidate should have gotten their party's nomination

That was not the point.

 

[Helix]

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

they blocked any consideration of Garland. that's blocking regardless of how you attempt to spin it.

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.

as i said, we'll see.

 

[Helix]

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.

more spin. they refused to allow consideration of his nomination in a gamble to block the nominee until the clock ran out. the gamble paid off.

 

[Pedestrian]

other than they usual whine and crying? nothing.

Hell man, ever since Truman beat Dewey, the repub and the right have been whining and crying ever since, anytime a dem wins anything.