# Progressive turn a 180 degrees on Judge nomanation



## Joann Stubbs (Sep 8, 2018)

Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.

It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.



Now it changes.
At the time, then-Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont called on all members of the committee to be fair during the hearings and abstain from questioning the integrity or independence of President Obama’s nominee.

Republicans did just that, prompting Kagan to publicly thank then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Republicans for giving her “such respectful and expeditious consideration.”


During this week’s hearing – starting from the moment Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced Judge Kavanaugh and his family – the proceedings were interrupted by one Democratic senator after another, demanding a vote to delay the hearing. Then, like clockwork, came the shouts of protesters in the crowd.

If these childish antics and partisan outbursts appeared to be a well-coordinated effort on the part of Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of Kavanaugh, it’s because they were.

News organizations reported that on the eve of the hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats hosted a conference call with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, and plotted a “protest strategy” to disrupt the proceedings.


----------



## BlackFlag (Sep 8, 2018)

Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?


----------



## westwall (Sep 8, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?








Biden did it too.  So why do you care?


----------



## BlackFlag (Sep 8, 2018)

westwall said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?
> ...


Name the nominee that Biden blocked.  I'll wait as long as you want.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2018)

Joann Stubbs said:


> Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.
> 
> It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.
> 
> ...


Clear all the democrat guests from the gallery


----------



## westwall (Sep 8, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...








He was the most prominent Senator to ever suggest it.  

*Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992*

*But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992
*


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?


Yeah, let them go with that.

They have already publically announced -- well before any hearing -- that they intend to vote no.  Not on the basis if his qualifications, but on the basis of they don't like Trump.

I would prefer that they act like mature adults.  I hope that the conservative side of the country has taken note and made copies of the childish antics and that they show up predominantly in political ads all across the country.

Because this is what the Democrat party is all about anymore.  Childish temper tantrums.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Joann Stubbs said:


> Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.
> 
> It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.
> 
> ...




What changed?

Simple.  What the Republicans did to Garland.  Start there.


----------



## Tilly (Sep 8, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?


I think people would prefer the Left stopped acting like tards throwing their toys out of the pram at every opportunity.





And just like tantrum throwing cry babies, you should be ignored and / or laughed at.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

westwall said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yet again, Ted Cruz nailed this issue right on the head of the nail.

This SCOTUS nominee is a nominee that the people voted for.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



Not really.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yes really.  Your dissent is duly noted.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Has been asked and answered many times.  The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president.  The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee.  The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.  

Cruz is right.  This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump.  If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no.  As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.


----------



## BlackFlag (Sep 8, 2018)

westwall said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You could have answered with just 6 letters instead of that nonsense.  Correct answer: nobody.


----------



## night_son (Sep 8, 2018)

Joann Stubbs said:


> Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.
> 
> It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.
> 
> ...



Just the tip of the iceberg. The revolutionary ideologue purists on the American Left--blind as ever to the potential lethality of history repeating iself in the present, have yet to fully realize the potential army awaiting with baited breath, their orders to storm the "Bastille" in violent, angry mobs millions strong. They're getting there slowly but surely.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Sep 8, 2018)

Was the majority of the senate not voted in by the people. As was miraculously proven Americans did not want the country to lurch to the left any farther. Apparently liberals only want our checks and balances to work in their favor, no one elses. As was stated during the Kavanaugh hearings, the left thinks they are still running the show a year and a half after the election.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling.  As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months.  If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Sorry, a tit for tat response is something I don't do.

Name the law or Senate rule that they must respond within X amount of time to a judicial nomination.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



*As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months.*

There have been much longer vacancies.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789


----------



## Missourian (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Joann Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.
> ...



What Biden did to Garland.  It couldn't have been accomplished without him.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Missourian said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Joann Stubbs said:
> ...



Biden didn't do anything.  There was no "Biden rule" until you guys took something he said and invented a rule to justify what you did.  At least have the balls to own it.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Shrimpbox said:


> Was the majority of the senate not voted in by the people. As was miraculously proven Americans did not want the country to lurch to the left any farther. Apparently liberals only want our checks and balances to work in their favor, no one elses. As was stated during the Kavanaugh hearings, the left thinks they are still running the show a year and a half after the election.



You seem to have the odd idea that checks and balances are only allowed to work in your favor.  Hence, refusing to allow a sitting president to nominate a candidate for a vacancy as is his right.  Not voting the nominee down (the checks and balances part), but not even giving him a hearing.  You set a precident.  I'm not sure where it will go from here.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



She asked a good question, which you dodged:
If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 8, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?



If they could have, they would have.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

hunarcy said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?
> ...



Possibly.  The Republicans set a precedent.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 8, 2018)

Four Protesters Arrested During Sotomayor Hearing

Updated 7:30 p.m.Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings began as many historic happenings do in Congress — with protests and arrests.Capitol Police had arrested* four protesters by Monday afternoon.* Two anti-abortion activists, Robert M. James and Andrew R. Beacham disrupted the hearing with yells of “Abortion is murder!—James, 48, was arrested shortly before 11 a.m. after he interrupted Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) opening statement. Beacham, 27, yelled similar anti-abortion sentiments at about 1 p.m. and was promptly escorted out of the room and arrested.Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Capitol Police later arrested two more protesters at the hearing, 68-year-old Francis Mahoney of Florida and 61-year-old Norma McCorvey of Texas.McCorvey was the “Jane Roe“ in the Supreme Court’s seminal 1973 “Roe v. Wade“ decision legalizing abortion. She has since become a leading abortion opponent. All four people arrested were charged with unlawful conduct - disruption of Congress.Overall, however, the proceedings Monday went smoothly in comparison with other high-profile hearings



And in this hearing...............70 were arrested the first day....................Liberals are wacked.........


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



And, the Democrats will block a nominee in that manner in the future, which will show that they approve of the tactic and were just mad the Republicans thought of it first.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Her question was not germane to the issue.

The Senate has no time limit on a judicial nominee.  If it did, then the Senate for the past 30 years has been derelict in its duty given the number of open judicial nominations that have gone unvoted upon by both Democrat controlled and Republican controlled Senates.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 8, 2018)

Dems lost............elections have consequences...........Now get on the back of the bus.......

Who said that........


----------



## Missourian (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Whenever a liberal claimed it was wrong,  a video of the Vice President of the United States was played saying it was exactly the correct course of action.  Hard to argue with the Vice President (D) when one is also a (D).

Of course Biden,  as most politicos,  only meant for his words to be applied when it was advantageous to his own party...not the other guys.  That's what made it so delicious.  He couldn't come out and say that...no matter how much we all knew it to be true...so what could be done?  Nothing...and Merrick Garland became a footnote while instead President Trump put his mark on the Court.  Thank you Joe Biden.


----------



## Missourian (Sep 8, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



If it was morally wrong,  then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Missourian said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule.  So what are you talking about?  Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook?  They shouldn't.  But now a precedent has been set.  I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time.  I hope you are happy.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee?  I don't recall that...


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Point taken........but they play dirty all the time........

They changed the rules of the Senate........went nuclear.......on the agreement with Iran.............the suckered the GOP to have to try to have enough votes to Stop it instead of it being voted for as is normal.............Craziest thing I've ever seen in my life.......

They tried to sneak through nominations for court during recess...........forcing the GOP back to stop it.

Your side aren't angels............so please............


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 8, 2018)

10 Times Democrats Vowed To Block Republican Nominees

Both sides have a history.


----------



## Missourian (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Like the Dems are paying for the Nuclear Option now?

Bet you wish you could take that one back...but it was advantageous to you at the time. 

And this was advantageous to us...it likely got Trump elected...and pushing of another might have the same result...getting another Republican elected president.   Could cut either way.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 8, 2018)

FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Wrote the Obstructionist Playbook on ‘Borking’ a President’s Nominee

*With news of the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Obama White House and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are already staking a position that President Obama, and not his successor, should appoint Scalia’s replacement. But it’s useful to remember that one member of the Obama administration – Vice President Joe Biden – once had a very different opinion on the Senate’s ability to block a president’s nominee at all costs.*
Following the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1987, President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.

One of the key Democrats leading the charge was then Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A legal brief called the _Biden Report_ was drafted to dissect Bork’s background and positions with the clear intention of opposing him. Bork would later write that the _Biden Report_ “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.”

Ultimately, Biden’s Judiciary Committee rejected Bork’s nomination by a 9-5 vote, and eventually the full Senate would vote against his confirmation by 58-42.

The lasting legacy of the Bork nomination was the unprecedented viciousness of the campaign to block him, which has been the standard for Supreme Court nominations ever since. Indeed, the dictionary now contains the verb “bork” to describe the obstruction of a nominee “through systematic defamation or vilification.”


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



* But now a precedent has been set.*

Wrong, nominees have been ignored in the past.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Wrote the Obstructionist Playbook on ‘Borking’ a President’s Nominee
> 
> *With news of the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Obama White House and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are already staking a position that President Obama, and not his successor, should appoint Scalia’s replacement. But it’s useful to remember that one member of the Obama administration – Vice President Joe Biden – once had a very different opinion on the Senate’s ability to block a president’s nominee at all costs.*
> Following the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1987, President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.
> ...



Bork had a hearing and confirmation vote right?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Wrote the Obstructionist Playbook on ‘Borking’ a President’s Nominee
> ...


Yeah...........and was slandered to the heavens in a circus act.................Was Bork really that bad as they said he was...........

They will destroy anyone that challenges their power........

And the protest..............70 thrown out..............not very many when it's the other way around...........


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



"They"....the Republicans?
"They"...the Democrats?
or "They" all those who put party of principle?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Both sides have played dirty..............Life isn't fair......and that is the way it's been for a while........

They weren't going to give Obama a pick if they could stall.........which has happened before ........hoping to get the replacement........and had this been the Dems they would have done the same and you know it.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



When has it happened before?

Would the Dems have done the same?  HAVE they?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


I showed links......and saw others showing links in blocking it..............Bork is just an example of a Character Assassination............that was low..........

Again......doesn't matter...........your side would have done the same under similar circumstances......no matter how much you ramble......

He's gonna get appointed,.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations?  Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Very aware.  In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland.  You set a precedent.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


Wow, there have actually been 10 "no action" in history.

Thanks, I hadn't known that.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Excuses?  I wasn't aware that pointing out that the Senate has allowed nominees to languish in limbo for months going on years was an excuse.

And it has been pointed out that there are 10 preceding nominations that have never had any action taken on them.  That reaffirms My statement that this is no time limit on when the Senate must act on a nominee.

Not to mention the 100+ open seats for the federal judiciary that have gone to the wayside.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



So you'll be fine if the Democrats in power decide to refuse to allow hearings  for a nominee for a year until the next election?  I don't see anything in those failed nominations that approach what was done with Garland nor was any SCOTUS nominee held up as long as his was.  AT what point does "responsibility" become obstruction and when does it become detrimental to our country (not some political agenda)? 

You pointed out the unfilled judicial vacancies...this never used to be an issue.  Both sides worked together to produce candidates that would pass the process.  That has gone to hell.

...and what about those 100 open seats?  How did that come about?

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump
_President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. 

*Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees.* That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.


*By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed. *_​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



* In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.*


The Dems controlled the Senate from 2007-2015.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Do you think they would have done the same with a Bush nominee had the Senate been under Republican control?


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Well, two things.  Democrats confirmed 68 in 8 years.  Trump has been President less than 3.  So, give it time and we'll see if your numbers hold up.  I, myself, have been uber critical of the Senate Republicans for not passing nominations of Trump's given they have done away with the filibuster rule.  So, they have no excuse.  Yet again, however;  There is no time limit.

Second.  If the Democrats wish to do the same, I would be a hypocrite to say otherwise.  Still, I'll cross that bridge when it comes.  As it stands, with the pure hatred and craziness coming from the left in these times, I don't see the Democrats getting control of the Senate anytime soon.

So, when they do, and a similar circumstance arises, look Me up.

Until then, acknowledge that your just pissed that the SCOTUS will not be open to judicial legislation anytime soon.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them?


----------



## candycorn (Sep 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



10 times there has been no action taken; the last time was during Eisenhower.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I think the Democrats would have done exactly the same and My answer would be exactly the same.  I would not like that they did it, but I wouldn't say that the Democrats had to answer to a timeframe that does not exist.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Pure hatred and crazyness is certainly coming from the right.  You just happen to agree with the rightwing hate.  Republicans only confirmed 22 of Obama's nominees.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Why'd the Dems leave so many vacancies from 2009-2015?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I'm so happy I could help you learn something.
You're welcome!


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Wasn't under their total control.  Read the article if you're really that concerned.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


I don't agree with any hate.  But hate is not expressed by a difference of opinion.  It is, however; demonstrated by the lack of civility and open hostility to those with whom one disagrees.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 8, 2018)

So if the senate decides to never hold a hearing again, we will have no federal judiciary....period.  

Doesn't this begin to violate the theory of checks and balances?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Sep 8, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?



I sense a wee tad of butthurt there.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


What happened between Nov 2013 to when the Democrats lost control of the Senate?  Lots of opportunities there.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

candycorn said:


> So if the senate decides to never hold a hearing again, we will have no federal judiciary....period.
> 
> Doesn't this begin to violate the theory of checks and balances?


No, but it will jeopardize the Senators ability to get reelected.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I read the article. I'm not concerned.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 8, 2018)

Joann Stubbs said:


> Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.
> 
> It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.
> 
> ...


dOnald tRump's nominee is in no was shape or form the equal of Kagan just as tRump is not the equal of President Obama.  Nominate someone who hasn't lied repeatedly under oath and who wasn't choosen solely for his/her political bent and you will get a fair hearing.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Like when Trump attacks the media, mocks disabled reporters, calls politicians and leaders juvenile names?


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Joann Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.
> ...



Actually Trump's nominee is fully qualified for the position.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > So if the senate decides to never hold a hearing again, we will have no federal judiciary....period.
> ...



You think any senator from Texas who rises to the position of Majority Leader (as Cornyn may do) is in jeopardy of losing his seat if he holds no hearings on the next Democrat's nominations to the high court?   They'll have his mug on their currency when they finally secede.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Joann Stubbs said:
> ...


Except for the fact that he was choosen for his ideology rather than his qualifications and that whole perjury thing sure.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


We'll see, won't we?


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


No perjury, but his qualifications are impeccable.  Even the Democrats prior to Trump though so.

After all, with over 300 opinions as a sitting judge, one would think you could come up with a jurisprudence reason why he is not qualified.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



What does that have to do with Me, other conservatives; more importantly, with the nominee?


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Everything.  When conservatives whine about lack of civility...they tend to forget how they have fostered and rewarded exactly that behavior.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Okay, cite specifically how I have fostered and rewarded that kind of behavior.  Assuming of course, that simple disagreement on issues constitute whining.

Then cite the whining and incivility of the nominee.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


I am not talking about you specifically or the nominee.  But I am teaming about the President who condemned rude behavior yet engages in it daily and the conservatives who support it.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Have you condemned rude behavior from the left?  There is a veritable smorgasbord of incivility arising from that quarter.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


You mean like antifa’s behavior or harassment of conservative speakers in colleges?  Yes.

Have you condemned rude behavior from the right?


----------



## regent (Sep 8, 2018)

The Courts have been a source of political maneuvering since our second president, Adams, and the midnight judges.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


I have and do.  But its more than just the fascists in black masks.

What about those who call conservatives who support originalist thinking for supreme court justices (just to keep it on topic)?  They get called all kinds of vile names in the cause of abortion which isn't even on the table.  Or any number of other vile names for supporting solutions that are not government based?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


I didn't say he wasn't qualified.  I said that's not why he was picked and that some of the things he has said under oath amount to perjury.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



I doubt it would ever happen.  As much as I disagree with him, Cornyn is a decent enough guy.  I was saying that "IF" he did it, he would have no political blow back at all from Texans.  

Gee, wouldn't it be nice to give the constitution a voice in such matters so that shit like this is removed from ever remotely happening?


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


So, the left picks nominees from a pool of people they vet as on their side, but the right shouldn't do the same thing?

He is qualified.  He has shown he can be dispassionate in his profession.  As every judge should be.

That also means he may come out ruling in things I disagree with.

Thems the breaks.  If you want impartiality (as any sane person would) that means that the dice don't always roll your way.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Used to be the case until just 20 years ago.  Now.... it's a freak act...


----------



## Coyote (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


What do they get called and by whom?  Do you mean the Bork nomination?  Yes that was ugly, so much so it became a verb for ugly hearings.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be imparcial.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


No, I mean progressives in general.  Not only on this forum, but on the public stage in media, government, and private life.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 8, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?



  They would have had to win an election to do that.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 8, 2018)

Joann Stubbs said:


> Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.
> 
> It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.
> 
> ...



  They cant stop a thing.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Sep 8, 2018)

Joann Stubbs said:


> Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.
> 
> It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.
> 
> ...


Remember that drivel they used to spout of the Senate being the most deliberative Body in the world....more like biggest clown car...….kicker more women equals less deliberation


----------



## candycorn (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Had the rules been codified 20 years ago, we wouldn't be having the Party bosses deciding what the playing field looks like.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


So, we live in this world, no?

Maybe we should be advocating to do that starting right now?


----------



## RodISHI (Sep 8, 2018)

Dems and their pet leftist are really giving voters a desire to vote for them with crap like this photo op for their latest stunt at the Kavanaugh hearing.
(it is too disgusting to download the picture so you'll have to go to facebook to see it if you haven't already seen how low they can go)

Paul Robichaud


----------



## candycorn (Sep 8, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Yes; absolutely!

We currently have a constitution that is silent on whether a majority is needed to pass a law in the House or Senate.  If they were so inclined; a truly obstructionist party could make it where you could pass a bill 20-80 meaning that if you get 20 votes; it passes.  In a 2 party reality, it won't happen because the majority will always out vote the minority.  If we had 3 parties or 4 parties that were in the Senate though, the party that has a plurality could theoretically pass such a rule as long as the other factions didn't vote against them.  There seems to be nothing in the Constitution about packing the court.  In '37 they passed an act to stop it.  But the Constitution remains silent on it and therefore the act can be overturned or simply ignored.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 8, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Yes.  The problem is, the Constitution is not silent on the makeup of the legislative branch.  It is invested with a House of Representatives elected directly by the people, and a Senate that is appointed by the States legislatures, also directly elected by the people.

Right now, we have already circumvented the Constitution by the amendment (yeah, I know, amendments are part of the constitution) that allows for the direct election of US Senators.

We need a return to the basics of the Constitution in order to start doing away with this fucked up two party system.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 9, 2018)

Darkwind said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Disagree.

As long as you have political parties; you'll have someone who is in charge of the parties and able to exert influence over those elected officials.  Having 2 parties is no better than having 6 parties or 55 parties or 3 parties or whatever integer you wish to use.  Take 1/2 the Dems and 1/2 the Republicans and you have 49 Senators in the Senate...  Nothing would pass without the 49 votes and they would nominate a leader who would do exactly what Mitch McConnell does today and what Harry Reid did before him.  3 parties; same problems.  And it would be true whenever you have any integer less than 100 (meaning 100 different political parties).  Whoever is in charge will slate the rules to favor their party.  That is just the nature of the beast. 

Now if you crafted the rules and made it to where it took a 3/4 majority to change them...that would take the parties out of the equation.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Sep 9, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Shrimpbox said:
> 
> 
> > Was the majority of the senate not voted in by the people. As was miraculously proven Americans did not want the country to lurch to the left any farther. Apparently liberals only want our checks and balances to work in their favor, no one elses. As was stated during the Kavanaugh hearings, the left thinks they are still running the show a year and a half after the election.
> ...


First, no denied obama the right to nominate someone. The senate decided that they would postpone the advise and consent part until after the election in order to get the pulse of the American people. Had Hilary won, garland would probably be on the court now, the senate would have approved someone. And as you usually do, you forget the Democratic comments about postponing this stuff in the past. Democrats play hardball politics all the time, real hardball politics, yet when republicans finally show some backbone it’s just how horrible from people like you. I’m sure where it will go from here, it will continue as it has for 250 years.


----------



## JBvM (Sep 26, 2018)

Joann Stubbs said:


> Democrats on the committee have gone so far as to dispense with long-established Senate decorum and rules in order to fire up their base heading into the November midterm elections.
> 
> It’s a sad commentary that in retrospect, now-Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010 seems like something from a different era, when senators on both sides of the aisle took the vetting process for the highest court in the land seriously.
> 
> ...


What has changed? Trump has thrown out the rule book and given everyone a road map


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 26, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?


They don't have the right to.
So what we have instead is a transparent attempt to thwart the will of the people at any cost.

As someone once said.....elections have consequences.


----------



## JBvM (Sep 26, 2018)

mudwhistle said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > Would you have preferred if Democrats had simply blocked Kavanaugh's hearing entirely until there was a Democrat President that could withdraw his nomination and bring in a new guy?
> ...


President Barack _Obama nominated_ Merrick Garland


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2018)

JBvM said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



Yeah, that was funny!


----------



## JBvM (Sep 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


almost as funny as a Trump UN speech


----------



## donald (Sep 30, 2018)

QUESTION
I have a question that begs to be answered - ford says in her letter ‘Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.”
This would mean that after just being “sexually assaulted” she left her other female friend at the house without warning her about what had supposedly just happened to her. She would’ve just left her to fend for herself. Is this plausible? What would this say about ford & her care about another female - her intimate friend, Leland Ingham?
SECOND QUESTION
If ford was so scared that she left the house without warning leland about what allegedly just had happened to her- then when they (ford & leland) next met or talked on the phone - which could’ve even been the next day - why was leland not at least then told about this purported foiled savaging of her? For ford not to have talked to leland about such a fearful experience surpasses any level of credibility.
I find it impossible to believe that ford


----------

