A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

[Mike473]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases.

LOL!!

Is Trump the target of any Federal investigation. Comey and Rosenstien said he wasn't. Who has confirmed he is being personally investigated?

 

[WillowTree]

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year



I might have known it was a libtard who started this shit!

 

[HappyJoy]

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

What rule?

The so called 'Biden rule'.

How did McConnell make up the Biden rule?

By calling something the 'Biden rule' when it's not.

What was the Biden rule?

It's Biden giving a speech about not voting on a supreme court nominee until after an election. Never voted on in the senate and at the time there never was a nominee to be voted on anyway.

However, now from a speech in 1992 it became some make believe rule that Republicans used to with hold a vote.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh but it WILL. This WINNING is kind of growing on us. I expect a HIGHER republican turn out because of it.

I hope you really think so.

The more you warn us that we shouldn't do it because it'll hurt us, the more sure we become that it's exactly what we should do, because you're actually afraid it will hurt YOU.

It'll hurt the country sure, no doubt about it.

The libs on the court are hurting the country.

Ahh, poor baby.

Thanks for proving you're an asshole.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump should expand the number of justices and pack the court.

 

[Kondor3]

Not gonna happen. McConnell is a hypocrite, but at the end of the day, power is all that matters. Words and morals are just dressing.

Nope.....protecting our liberties is what matters......and liberal activist judges won't do that.

True. Thinning out the Liberal herd at the District and Appellate levels should help a bit, as well. Having some Lefties is OK. Letting them run things is suicidal.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There are legitimate reasons why Trump should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice.

A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

By Paul Schiff Berman

Mr. Berman is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/a-better-reason-to-delay-kennedys-replacement.html

Fuck this guy.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'm quite sure professor Berman would like to hear your well educated legal opinions.

It's quite clear Trump WILL nominate and the senate WILL confirm and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's always an election

 

[Mike473]

I'm quite sure professor Berman would like to hear your well educated legal opinions.

It's quite clear Trump WILL nominate and the senate WILL confirm and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it.

Elections have consequences

 

[Kondor3]

Trump should expand the number of justices and pack the court.

No need. Liberals are up against the wall in SCOTUS already, and, once Ginsberg goes - and she will - they'll be a 6-3 Court.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Trump should expand the number of justices and pack the court.

No need. Liberals are up against the wall in SCOTUS already, and, once Ginsberg goes - and she will - they'll be a 6-3 Court.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Facts are such bitches. I have not absolutely confirmed this but I believe four recent justices have been confirmed during a mid term election year. Don’t do as I do, do as I say.

Was the Pres under investigation?

Has there been anything to show that the president has done anything wrong? You all would love to reduce or eliminate the presidents powers and the will of the people because you just insinuate something. As with everything Democratic lately, facts are not important, only the way WE feel. This is what happens when losers get trophies too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee.

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

Supreme Court nominee? Who?

As I demonstrated in Monday’s column, Democratic efforts to claim that Judge Gorsuch should be defeated because Republicans “stole” a seat that rightfully belonged to Merrick Garland and President Obama collapse when you look at the history of election-year nominations. This is the seventh time that the Senate has left an election-year Supreme Court vacancy open for the next president, and of the ten such vacancies to happen when the president and the Senate were from different parties, six were left vacant, three were confirmed after Election Day in favor of the party that won the election, and only one (in 1888) was confirmed before Election Day.

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

Oh, this is embarrassing...for you. Who were the nominees that didn't get a vote? That's what you said, right? Let me quote you:

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

So, which nominees weren't given a vote? I'm not interested in which vacancies were open if no one was nominated at the time or if a nominee is filibustered due to their own character flaws. Did NR pull one over on you?

So, one again who were the nominees who didn't get a vote due to an election year? Good luck with that.

Oh, this is embarrassing...for you.

Why do you feel that?

I'm not interested in which vacancies were open if no one was nominated at the time

You think there were openings that no one was nominated for? That's funny.

So, one again who were the nominees who didn't get a vote due to an election year?

Reuben Walworth June 1844
John Read Feb 1845 (nominated after the election, before Tyler left office)
Edward Bradford Aug 1852
William Micou Feb 1853 (nominated after the election, before Fillmore left office)

There were also several others where a Senate controlled by one party ignored nominations by a President of the other party in non-Presidential election years.

Henry Stanbery Apr 1866
Stanley Matthews Jan 1881 (Nominated by a Republican President ignored by Democrat Senate, confirmed March 1881 by new Republican Senate)

I may have missed some, probably where the Senate did nothing and then the nominee withdrew.
Feel free to do some research yourself.

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

Did NR pull one over on you?

I don't think so. Do you?

 

[HappyJoy]

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee.

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

Supreme Court nominee? Who?

As I demonstrated in Monday’s column, Democratic efforts to claim that Judge Gorsuch should be defeated because Republicans “stole” a seat that rightfully belonged to Merrick Garland and President Obama collapse when you look at the history of election-year nominations. This is the seventh time that the Senate has left an election-year Supreme Court vacancy open for the next president, and of the ten such vacancies to happen when the president and the Senate were from different parties, six were left vacant, three were confirmed after Election Day in favor of the party that won the election, and only one (in 1888) was confirmed before Election Day.

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

Oh, this is embarrassing...for you. Who were the nominees that didn't get a vote? That's what you said, right? Let me quote you:

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

So, which nominees weren't given a vote? I'm not interested in which vacancies were open if no one was nominated at the time or if a nominee is filibustered due to their own character flaws. Did NR pull one over on you?

So, one again who were the nominees who didn't get a vote due to an election year? Good luck with that.

Oh, this is embarrassing...for you.

Why do you feel that?

I'm not interested in which vacancies were open if no one was nominated at the time

You think there were openings that no one was nominated for? That's funny.

So, one again who were the nominees who didn't get a vote due to an election year?

Reuben Walworth June 1844
John Read Feb 1845 (nominated after the election, before Tyler left office)
Edward Bradford Aug 1852
William Micou Feb 1853 (nominated after the election, before Fillmore left office)

There were also several others where a Senate controlled by one party ignored nominations by a President of the other party in non-Presidential election years.

Henry Stanbery Apr 1866
Stanley Matthews Jan 1881 (Nominated by a Republican President ignored by Democrat Senate, confirmed March 1881 by new Republican Senate)

I may have missed some, probably where the Senate did nothing and then the nominee withdrew.
Feel free to do some research yourself.

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

Did NR pull one over on you?

I don't think so. Do you?

Dude, how many DUE to an election year? Do you not read? How many of those nominees didn't get a vote BECAUSE it was an election year? Jesus.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee.

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

Supreme Court nominee? Who?

As I demonstrated in Monday’s column, Democratic efforts to claim that Judge Gorsuch should be defeated because Republicans “stole” a seat that rightfully belonged to Merrick Garland and President Obama collapse when you look at the history of election-year nominations. This is the seventh time that the Senate has left an election-year Supreme Court vacancy open for the next president, and of the ten such vacancies to happen when the president and the Senate were from different parties, six were left vacant, three were confirmed after Election Day in favor of the party that won the election, and only one (in 1888) was confirmed before Election Day.

It Doesn't Matter That Garland Didn't Get a Hearing | National Review

Oh, this is embarrassing...for you. Who were the nominees that didn't get a vote? That's what you said, right? Let me quote you:

You make it sound like Garland was the first nominee who didn't get a vote during a Presidential election year.

So, which nominees weren't given a vote? I'm not interested in which vacancies were open if no one was nominated at the time or if a nominee is filibustered due to their own character flaws. Did NR pull one over on you?

So, one again who were the nominees who didn't get a vote due to an election year? Good luck with that.

Oh, this is embarrassing...for you.

Why do you feel that?

I'm not interested in which vacancies were open if no one was nominated at the time

You think there were openings that no one was nominated for? That's funny.

So, one again who were the nominees who didn't get a vote due to an election year?

Reuben Walworth June 1844
John Read Feb 1845 (nominated after the election, before Tyler left office)
Edward Bradford Aug 1852
William Micou Feb 1853 (nominated after the election, before Fillmore left office)

There were also several others where a Senate controlled by one party ignored nominations by a President of the other party in non-Presidential election years.

Henry Stanbery Apr 1866
Stanley Matthews Jan 1881 (Nominated by a Republican President ignored by Democrat Senate, confirmed March 1881 by new Republican Senate)

I may have missed some, probably where the Senate did nothing and then the nominee withdrew.
Feel free to do some research yourself.

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

Did NR pull one over on you?

I don't think so. Do you?

Dude, how many DUE to an election year? Do you not read? How many of those nominees didn't get a vote BECAUSE it was an election year? Jesus.

You can't determine which years are election years?
Ask a parent.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Speaking of the name "Kennedy"....(and yes, I do know what his party affiliation was)
Maxine Waters has echoed a very dark sentiment that should be taken very seriously.

I could be wrong (but I'm probably not)....I think Trump is in danger. As heated as this whole immigration and Trump hatred thing is across the nation and with so many violent lefties out there......
I can't think of a President in history that has been in as much clear and present danger as is Trump.
Remember, it only take ONE fool. But it's not just one fol that wants him gone. It's millions of fools and even mega deep pocketed fools who see their agenda in jeopardy.

And it seems at times he is too nonchalant about it. If they were to take out Trump now, that could cause a serious detour in the way things are going.
Especially putting Constitutionally minded Americans on the Supreme Court. They tried to get Reagan. Almost succeeded.

Show of hands.....who believes that there will be ZERO attempts on trump's life by maniacs?
I say there will be several, they are already being planned and it's what the insane left really wants.

Be alert Mr. Trump. Stay sharp. The nation needs you now more than ever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's actually a mess that McConnell started and if Trump picks somebody on the far right it's not going to help the Republicans in November.

Oh but it WILL. This WINNING is kind of growing on us. I expect a HIGHER republican turn out because of it.

I hope you really think so.

The more you warn us that we shouldn't do it because it'll hurt us, the more sure we become that it's exactly what we should do, because you're actually afraid it will hurt YOU.

It'll hurt the country sure, no doubt about it.

HOW????????? You don't even know who the pick is.


.

It's not Hillary picking him/her, ergo it CAN'T be good.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fortunately the Democrats don'thave a choice, they have to do what they can until after the election. It's fair game at this point.

Why is that lying like a bazaar full of rugs is always "doing what they can" with Democrats?

Who is lying?

There should have been a floor vote for Garland, there wasn't and McConnell made up the "Biden rule" which wasn't a rule to justify him not doing his job. Now the Democrats are saying we are in another election year, while the President isn't up for re election, the body that is confirming the nominee is and the President is also under investigation. So, there is more than enough justification for the Democrats to do anything they legally can to delay the vote if we are to live by McConnel's standards.

McConnell didn't make up a damned thing. And he WAS doing his job; you just didn't like that it was him doing it, because that meant it involved keeping you from getting what you wanted. Had it been a leftist in that position, using the legitimate rules and power of the position to block a Republican President's nomination, you'd have been cheering, and we both know it.

Now the Democrats are saying, "All elections must be the same, because we're powerless otherwise", and it's horse shit. They're also saying - as they pretty much always do - "Our accusations should be treated as convictions!" Not only are we not going to allow them to paralyze the Presidency every time they're out of power, but we are also not interested in this hypocrisy, given that leftists certainly do not treat accusations of wrongdoing toward THEIR Presidents as prima facie evidence that he should not be allowed to exercise the powers of the office.

That is not "McConnell's standard", unless and until you can provide any evidence of him EVER suggesting that it should be applied to any election other than the Presidential. You don't get to invent shit on the fly and then make other people responsible for it.

After FDR's stacking og the court democrats have no right to bitch.

He didn't stack the court, he tried and failed as both Republicans and Democrats were against it. Where as McConnell made up a rule and then refused to allow a vote for a supreme court nominee. So, really not the same thing at all but nice try.

McConnell BORROWED a rule made up by Joe Biden - which is why it's called "the Biden Rule", just in case you weren't able to follow that - and while it isn't the exact same Supreme Court shenanigans, it IS the same party pulling them.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh but it WILL. This WINNING is kind of growing on us. I expect a HIGHER republican turn out because of it.

I hope you really think so.

The more you warn us that we shouldn't do it because it'll hurt us, the more sure we become that it's exactly what we should do, because you're actually afraid it will hurt YOU.

It'll hurt the country sure, no doubt about it.

HOW????????? You don't even know who the pick is.


.

It's not Hillary picking him/her, ergo it CAN'T be good.

Yep, ignorance abounds in the regressive mind, they all think they're fortune tellers. But they lack the hindsight to see how disappointing Roberts has been on the court for the right. Ya never know what will influence a new supreme once seated.


.