What's wrong with the GOP? Vote on Supreme Court Justice

[DigitalDrifter]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama will be denied the opportunity to put another justice on the SCOTUS, he could nominate God and it will be request denied, out of spite!

I agree, spite is the purpose behind the stand off... Not this "Leave it up to the people" BS. This attitude is whats spinning our government down the drain.

The word you are searching for is 'consequences' as in, Obama behaves like an ass for the last 7 years and now there are consequences.

Good i guess we can all just be children then and respond in kind... There was a time when good strong people showed character and leadership by holding themselves to a higher standard then their competition. I guess thats not a game the GOP wants or is capable of playing. Question though, how do they think this is going to help repair this partisan divide that is crippling the progress of our government?

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

 

[Slade3200]

I agree, spite is the purpose behind the stand off... Not this "Leave it up to the people" BS. This attitude is whats spinning our government down the drain.

The word you are searching for is 'consequences' as in, Obama behaves like an ass for the last 7 years and now there are consequences.

Good i guess we can all just be children then and respond in kind... There was a time when good strong people showed character and leadership by holding themselves to a higher standard then their competition. I guess thats not a game the GOP wants or is capable of playing. Question though, how do they think this is going to help repair this partisan divide that is crippling the progress of our government?

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

 

[Papageorgio]

The word you are searching for is 'consequences' as in, Obama behaves like an ass for the last 7 years and now there are consequences.

Good i guess we can all just be children then and respond in kind... There was a time when good strong people showed character and leadership by holding themselves to a higher standard then their competition. I guess thats not a game the GOP wants or is capable of playing. Question though, how do they think this is going to help repair this partisan divide that is crippling the progress of our government?

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

 

[Wildman]

Why can't they just do their jobs?

they will, just give them time.., about 10 more months when president Trump or Cruz takes the helm of our great ship the United States of America.

 

[Wildman]

I still haven't heard a sensible justification.

the justification is that your demoscumrats set the precedence for this non-action.., look it up, you just MIGHT learn something useful.

 

[Wildman]

Maybe they think they'll have a better chance with Hillary and a Democrat controlled Senate.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

 

[Wildman]

but totally not acceptable for elected representatives.

i'll bet you never said that when Bush was president.., did you ??

 

[Wildman]

Merrick Garland, a radical left activist with utter contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.

how can you say that, didn't you hear his acceptance speech? he said he is all for.., well, here read it yourself,

"For a judge to be worthy of such trust, he or she must be faithful to the Constitution and to the statutes passed by the Congress."

"He or she must put aside his personal views or preferences and follow the law — not make it. Fidelity to the Constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life, and [it] is the hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be for the past 18 years."

"If the Senate sees fit to confirm me to the position for which I have been nominated today, I promise to continue on that course."

read his entire line of here.., Transcript Of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS Nomination Speech Is So Moving

thank you.

 

[Publius1787]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

A perfect justice for a republican: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent when judging a statute to be constitutional.

A perfect justice for a democrat: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences. Notice the last two categories are nothing other than simply rewriting a law from the bench. Not to mention their infatuation with substantive due process.

These are two means of which judges generally differ. For most of our history "text, history, tradition, and precedent" have been the primary means of judging a statute. It wasn't until the New Deal Era when purpose and consequence became a major factor, granting rise to liberal judges who legislate from the bench and transform the U.S. Constitution into an object James Madison certainly wouldn't recognize without so much as a vote of the people, congress, and states who have the sole authority of amending the text.

This judge is big on "purpose" and "consequence." He is therefore a legislator not a judge. Republicans ought not to give him the time of day.

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

 

[JQPublic1]

Good i guess we can all just be children then and respond in kind... There was a time when good strong people showed character and leadership by holding themselves to a higher standard then their competition. I guess thats not a game the GOP wants or is capable of playing. Question though, how do they think this is going to help repair this partisan divide that is crippling the progress of our government?

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

 

[JQPublic1]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

A perfect justice for a republican: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent when judging a statute to be constitutional.

A perfect justice for a democrat: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences. Notice the last two categories are nothing other than simply rewriting a law from the bench. Not to mention their infatuation with substantive due process.

These are two means of which judges generally differ. For most of our history "text, history, tradition, and precedent" have been the primary means of judging a statute. It wasn't until the New Deal Era when purpose and consequence became a major factor, granting rise to liberal judges who legislate from the bench and transform the U.S. Constitution into an object James Madison certainly wouldn't recognize without so much as a vote of the people, congress, and states who have the sole authority of amending the text.

This judge is big on "purpose" and "consequence." He is therefore a legislator not a judge. Republicans ought not to give him the time of day.

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

 

[Publius1787]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

A perfect justice for a republican: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent when judging a statute to be constitutional.

A perfect justice for a democrat: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences. Notice the last two categories are nothing other than simply rewriting a law from the bench. Not to mention their infatuation with substantive due process.

These are two means of which judges generally differ. For most of our history "text, history, tradition, and precedent" have been the primary means of judging a statute. It wasn't until the New Deal Era when purpose and consequence became a major factor, granting rise to liberal judges who legislate from the bench and transform the U.S. Constitution into an object James Madison certainly wouldn't recognize without so much as a vote of the people, congress, and states who have the sole authority of amending the text.

This judge is big on "purpose" and "consequence." He is therefore a legislator not a judge. Republicans ought not to give him the time of day.

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

 

[Slade3200]

Good i guess we can all just be children then and respond in kind... There was a time when good strong people showed character and leadership by holding themselves to a higher standard then their competition. I guess thats not a game the GOP wants or is capable of playing. Question though, how do they think this is going to help repair this partisan divide that is crippling the progress of our government?

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

How am I being stupid? You make no sense. If these were executives in a business they would be fired so fast for pulling this crap

 

[Slade3200]

I still haven't heard a sensible justification.

the justification is that your demoscumrats set the precedence for this non-action.., look it up, you just MIGHT learn something useful.

What lesson am I to learn? If one side is an asshole it justifies the other side to be an asshole? Go back to elementary school and maybe you'll learn that that's not how grown ups are supposed to act

 

[Andylusion]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

Same reason the Democrats would, and have, done exactly the same thing when the situation is reversed. The Republicans believe their guy will win. Whether that's true or not, they believe it, and thus they will hold out until the election.

Why do they need a non-political, non-BS reason? Dude this is politics, not your local Chess club. For you to expect that politics shouldn't be involved in a political position, on the highest court in the land, is moronic. Grow up dude. You better get with it, or you'll be a bitter and whiny person for the rest of your life.

This is why, by the way, we on the right, don't want government involved in health care, and socialism. How would you like this political crap, determining whether you get care or not? That's a brilliant idea, eh?

 

[Vigilante]

HYPOCRISY belongs to the DemoRATS!

 

[Vigilante]

MORE HYPOCRISY from the subversive pigs!

 

[JQPublic1]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

A perfect justice for a republican: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent when judging a statute to be constitutional.

A perfect justice for a democrat: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences. Notice the last two categories are nothing other than simply rewriting a law from the bench. Not to mention their infatuation with substantive due process.

These are two means of which judges generally differ. For most of our history "text, history, tradition, and precedent" have been the primary means of judging a statute. It wasn't until the New Deal Era when purpose and consequence became a major factor, granting rise to liberal judges who legislate from the bench and transform the U.S. Constitution into an object James Madison certainly wouldn't recognize without so much as a vote of the people, congress, and states who have the sole authority of amending the text.

This judge is big on "purpose" and "consequence." He is therefore a legislator not a judge. Republicans ought not to give him the time of day.

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.

 

[Publius1787]

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

Obama's already got his winky slammed in the door (9-0 vote) for assuming that he, not congress, has the authority to declare when the senate is in recess. (See National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning). You now purport that he has the right to decide when congress chooses to advise and consent? We have checks and balances. Obama just got checked.