CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[Pogo]

sick of the continual gridlock .....everyone makes an issue of the ussc nomination while ignoring the many unfilled seats at lower levels of the justice system.....it is all broken ......

i am sick of people hoping the president fails...that hardly does any good for the country ....but the division is so deep ....people would rather seek massive failure than work thru true issues....

It's because the internets and hate radio before it have engendered a race of wags who can't be bothered to analyze the complexities of political issues but still want to participate in what they see as a sports event with the evil blue team taking on the hero red team. So instead of honestly parsing political/social dynamics they just parrot whatever cheerleader is convenient at the time --- Dimbart... Limblob.... Drudge... Duke.... whatever serves the prime directive at the moment, remembering that the prime directive is not one's country or one's people or one's community but rather "our team must run up the score".

 

[Pogo]

It's the Constitution that allowed the Repubs to do what they did, which was to delay the vote till after the Nov. 8th elections. All done legally.

Can you show me the part of the Constitution that says you can "delay a vote until your political party is in a more advantageous power-grab position"?

I'm just curious where that is. Thanks in advance.

And by the way --- this just in, over two centuries ago:

The S.C. will remain conservative for the next 20 or so years.

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be "conservative". The Supreme Court is not supposed to be "ideological" at all. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret and arbitrate the Constitution. That's IT.

 

[pismoe]

think that the liberal nominee that has been denied a hearing is 'merrick garland' isn't it ?? If so here are the reasons that he should never be on the supreme court . First reason is that he is anti gun , second reason is that mrobama and his supporters wants him on the supreme court Pogo !! --- Merrick Garland has ‘very liberal view of gun rights’ ---

 

[peach174]

It's the Constitution that allowed the Repubs to do what they did, which was to delay the vote till after the Nov. 8th elections. All done legally.

Can you show me the part of the Constitution that says you can "delay a vote until your political party is in a more advantageous power-grab position"?

I'm just curious where that is. Thanks in advance.

That type of thinking is what helps with divsions.
I did not realize that the citizans of this country voting for which way the country should be run has anything to do with parties.
Seems to me we have moved more toward the middle from going full left, with Trumps election.
He's putting the we back in again, not I ,like other Presidents have been known to do.

 

[2aguy]

It's the Constitution that allowed the Repubs to do what they did, which was to delay the vote till after the Nov. 8th elections. All done legally.

Can you show me the part of the Constitution that says you can "delay a vote until your political party is in a more advantageous power-grab position"?

I'm just curious where that is. Thanks in advance.

And by the way --- this just in, over two centuries ago:

The S.C. will remain conservative for the next 20 or so years.

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be "conservative". The Supreme Court is not supposed to be "ideological" at all. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret and arbitrate the Constitution. That's IT.

It falls under their power to give consent...they chose not to give consent to the guy......

 

[Pogo]

think that the liberal nominee that has been denied a hearing is 'merrick garland' isn't it ?? If so here are the reasons that he should never be on the supreme court . First reason is that he is anti gun , second reason is that mrobama and his supporters wants him on the supreme court Pogo !! --- Merrick Garland has ‘very liberal view of gun rights’ ---

Your "reason one" is for the Senate to decide. Are you a Senator?
That's the way the process works --- POTUS nominates a name, Senate examines it. If the Senate says no, no nomination. Not that complex really.

But again --- the topic here is not whether Merrick Garland specifically should be in SCOTUS or not. The question is why the Senate won't consider him. Summa y'all keep trying to run away from that distinction. "Consider" ..... still carries the distinct possibility of "Decline".

Even now I can't tell if this is beginning to sink in ---- the question is not "is person X a good SCOTUS candidate". Who person X is is irrelevant. The question is, "is there a process?".

And your "reason two" isn't a reason at all. The POTUS is by definition the choice of the electorate to lead the country and part of his job is to nominate SCOTUS judges when necessary. Whelp ---- it became necessary, and he did his job. Next step is for the Senate to do theirs.

 

[Pogo]

It's the Constitution that allowed the Repubs to do what they did, which was to delay the vote till after the Nov. 8th elections. All done legally.

Can you show me the part of the Constitution that says you can "delay a vote until your political party is in a more advantageous power-grab position"?

I'm just curious where that is. Thanks in advance.

And by the way --- this just in, over two centuries ago:

The S.C. will remain conservative for the next 20 or so years.

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be "conservative". The Supreme Court is not supposed to be "ideological" at all. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret and arbitrate the Constitution. That's IT.

It falls under their power to give consent...they chose not to give consent to the guy......

Again ---- when was that hearing? The rest of us seem to have missed it.

 

[pismoe]

looks like anti gun 'garland merrick' has been dismissed . Course , who knows maybe the TRUMP will become an anti gunner and put up his own anti gunners Pogo !!

 

[Pogo]

I did not realize that the citizans of this country voting for which way the country should be run has anything to do with parties.

It shouldn't. But it does. That's the price of enabling a self-perpetuating Duopoly.

Said it before, will say it again --- political parties should be chartered, like corporations, and their charter should expire after a max 20 years, whether they've achieved anything ideologically or not. After twenty, you're history. Because beyond that point all you get is an ideology of self-perpetuation of power, and that is no point at all.

Seems to me we have moved more toward the middle from going full left, with Trumps election.

This has never been a "left" country dear. We're center-right. If you're standing in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis looks like " the west" In the bigger picture --- it isn't.

Hard to say what Rump's election means in "left./right" terms, if it means anything at all. The man has no known ideology beyond self-enrichment and a deeply neurotic Narcissism, and changes positions quicker than a porn actor. What direction all that will take is a complete mystery at this point and I strongly suspect it will be determined by wherever the winds are blowing at the time and whatever serves the narcissism interests of Numero Uno, which won't be related to political ideologies.

He's putting the we back in again, not I ,like other Presidents have been known to do.

Now THAT's funny. An inveterate narcissist so far gone he paints himself orange, declares himself "the greatest that god every created", talks about his own penis in a Presidential debate, denies every faux pas, failure and bankruptcy as if it never happened, pulls a full Alfred Hitchcock stage entrance and stays up all night tweeting at everyone who failed to grovel that day ----is about "we"?

I guess that was ironic humor but just to state the obvious, Rump has been about three things for his entire life:

1. Me
2. Myself
3. I

 

[peach174]

I did not realize that the citizans of this country voting for which way the country should be run has anything to do with parties.

It shouldn't. But it does. That's the price of enabling a self-perpetuating Duopoly.

Said it before, will say it again --- political parties should be chartered, like corporations, and their charter should expire after a max 20 years, whether they've achieved anything ideologically or not. After twenty, you're history. Because beyond that point all you get is an ideology of self-perpetuation of power, and that is no point at all.

Seems to me we have moved more toward the middle from going full left, with Trumps election.

This has never been a "left" country dear. We're center-right. If you're standing in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis looks like " the west" In the bigger picture --- it isn't.

Hard to say what Rump's election means in "left./right" terms, if it means anything at all. The man has no known ideology beyond self-enrichment and a deeply neurotic Narcissism, and changes positions quicker than a porn actor. What direction all that will take is a complete mystery at this point and I strongly suspect it will be determined by wherever the winds are blowing at the time and whatever serves the narcissism interests of Numero Uno, which won't be related to political ideologies.

He's putting the we back in again, not I ,like other Presidents have been known to do.

Now THAT's funny. An inveterate narcissist so far gone he paints himself orange, declares himself "the greatest that god every created", talks about his own penis in a Presidential debate, denies every faux pas, failure and bankruptcy as if it never happened, pulls a full Alfred Hitchcock stage entrance and stays up all night tweeting at everyone who failed to grovel that day, is about "we".

Thats how the media protrayed him.
If you listened to what he was saying he is fiscally conservative and wants our social programs fixed so that it benifits everyone in this country.
He is more like President Kennedy was with his policies.

 

[Pogo]

I did not realize that the citizans of this country voting for which way the country should be run has anything to do with parties.

It shouldn't. But it does. That's the price of enabling a self-perpetuating Duopoly.

Said it before, will say it again --- political parties should be chartered, like corporations, and their charter should expire after a max 20 years, whether they've achieved anything ideologically or not. After twenty, you're history. Because beyond that point all you get is an ideology of self-perpetuation of power, and that is no point at all.

Seems to me we have moved more toward the middle from going full left, with Trumps election.

This has never been a "left" country dear. We're center-right. If you're standing in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis looks like " the west" In the bigger picture --- it isn't.

Hard to say what Rump's election means in "left./right" terms, if it means anything at all. The man has no known ideology beyond self-enrichment and a deeply neurotic Narcissism, and changes positions quicker than a porn actor. What direction all that will take is a complete mystery at this point and I strongly suspect it will be determined by wherever the winds are blowing at the time and whatever serves the narcissism interests of Numero Uno, which won't be related to political ideologies.

He's putting the we back in again, not I ,like other Presidents have been known to do.

Now THAT's funny. An inveterate narcissist so far gone he paints himself orange, declares himself "the greatest that god every created", talks about his own penis in a Presidential debate, denies every faux pas, failure and bankruptcy as if it never happened, pulls a full Alfred Hitchcock stage entrance and stays up all night tweeting at everyone who failed to grovel that day, is about "we".

Thats how the media protrayed him.
If you listened to what he was saying he is fiscally conservative and wants our social programs fixed so that it benifits everyone in this country.
He is more like President Kennedy was with his policies.

Sorry Peach but that's patently absurd and exhibits a dangerous level of self-delusion.
JFK could actually string an intelligent sentence together. JFK actually had positions. Rump has spent his entire 70 years looking for ways to polish his own knob, and even he admits that. To imagine that suddenly he's going to pull a complete 180 and start in any way considering the needs and desires of anyone but Numero Uno, let alone that he actually has any philosophies beyond "Dig Me", is a complete non sequitur.

(Book)mark my words.

/offtopic

 

[peach174]

I did not realize that the citizans of this country voting for which way the country should be run has anything to do with parties.

It shouldn't. But it does. That's the price of enabling a self-perpetuating Duopoly.

Said it before, will say it again --- political parties should be chartered, like corporations, and their charter should expire after a max 20 years, whether they've achieved anything ideologically or not. After twenty, you're history. Because beyond that point all you get is an ideology of self-perpetuation of power, and that is no point at all.

Seems to me we have moved more toward the middle from going full left, with Trumps election.

This has never been a "left" country dear. We're center-right. If you're standing in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis looks like " the west" In the bigger picture --- it isn't.

Hard to say what Rump's election means in "left./right" terms, if it means anything at all. The man has no known ideology beyond self-enrichment and a deeply neurotic Narcissism, and changes positions quicker than a porn actor. What direction all that will take is a complete mystery at this point and I strongly suspect it will be determined by wherever the winds are blowing at the time and whatever serves the narcissism interests of Numero Uno, which won't be related to political ideologies.

He's putting the we back in again, not I ,like other Presidents have been known to do.

Now THAT's funny. An inveterate narcissist so far gone he paints himself orange, declares himself "the greatest that god every created", talks about his own penis in a Presidential debate, denies every faux pas, failure and bankruptcy as if it never happened, pulls a full Alfred Hitchcock stage entrance and stays up all night tweeting at everyone who failed to grovel that day, is about "we".

Thats how the media protrayed him.
If you listened to what he was saying he is fiscally conservative and wants our social programs fixed so that it benifits everyone in this country.
He is more like President Kennedy was with his policies.

Sorry Peach but that's patently absurd and exhibits a dangerous level of self-delusion.
JFK could actually string an intelligent sentence together. JFK actually had positions. Rump has spent his entire 70 years looking for ways to polish his own knob, and even he admits that. To imagine that suddenly he's going to pull a complete 180 and start in any way considering the needs and desires of anyone but Numero Uno, let alone that he actually has any philosophies beyond "Dig Me", is a complete non sequitur.

(Book)mark my words.

/offtopic

You will see it for yourself Pogo as he continues with what he promised.

 

[FA_Q2]

It was the smartest thing I've ever seen McConnell do.

I would not qualify it as smart. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. He ended up getting it correct but I don't think that even he thought the republicans were going to win as they did.

 

[Faun]

Pogo why was it fine when Senator Joe Biden wanted the same thing in 1992?

Senate Republican Policy Committee.
It was right back then as it is today to let the people decide with the next election.

Joe Biden never wanted the same. That's a false claim by many on the right. What Joe Biden wanted was for no nominees to be considered until after the election so that wouldn't have an effect on the election. If I recall, it amounted to about 60 days they would not have held a hearing.

Not the same thing at all.

The basic idea behind it is the same . Bitterness & Divisiveness.
Why was 30 days fine just because it was closer to elections than a couple of months minus the summer hiatus of the S.C.?

No, the basic idea was not the same. Biden proposed holding off hearings for less than 60 days in the Senate, which never happened because no seat opened up, until after the election, at which time, they would hold hearings for Bush's nominees.

Whereas Republicans announced there would be no hearings for a seat that did open up for 11 months. At least one Senator said there would be no hearings at all had Hillary won.

The number of justices does not have to be 9.......it can be 8, 7, 6 or 100.......and again, the Senate does not have to confirm....they get to decide if they are going to give their consent...and by not holding hearings, they made that pretty clear....

WTF?? Where did I say they had to have 9 justices??

Never in U.S. history did the Senate go nearly an entire year refusing to hold confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice; to pass it on to the next session in the Senate. As I said, Republicans have now started a new precedent. Now, the Senate no longer has to hold confirmation hearings for a president of the opposition party.

 

[FA_Q2]

It was their right to block it.
They hold the House Majority.

Who holds a "majority" or who belongs to what "party" is completely irrelevant.

Here's what's relevant:

• Does the POTUS nominate a candidate for SCOTUS? Yes.
• Does that candidate then get assessed and approved or disapproved by the Senate? Yes.
• Did the President duly nominate that candidate? Yes.
• Did the second step happen?

Feel free to show us in the Constitution where it says anything about the Senate shirking its responsibilities if some political party has a "majority". Or because "we might have better chances if we wait for the next election".

So no, they have no "right to block" it. They had the right to disapprove if such disapproval was warranted, in which case the nomination would end.

But they didn't do that, even with a "majority". My question still is ----- why were they afraid to do that? Were they afraid of what the People would have found out about the nominee? Were they afraid they wouldn't come up with enough to disapprove of? Sure looks like it.

Why they did or did not go forward with the hearing is rather irrelevant. The constitution gives the senate the responsibility and power to set up its own rules. The rules allowed the senate to refuse garland a hearing. That is just how the government is set up. I disagree with the process they took (they should have actually went forward and denied him rather than simply stonewalling the process) but that does not change the fact that there was no abuse of power here. The rules clearly allowed the senate leader to reject the appointment outright without considering his appointment in a hearing. Just because it was a single senator that rejected it rather than the majority vote does not change the fact that the senate did reject garland's confirmation. The constitution simply states that the president requires the consent of congress to appoint a judge. Congress did not consent.

As you stated, the government follows rules.

 

[Faun]

Joe Biden never wanted the same. That's a false claim by many on the right. What Joe Biden wanted was for no nominees to be considered until after the election so that wouldn't have an effect on the election. If I recall, it amounted to about 60 days they would not have held a hearing.

Not the same thing at all.

The basic idea behind it is the same . Bitterness & Divisiveness.
Why was 30 days fine just because it was closer to elections than a couple of months minus the summer hiatus of the S.C.?

No, the basic idea was not the same. Biden proposed holding off hearings for less than 60 days in the Senate, which never happened because no seat opened up, until after the election, at which time, they would hold hearings for Bush's nominees.

Whereas Republicans announced there would be no hearings for a seat that did open up for 11 months. At least one Senator said there would be no hearings at all had Hillary won.

The bigger cases had been heard before Scalia died.
Of the remaing before June recess only a couple or so tied. Those will be redone and with a full court.
The court has made the lighter cases first since it started in again this October, untill Christmas recess.
The ones upset are the voters for Dems who didnt win to make the court more left are making it into something bigger than it is and had the votes gone the other way the Repubs would be just as upset and making the same type of arguments.
Scalia will be replaced one way or the other.
The court is not in disarray.
There is nothing illegal in what the Majority of the Senate did now or back when Biden did it.
The Constitution gives the majority of the ruling party the right to make their Senate floor rules.
Ignore it all you want but this was really was a very important decision that needed the votes of the people this time.
The S.C. will remain conservative for the next 20 or so years.

I did not say it was illegal. I said it was bullshit. But politicians never forget and the day will come when Democrats repay the favor.

The democrats ended the filibuster for all the other nominations....breaking that tradition....had hilary won and the republicans blocked her nominee, they would have gotten rid of the filibuster for justices.....so you can say they will engage in payback...they already led the way...

Absolutely, Republicans will even the score by using the nuclear option to kill filibusters on Supreme Court nominees.

Thanks! You made my point. The same way Republicans will even the score on the nuclear option, the day will come when Democrats control the Senate and even the score by refusing to hold confirmation hearing for a Republican president's nominee. Hell, they can fo it for the president's entire term, if they wish. That's the new Senate rule.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Garland is a radical outlier with anti-American views of the 2nd Amendment, he has no business anywhere near SCOTUS, not even as a visitor

 

[FA_Q2]

The poll is garbage. I cannot select either option as I do not agree with what the senate did but it was not an abuse of power.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The basic idea behind it is the same . Bitterness & Divisiveness.
Why was 30 days fine just because it was closer to elections than a couple of months minus the summer hiatus of the S.C.?

No, the basic idea was not the same. Biden proposed holding off hearings for less than 60 days in the Senate, which never happened because no seat opened up, until after the election, at which time, they would hold hearings for Bush's nominees.

Whereas Republicans announced there would be no hearings for a seat that did open up for 11 months. At least one Senator said there would be no hearings at all had Hillary won.

The bigger cases had been heard before Scalia died.
Of the remaing before June recess only a couple or so tied. Those will be redone and with a full court.
The court has made the lighter cases first since it started in again this October, untill Christmas recess.
The ones upset are the voters for Dems who didnt win to make the court more left are making it into something bigger than it is and had the votes gone the other way the Repubs would be just as upset and making the same type of arguments.
Scalia will be replaced one way or the other.
The court is not in disarray.
There is nothing illegal in what the Majority of the Senate did now or back when Biden did it.
The Constitution gives the majority of the ruling party the right to make their Senate floor rules.
Ignore it all you want but this was really was a very important decision that needed the votes of the people this time.
The S.C. will remain conservative for the next 20 or so years.

I did not say it was illegal. I said it was bullshit. But politicians never forget and the day will come when Democrats repay the favor.

The democrats ended the filibuster for all the other nominations....breaking that tradition....had hilary won and the republicans blocked her nominee, they would have gotten rid of the filibuster for justices.....so you can say they will engage in payback...they already led the way...

Absolutely, Republicans will even the score by using the nuclear option to kill filibusters on Supreme Court nominees.

Thanks! You made my point. The same way Republicans will even the score on the nuclear option, the day will come when Democrats control the Senate and even the score by refusing to hold confirmation hearing for a Republican president's nominee. Hell, they can fo it for the president's entire term, if they wish. That's the new Senate rule.

You mean invoke the Reid/Schumer option?

Karma

 

[FA_Q2]

The basic idea behind it is the same . Bitterness & Divisiveness.
Why was 30 days fine just because it was closer to elections than a couple of months minus the summer hiatus of the S.C.?

No, the basic idea was not the same. Biden proposed holding off hearings for less than 60 days in the Senate, which never happened because no seat opened up, until after the election, at which time, they would hold hearings for Bush's nominees.

Whereas Republicans announced there would be no hearings for a seat that did open up for 11 months. At least one Senator said there would be no hearings at all had Hillary won.

The bigger cases had been heard before Scalia died.
Of the remaing before June recess only a couple or so tied. Those will be redone and with a full court.
The court has made the lighter cases first since it started in again this October, untill Christmas recess.
The ones upset are the voters for Dems who didnt win to make the court more left are making it into something bigger than it is and had the votes gone the other way the Repubs would be just as upset and making the same type of arguments.
Scalia will be replaced one way or the other.
The court is not in disarray.
There is nothing illegal in what the Majority of the Senate did now or back when Biden did it.
The Constitution gives the majority of the ruling party the right to make their Senate floor rules.
Ignore it all you want but this was really was a very important decision that needed the votes of the people this time.
The S.C. will remain conservative for the next 20 or so years.

I did not say it was illegal. I said it was bullshit. But politicians never forget and the day will come when Democrats repay the favor.

The democrats ended the filibuster for all the other nominations....breaking that tradition....had hilary won and the republicans blocked her nominee, they would have gotten rid of the filibuster for justices.....so you can say they will engage in payback...they already led the way...

Absolutely, Republicans will even the score by using the nuclear option to kill filibusters on Supreme Court nominees.

Thanks! You made my point. The same way Republicans will even the score on the nuclear option, the day will come when Democrats control the Senate and even the score by refusing to hold confirmation hearing for a Republican president's nominee. Hell, they can fo it for the president's entire term, if they wish. That's the new Senate rule.

I hope they are not dumb enough to play tit for tat here. The majority party should not be allowed to utterly ignore the minority party in anything they do. The dems removing the filibuster was one of the absolute worst things they did - I hope the republicans have the sense to slap that down.