CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[Faun]

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.

While I agree the Democrats should not have used the nuclear option, I understand why they did. Republicans, in defiant solidarity, were denying virtually every policy of Obama's and denying virtually every federal seat he was trying to fill. They ended up creating a huge backlog in cases in federal courts.

 

[Correll]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

All dem appointees support Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect mandates anti-white discrimination.


NO dem appointees should be placed on the bench as long as that it true.

 

[Pogo]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

All dem appointees support Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect mandates anti-white discrimination.


NO dem appointees should be placed on the bench as long as that it true.

And all blanket generalizations are complete bullshit.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

While I agree the Democrats should not have used the nuclear option, I understand why they did. Republicans, in defiant solidarity, were denying virtually every policy of Obama's and denying virtually every federal seat he was trying to fill. They ended up creating a huge backlog in cases in federal courts.

Yes, they did. I would have liked to see the dems leave solving that problem up to the people when the election rolled around. Instead, they solved the near term problem of appointing judges by entirely sacrificing the long term viability of the senate in general. My fear is that the republicans will use this as an excuse to do away with the filibuster entirely.

Should the filibuster end the minority party might as well not show up at all and they can be utterly ignored. One party rule is not good as I think Bush showed all to well. Even with the republicans sweeping the entire election as they did, the filibuster forces them to come to the table with the dems. Without it, they have no need to deal with them.

In general, I think that our government is rather short sighted. The idea that the government needs to work right now is rather over emphasized. I am more interested that it will and can work over the next 50 years rather than the immediate problems be solved now.

 

[Correll]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

All dem appointees support Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect mandates anti-white discrimination.


NO dem appointees should be placed on the bench as long as that it true.

And all blanket generalizations are complete bullshit.

When the issue came up, all the dem appointees voted in favor of blatant anti-white discrimination and, incredibly, all the republicans voted against it.


That is not a generalization. That is a judicial philosophy difference between Right and Left.

You guys, pro-racism, us anti.

 

[Pogo]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

All dem appointees support Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect mandates anti-white discrimination.


NO dem appointees should be placed on the bench as long as that it true.

And all blanket generalizations are complete bullshit.

When the issue came up, all the dem appointees voted in favor of blatant anti-white discrimination and, incredibly, all the republicans voted against it.


That is not a generalization. That is a judicial philosophy difference between Right and Left.

You guys, pro-racism, us anti.

"You guys" ?

"Us" ?

You lose.

 

[hjmick]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

I don't know that it was an abuse of power necessarily, and I wouldn't call it justified. What they did is certainly understandable when one considers that there was a Presidential election just over the horizon and no one can deny that a party in power wants to do all they can to see that SCotUS has a makeup that closely reflect their values. Despite what Biden said in 1992, if we are going to be honest with ourselves we would admit that had what he spoke taken place, any nomination by a President who lost re-election would have been tossed in the dust bin leaving the nomination open for the next President.

Now, I did suggest that should the Republicans lose the election the first thing they might want to do is confirm Garland because at least he is a known quantity and who knows who Hillary might have nominated. In my opinion, Garland was one of the less odious individuals President Obama could have been nominated to the court... Well, when one takes into account President Obama's political inclinations...

You resemble a pretzel.

I am very limber.

 

[Correll]

The GOP gambled and won. They blocked Obama's reasonable SC nominee Merrick Garland for obviously political reasons.

The question is...in your HONEST opinion....is this ( not even having a hearing ) something that you think they really should have done? Is it what you would have done?

All dem appointees support Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect mandates anti-white discrimination.


NO dem appointees should be placed on the bench as long as that it true.

And all blanket generalizations are complete bullshit.

When the issue came up, all the dem appointees voted in favor of blatant anti-white discrimination and, incredibly, all the republicans voted against it.


That is not a generalization. That is a judicial philosophy difference between Right and Left.

You guys, pro-racism, us anti.

"You guys" ?

"Us" ?

You lose.

Nope. My point is based on the voting of the Justices. They broke down by ideological divide.


Pretending that you are above "groups" or whatever game you are playing does not change that.


ALL dem appointed Justices are in favor of violating the Constitution in pursuit of Progressive Ideology.


Thus, NONE of them should be approved, until that changes.

 

[Faun]

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.

While I agree the Democrats should not have used the nuclear option, I understand why they did. Republicans, in defiant solidarity, were denying virtually every policy of Obama's and denying virtually every federal seat he was trying to fill. They ended up creating a huge backlog in cases in federal courts.

Yes, they did. I would have liked to see the dems leave solving that problem up to the people when the election rolled around. Instead, they solved the near term problem of appointing judges by entirely sacrificing the long term viability of the senate in general. My fear is that the republicans will use this as an excuse to do away with the filibuster entirely.

Should the filibuster end the minority party might as well not show up at all and they can be utterly ignored. One party rule is not good as I think Bush showed all to well. Even with the republicans sweeping the entire election as they did, the filibuster forces them to come to the table with the dems. Without it, they have no need to deal with them.

In general, I think that our government is rather short sighted. The idea that the government needs to work right now is rather over emphasized. I am more interested that it will and can work over the next 50 years rather than the immediate problems be solved now.

I don't usually agree with you but I completely agree with you on this.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

While I agree the Democrats should not have used the nuclear option, I understand why they did. Republicans, in defiant solidarity, were denying virtually every policy of Obama's and denying virtually every federal seat he was trying to fill. They ended up creating a huge backlog in cases in federal courts.

Yes, they did. I would have liked to see the dems leave solving that problem up to the people when the election rolled around. Instead, they solved the near term problem of appointing judges by entirely sacrificing the long term viability of the senate in general. My fear is that the republicans will use this as an excuse to do away with the filibuster entirely.

Should the filibuster end the minority party might as well not show up at all and they can be utterly ignored. One party rule is not good as I think Bush showed all to well. Even with the republicans sweeping the entire election as they did, the filibuster forces them to come to the table with the dems. Without it, they have no need to deal with them.

In general, I think that our government is rather short sighted. The idea that the government needs to work right now is rather over emphasized. I am more interested that it will and can work over the next 50 years rather than the immediate problems be solved now.

I don't usually agree with you but I completely agree with you on this.

LOL.

There are always areas that people who are not being ideological hacks agree on even if it is rare

 

[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......

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

Show us where in the Constitution it states the Senate must have a hearing to have Advised and Consented on a justice Mr. Constitutional Scholar.......show us where exactly it lays out how the Senate conducts this power....

 

[2aguy]

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.

So? It is a check and a balance on Presidential and Supreme Court power...that is how the system was set up...

 

[2aguy]

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.

Sure they should.......that is why we have other checks and balances....the Republicans should refuse to allow the filibuster back until the democrats....during their time in power, put it back...they got rid of it..it is up to them to put it back...why should the Republicans handcuff their nomination process when the democrats didn't and used it to put their people in positions of power...

 

[2aguy]

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.

So....the democrats do what ever they have to to gain power....so should the republicans.....if the democrats want to be more polite about throwing their power around, let them start...then the Republicans can follow...the democrats wanted this...now they have it...

 

[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.

How about you show us where it says they can't?

Please...show us the clause in the Constitution where they can't do just that....


Constitution of the United States - We the People

 

[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......

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

Please...show us where it states the Senate has to have a hearing......

Constitution of the United States - We the People

2: He shall have 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 Consuls, 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.

Yeah......the Constitution pretty much is silent on the process the Senate uses to give their advice and consent genius....but thanks for playing...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

You might try re-reading the Constitution and see just what or what not the Senate's obligation is in such matters.

It couldn't be more clear.

 

[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 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.

So? It is a check and a balance on Presidential and Supreme Court power...that is how the system was set up...

It was not set up to pick and choose which president got to nominate justices. It was set up for the sitting president and sitting Senate to work together to fill vacancies.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

So? It is a check and a balance on Presidential and Supreme Court power...that is how the system was set up...

It was not set up to pick and choose which president got to nominate justices. It was set up for the sitting president and sitting Senate to work together to fill vacancies.

Please post the Constitutional text to that effect.

It says the president shall have power in these matters with the advice and consent of the Senate. Without it, he does not, and there is nothing in the text that obligates the Senate to grant it.

 

[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 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.

You might try re-reading the Constitution and see just what or what not the Senate's obligation is in such matters.

It couldn't be more clear.

The Senate's role is to advise and consent. According to the new Senate rules set by Republicans, the Senate can advise and consent in any time frame. Meaning the Senate can now stall through a president's entire term if they want.