CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[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.

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.

It has always been so.

 

[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 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.

The Senate "advises and consents" by means of holding confirmation hearings and holding an up/down vote by the Senate. Voting is how the Senate, as a body, speaks. If they do nothing at all, they're not "advising."

 

[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 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.

It has always been so.

Please show any other time in U.S. history where the Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings for a seat opening up nearly a year before a new president takes office.

Though the new rule is the Senate no longer has to advise and consent.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

It has always been so.

Please show any other time in U.S. history where the Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings for a seat opening up nearly a year before a new president takes office.

Though the new rule is the Senate no longer has to advise and consent.

It's an old rule.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

It has always been so.

Please show any other time in U.S. history where the Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings for a seat opening up nearly a year before a new president takes office.

Though the new rule is the Senate no longer has to advise and consent.

It is still consenting or not. The senate rules allow the senate to withhold consent if the senate leads withholds it. That is no different than how the senate lead can kill a law as well. Like it or not, the senate lead refusing to have a hearing IS withholding consent just as a down vote does.

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.

That is not a new rule. The 'rule' or more correctly the structure of the senate has always allowed this. It may be the first time that they have done so and, yes, you can say that they have set a new precedent but it is not a new rule.

They very well can withhold the nomination through an entire election cycle. One would think that the electorate would take the necessary steps to ensure that is not going to happen though. In the end it is our duty to consent to the manner in which the senate wields it's power. It seems that the electorate was just fine with how the senate acted though. I guess you cant win them all

 

[Faun]

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.

It has always been so.

Please show any other time in U.S. history where the Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings for a seat opening up nearly a year before a new president takes office.

Though the new rule is the Senate no longer has to advise and consent.

It's an old rule.

How is it an old rule if it's never happened before?

 

[Correll]

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.

It has always been so.

Please show any other time in U.S. history where the Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings for a seat opening up nearly a year before a new president takes office.

Though the new rule is the Senate no longer has to advise and consent.

It's an old rule.

How is it an old rule if it's never happened before?

It is an old rule that just never happened before.

 

[Faun]

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.

It has always been so.

Please show any other time in U.S. history where the Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings for a seat opening up nearly a year before a new president takes office.

Though the new rule is the Senate no longer has to advise and consent.

It is still consenting or not. The senate rules allow the senate to withhold consent if the senate leads withholds it. That is no different than how the senate lead can kill a law as well. Like it or not, the senate lead refusing to have a hearing IS withholding consent just as a down vote does.

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.

That is not a new rule. The 'rule' or more correctly the structure of the senate has always allowed this. It may be the first time that they have done so and, yes, you can say that they have set a new precedent but it is not a new rule.

They very well can withhold the nomination through an entire election cycle. One would think that the electorate would take the necessary steps to ensure that is not going to happen though. In the end it is our duty to consent to the manner in which the senate wields it's power. It seems that the electorate was just fine with how the senate acted though. I guess you cant win them all

Well we'll find out because I am certain the day will come when a Democrat-led Senate refuses to advise and consent for a Republican president's entire term; and we'll see how much the right howls about how the Senate can't do that.

I'm not saying it "violates" the Constitution's wording, but it certainly violates the spirit of the Constitution, which is to have the president and Senate work together to fill vacancies. To have either side abdicate their responsibilities is unconscionable.

 

[Faun]

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.

It has always been so.

Please show any other time in U.S. history where the Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings for a seat opening up nearly a year before a new president takes office.

Though the new rule is the Senate no longer has to advise and consent.

It's an old rule.

How is it an old rule if it's never happened before?

It is an old rule that just never happened before.

It wasn't a rule until now. You understand that Senate rules are procedure put in place by the Senate, right? When did the Senate put in place that they withhold confirmation hearings for indefinite periods of time because they don't want the current president to be able to pick a Supreme Court justice?

 

[Correll]

It has always been so.

Please show any other time in U.S. history where the Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings for a seat opening up nearly a year before a new president takes office.

Though the new rule is the Senate no longer has to advise and consent.

It's an old rule.

How is it an old rule if it's never happened before?

It is an old rule that just never happened before.

It wasn't a rule until now. You understand that Senate rules are procedure put in place by the Senate, right? When did the Senate put in place that they withhold confirmation hearings for indefinite periods of time because they don't want the current president to be able to pick a Supreme Court justice?

The rule is that the Senate can move on it when they want.

As we become more divided and bitter, of course rules will be used more and more to the limits.


As all democratic nominees, support Disparate Impact Theory, which as demonstrated in the New Haven Firefighter case, effectively requires anti-white discrimination, all democratic nominees should be rejected.

 

[Faun]

Please show any other time in U.S. history where the Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings for a seat opening up nearly a year before a new president takes office.

Though the new rule is the Senate no longer has to advise and consent.

It's an old rule.

How is it an old rule if it's never happened before?

It is an old rule that just never happened before.

It wasn't a rule until now. You understand that Senate rules are procedure put in place by the Senate, right? When did the Senate put in place that they withhold confirmation hearings for indefinite periods of time because they don't want the current president to be able to pick a Supreme Court justice?

The rule is that the Senate can move on it when they want.

As we become more divided and bitter, of course rules will be used more and more to the limits.


As all democratic nominees, support Disparate Impact Theory, which as demonstrated in the New Haven Firefighter case, effectively requires anti-white discrimination, all democratic nominees should be rejected.

Sure, uh-huh. That must explain why when Biden called for no confirmation hearings for two months during the 1992 election, the right calls that the Biden Rule, because the rule always existed.

 

[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 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.

Yep. That is the way it works.....as can democrats the next time they are in charge....the whole point is checks and balances...limiting the accumulation of too much power in any one person or branch of government..the system is working as designed...

 

[PredFan]

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?

Garland is NOT a reasonable pick. Your thread starts off on a falsehood.

 

[2aguy]

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.

The Senate "advises and consents" by means of holding confirmation hearings and holding an up/down vote by the Senate. Voting is how the Senate, as a body, speaks. If they do nothing at all, they're not "advising."

the democrats and republicans have done this to each other forever...Bush had a hard time getting judges pushed through.....and again...the Senate decides how they do this, not the President....it does not state in the constitution how the Senate executes this ability....so they can do what they want..

 

[Correll]

It's an old rule.

How is it an old rule if it's never happened before?

It is an old rule that just never happened before.

It wasn't a rule until now. You understand that Senate rules are procedure put in place by the Senate, right? When did the Senate put in place that they withhold confirmation hearings for indefinite periods of time because they don't want the current president to be able to pick a Supreme Court justice?

The rule is that the Senate can move on it when they want.

As we become more divided and bitter, of course rules will be used more and more to the limits.


As all democratic nominees, support Disparate Impact Theory, which as demonstrated in the New Haven Firefighter case, effectively requires anti-white discrimination, all democratic nominees should be rejected.

Sure, uh-huh. That must explain why when Biden called for no confirmation hearings for two months during the 1992 election, the right calls that the Biden Rule, because the rule always existed.

Did Biden actually write a new rule into the rules?

 

[peach174]

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.

Yep. That is the way it works.....as can democrats the next time they are in charge....the whole point is checks and balances...limiting the accumulation of too much power in any one person or branch of government..the system is working as designed...

For some reason liberals think that only their ideology is the only one.
That's why they want the three branches rolled into one.

 

[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 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.

Yep. That is the way it works.....as can democrats the next time they are in charge....the whole point is checks and balances...limiting the accumulation of too much power in any one person or branch of government..the system is working as designed...

It's not a check and balance for one branch in government to completely shut out another branch, which is what the Senate did to the Executive branch regarding filling a vacant SC seat. Checks and balances are designed to prevent one branch from having complete control. Seems to me you don't comprehend the intent of checks and balances.

 

[Faun]

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?

Garland is NOT a reasonable pick. Your thread starts off on a falsehood.

Even if that were the case, it's irrelevant since the proper procedure would have been to either hold a hearing and reject him if that were true; or notify the president to pick someone else.

That was not what the Senate did. They said no matter who Obama picks, they would not be considered because they did not want Obama filling the vacancy.

 

[Faun]

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.

The Senate "advises and consents" by means of holding confirmation hearings and holding an up/down vote by the Senate. Voting is how the Senate, as a body, speaks. If they do nothing at all, they're not "advising."

the democrats and republicans have done this to each other forever...Bush had a hard time getting judges pushed through.....and again...the Senate decides how they do this, not the President....it does not state in the constitution how the Senate executes this ability....so they can do what they want..

They had a hard time because of filibusters, another Senate procedure. They weren't informed by the Senate that they would not be allowed to fill a seat for the remainder of their term.

 

[Faun]

How is it an old rule if it's never happened before?

It is an old rule that just never happened before.

It wasn't a rule until now. You understand that Senate rules are procedure put in place by the Senate, right? When did the Senate put in place that they withhold confirmation hearings for indefinite periods of time because they don't want the current president to be able to pick a Supreme Court justice?

The rule is that the Senate can move on it when they want.

As we become more divided and bitter, of course rules will be used more and more to the limits.


As all democratic nominees, support Disparate Impact Theory, which as demonstrated in the New Haven Firefighter case, effectively requires anti-white discrimination, all democratic nominees should be rejected.

Sure, uh-huh. That must explain why when Biden called for no confirmation hearings for two months during the 1992 election, the right calls that the Biden Rule, because the rule always existed.

Did Biden actually write a new rule into the rules?

No, but that didn't stop the right from calling it the Biden Rule.