CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[Faun]

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.

Can you show where the left has called for all 3 branches to be rolled into one?

 

[Correll]

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'didn't stop the right from calling it the Biden Rule.

So, it was an old "rule" that Biden used to a new extent. Just like I said.

 

[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.

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.

Which is their right.

 

[Faun]

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'didn't stop the right from calling it the Biden Rule.

So, it was an old "rule" that Biden used to a new extent. Just like I said.

If it existed before Biden proposed it, it wouldn't have been called the Biden Rule.

 

[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.

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

 

[Correll]

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'didn't stop the right from calling it the Biden Rule.

So, it was an old "rule" that Biden used to a new extent. Just like I said.

If it existed before Biden proposed it, it wouldn't have been called the Biden Rule.

Are you claiming that political rhetoric is never inaccurate or overblown?

Because by citing political rhetoric as proof of something that would be a documented historical reality, is what you are doing.

 

[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?

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.

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

As Liberal Judicial Philosophy, as it exists now, includes Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect, mandates anti-white discrimination, which is Unconstitutional,


the Senate has a responsibility to reject ALL liberals judges, regardless of how long or how many seats are empty.

 

[Faun]

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'didn't stop the right from calling it the Biden Rule.

So, it was an old "rule" that Biden used to a new extent. Just like I said.

If it existed before Biden proposed it, it wouldn't have been called the Biden Rule.

Are you claiming that political rhetoric is never inaccurate or overblown?

Because by citing political rhetoric as proof of something that would be a documented historical reality, is what you are doing.

Your strawman is noted... it still never existed. No Senate ever established they could, or would, deny a sitting president from filling a vacant SC seat for the remainder of their term for that long a period of time.

Now the new rule is the Senate can deny a president from filling a SC seat from the day they're inaugurated.

 

[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.

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

As Liberal Judicial Philosophy, as it exists now, includes Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect, mandates anti-white discrimination, which is Unconstitutional,


the Senate has a responsibility to reject ALL liberals judges, regardless of how long or how many seats are empty.

That's a topic for a different thread. This is about the Senate's abuse of power over what they did regarding Garland.

 

[Meathead]

That's a topic for a different thread. This is about the Senate's abuse of power over what they did regarding Garland.

No, this is about the butthurt of the left as they lose the last bit of parity they have in government.

Elections have consequences as some soon-to-be obscure president said.

 

[peach174]

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
they did not want Obama filling the vacancy.

Yes because they have the right to their ideology and the right to fight for it.
They think that Obama is too far to the left and is picking Judges that rule on activasim in the courts rather than ruling on the laws following the ideology of our Constitution.
You have the right to disagree, you have no right to only one type of ideology in any one party.
The libs took over the Democratic party and pushed out conservatives of the party ,20 years or so ago. Which is why I left the party after 20 years of trying to get conservative representation elected and failed. 800,000 conservative Democrats left the party over the years of 2010 - 2012 because the party left them.
Then the first two years of the Obama adminstration the Dems pushed out the moderate Democrats.
Then the libs wonder why they have lost so many elections ever since 2010 to 2016 stubbonly forcing their idology down eveyones throats.
The Dems need to fix their own party to reflect the ideology of cons, independants and liberals.
The Dems used to be pretty good at having 1/3, 1/3 ,1/3 of each ideology. The have to get that balance back.
Our government works well when both parties have those three equal types of repensentation of our government.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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 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.

At the rate the Democrats are going none of us will see that day.

Please show the text in the document that defines the "spirit of the Constitution".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

No, the intent of the Constitution is to provide checks and balances of power between the branches of government.

 

[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.

Whether they have or have not is irrelevant to the text under consideration, which was ratified in 1788.

Old rule.

 

[Correll]

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.

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

As Liberal Judicial Philosophy, as it exists now, includes Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect, mandates anti-white discrimination, which is Unconstitutional,


the Senate has a responsibility to reject ALL liberals judges, regardless of how long or how many seats are empty.

That's a topic for a different thread. This is about the Senate's abuse of power over what they did regarding Garland.

If an entire judicial philosophy is unconstitutional, then keeping any and every judge who holds that unconstitutional belief from the court is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Senate.

 

[Faun]

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.

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

As Liberal Judicial Philosophy, as it exists now, includes Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect, mandates anti-white discrimination, which is Unconstitutional,


the Senate has a responsibility to reject ALL liberals judges, regardless of how long or how many seats are empty.

That's a topic for a different thread. This is about the Senate's abuse of power over what they did regarding Garland.

If an entire judicial philosophy is unconstitutional, then keeping any and every judge who holds that unconstitutional belief from the court is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Senate.

Using that logic then no conservative judge should ever be appointed to the Supreme Court because abortion is constitutional and conservative judges are against abortion.

But again that's a different topic for a different thread. This one is about the Senate's abuse of power in refusing to nominate a president's nominees.

 

[Correll]

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

As Liberal Judicial Philosophy, as it exists now, includes Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect, mandates anti-white discrimination, which is Unconstitutional,


the Senate has a responsibility to reject ALL liberals judges, regardless of how long or how many seats are empty.

That's a topic for a different thread. This is about the Senate's abuse of power over what they did regarding Garland.

If an entire judicial philosophy is unconstitutional, then keeping any and every judge who holds that unconstitutional belief from the court is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Senate.

Using that logic then no conservative judge should ever be appointed to the Supreme Court because abortion is constitutional and conservative judges are against abortion.

But again that's a different topic for a different thread. This one is about the Senate's abuse of power in refusing to nominate a president's nominees.

Nope. SOME conservative justices would vote to kick that question back to the states. There is not underlying solid belief on that.


"Liberals" justices all support blatant anti-white discrimination.

 

[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.

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.

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

There is no part of the constitution that states the vacancy must be filled. In fact the first SCOTUS only had 6 or 7 judges on it.

The president has no obligation to fill the spot.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Which is their right.

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

As Liberal Judicial Philosophy, as it exists now, includes Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect, mandates anti-white discrimination, which is Unconstitutional,


the Senate has a responsibility to reject ALL liberals judges, regardless of how long or how many seats are empty.

That's a topic for a different thread. This is about the Senate's abuse of power over what they did regarding Garland.

There was no abuse of power.

 

[Faun]

I don't know that it is since the intent of the Constitution is to fill vacancies, not give one branch supremacy over another. Regardless, the Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to establish its own procedures on the matter and the Senate decided it's OK to deny a president their constitutional obligation to fill a vacancy.

As Liberal Judicial Philosophy, as it exists now, includes Disparate Impact Theory, which in effect, mandates anti-white discrimination, which is Unconstitutional,


the Senate has a responsibility to reject ALL liberals judges, regardless of how long or how many seats are empty.

That's a topic for a different thread. This is about the Senate's abuse of power over what they did regarding Garland.

If an entire judicial philosophy is unconstitutional, then keeping any and every judge who holds that unconstitutional belief from the court is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Senate.

Using that logic then no conservative judge should ever be appointed to the Supreme Court because abortion is constitutional and conservative judges are against abortion.

But again that's a different topic for a different thread. This one is about the Senate's abuse of power in refusing to nominate a president's nominees.

Nope. SOME conservative justices would vote to kick that question back to the states. There is not underlying solid belief on that.


"Liberals" justices all support blatant anti-white discrimination.

That's utter nonsense since you obviously don't know what every Liberal judge is thinking. Like try quoting Merrick Garland on that issue...