CDZ What's Your Honest Take On Garland Block

[Uncensored2008]

My take? The GOP actually did something right for once.

Doesn't happen often, but this was a crucial instance.

 

[Correll]

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...

I know how ever Justice has voted.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.

It was up to the Senate, Huffer.

The Senate said "no."

They decided that it was too close to the election and that the next POTUS would get to pick.

It was their choice. All you Bolsheviks can do is cry about it.

 

[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.

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.

That's utter nonsense as the president does not decide how many justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Congress decides and the number is currently nine. As to whether or not the president is obligated to fill s vacancy on that bench, I'll take the Constitution's word over yours.

He . . . shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court...​

 

[Faun]

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...

I know how ever Justice has voted.

We're talking about judges who are NOT on the Supreme Court. So g'head, quote Garland. We'll start with him.

 

[Faun]

That's for the Senate to decide, innit.

Not the question. The topic isn't asking if Garland should have been a judge. It's asking if he should have been considered. Which is how the process is actually supposed to work.

It was up to the Senate, Huffer.

The Senate said "no."

They decided that it was too close to the election and that the next POTUS would get to pick.

It was their choice. All you Bolsheviks can do is cry about it.

Will you cry about it when a Democrat-led Senate tells a Republican president they can't name a replacement justice with 4 years remaining in their term?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
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.

How many justices does the Constitution mandate again, Fawn?

Look, you're butthurt. You though you could push the court to the left and have the SCOTUS create the laws that the legislatures will not.

But that won't happen now. Trump will nominate Pro-Constitution Justices and the Senate will confirm them. It will be a generation until you get another chance to end the Constitution using the SCOTUS. That pile of shit Ginsburg will die and there will be 5 solid Pro-Constitution Justices on the court.

 

[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.

How many justices does the Constitution mandate again, Fawn?

Look, you're butthurt. You though you could push the court to the left and have the SCOTUS create the laws that the legislatures will not.

But that won't happen now. Trump will nominate Pro-Constitution Justices and the Senate will confirm them. It will be a generation until you get another chance to end the Constitution using the SCOTUS. That pile of shit Ginsburg will die and there will be 5 solid Pro-Constitution Justices on the court.

You better hope she dies during this coming session of Congress.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Will you cry about it when a Democrat-led Senate tells a Republican president they can't name a replacement justice with 4 years remaining in their term?

We don't have a democrat led Senate. We have one vacancy which will be the choice of Trump. The Senate will confirm virtually anyone he picks. Ted Cruz would be a great choice.

In addition to the vacancy, the old Stalinist Ginsburg has one foot in the grave adn could go at any moment. The sooner the better. In all likelihood Trump will replace the Maoist hag before the 2018 midterms even present a question of whether the democrats could control the Senate..

The court is your biggest loss, Fawn. The court will be Pro=Constitution for a full generation. Had Hillary won, she could have ended the Republic using the court, but that dream is denied to you now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

You better hope she dies during this coming session of Congress.

The sooner the Stalinist pig joins her buddy Castro in hell the better. But there will be over two years until the next election. I doubt the evil old hag has that long in her.

 

[Faun]

Will you cry about it when a Democrat-led Senate tells a Republican president they can't name a replacement justice with 4 years remaining in their term?

We don't have a democrat led Senate. We have one vacancy which will be the choice of Trump. The Senate will confirm virtually anyone he picks. Ted Cruz would be a great choice.

In addition to the vacancy, the old Stalinist Ginsburg has one foot in the grave adn could go at any moment. The sooner the better. In all likelihood Trump will replace the Maoist hag before the 2018 midterms even present a question of whether the democrats could control the Senate..

The court is your biggest loss, Fawn. The court will be Pro=Constitution for a full generation. Had Hillary won, she could have ended the Republic using the court, but that dream is denied to you now.

Umm... I didn't say we currently have a Democrat-led Senate.

How about answering the question...

 

[Uncensored2008]

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".

Oh, I can help Fawn out with that. This is what the democrats see as the spirit of their vision of the constitution.

Manifesto of the Communist Party

 

[Uncensored2008]

Umm... I didn't say we currently have a Democrat-led Senate.

How about answering the question...

The question is moot. The chance of such a situation occurring is too remote to be concerned with.

 

[Faun]

Umm... I didn't say we currently have a Democrat-led Senate.

How about answering the question...

The question is moot. The chance of such a situation occurring is too remote to be concerned with.

It's not as remote a possibility as you portray. 2 of the 5 most recent Republican administrations have started with Democrat-led Senate's.

But that's ok, I already know the answer to my question even if you don't want to answer it.

 

[Correll]

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...

I know how ever Justice has voted.

We're talking about judges who are NOT on the Supreme Court. So g'head, quote Garland. We'll start with him.

We're talking about liberals democratic appointed Justices and their unconstitutional progressive judicial school of thought.

ANd none of them should be seated.

 

[Faun]

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...

I know how ever Justice has voted.

We're talking about judges who are NOT on the Supreme Court. So g'head, quote Garland. We'll start with him.

We're talking about liberals democratic appointed Justices and their unconstitutional progressive judicial school of thought.

ANd none of them should be seated.

Umm... what you actually said was...

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

...that refers to Liberal judges who are not on the Supreme Court.

Once more... let's start with Merrick Garland... quote him on the subject...

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
It's not as remote a possibility as you portray. 2 of the 5 most recent Republican administrations have started with Democrat-led Senate's.

But that's ok, I already know the answer to my question even if you don't want to answer it.

A few things.

First, when Garland was delayed it was 4 months until an election, not 4 years. The Senate is highly unlikely to switch parties in 18, the big chance of the democrats to pick up seats was in the election that just happened. If Trump makes a complete mess that may change, but chances are the Senate stays GOP for the next 4 years. The house is more fickle.

If a democrat led Senate did not hold confirmation hearings on a SCOTUS choice due to a pending election in 4 or even 6 months, I would be fine with it.

There is nothing that even says we need 9 jurists on the court.

 

[Faun]

It's not as remote a possibility as you portray. 2 of the 5 most recent Republican administrations have started with Democrat-led Senate's.

But that's ok, I already know the answer to my question even if you don't want to answer it.

A few things.

First, when Garland was delayed it was 4 months until an election, not 4 years. The Senate is highly unlikely to switch parties in 18, the big chance of the democrats to pick up seats was in the election that just happened. If Trump makes a complete mess that may change, but chances are the Senate stays GOP for the next 4 years. The house is more fickle.

If a democrat led Senate did not hold confirmation hearings on a SCOTUS choice due to a pending election in 4 or even 6 months, I would be fine with it.

Scalia's seat opened in February and the Republican-led Congress announced then that any nominee Obama named would be denied a confirmation hearing.

But the reason doesn't matter. Thanks to Republicans, the Senate no longer has to confirm a president's nominee. No reason need be provided; no time limits matter. And since both political parties have a history of paybacks in Congress, you can count on Democrats denying a Republican president a Supreme Court appointment in the future.

At some point, a seat will open up when the president is Republican and the Senate is controlled by Democrats. It's just a matter of time.

There is nothing that even says we need 9 jurists on the court.

Well nothing except the Congress, which is the body to decide how many justices sit on that court.

 

[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.

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.

That's utter nonsense as the president does not decide how many justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Congress decides and the number is currently nine. As to whether or not the president is obligated to fill s vacancy on that bench, I'll take the Constitution's word over yours.

He . . . shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court...​

You fail to understand the meaning of "shall" in that context. You are incorrect.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Scalia's seat opened in February and the Republican-led Congress announced then that any nominee Obama named would be denied a confirmation hearing.

But the reason doesn't matter. Thanks to Republicans, the Senate no longer has to confirm a president's nominee. No reason need be provided; no time limits matter. And since both political parties have a history of paybacks in Congress, you can count on Democrats denying a Republican president a Supreme Court appointment in the future.

At some point, a seat will open up when the president is Republican and the Senate is controlled by Democrats. It's just a matter of time.

The Senate has NEVER had to confirm a president's pick.

Better men than Garland have been Borked.

Well nothing except the Congress, which is the body to decide how many justices sit on that court.

Not congress, the Senate. The House has no say in the matter.

The Senate could let the Court drop to 7 and simply never replace the others, if they so desired. They won't, because they want to pack the court with Pro-Constitution picks to offset Kagan and her little dog Sotomayor.

Part of what would make Cruz such a great SCOTUS pick is just showing the nation that a Hispanic on the court CAN have an IQ in triple digits. They are not all Sonya with a room temperature IQ...