Thread Rating:

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard 
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1355
  • Posts: 22458
July 1st, 2018 at 5:24:07 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

It is not enough to 'keep the Senate'. The filibuster rules allow the Dems to block the nominee as long as there aren't 60 Repubs. I have seen no prediction that the Repubs will get that many.



I thought they tried that to block Neil Gorsuch but the GOP invoked the nuclear option to need a simple majority only. Why can't they simply do that again, before the election, to not take any chances losing the majority?
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 7232
July 1st, 2018 at 5:31:53 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz



It was the refusal to consider a scotus nominee for almost an entire year under obama that is egregious



Thanks for telling me what is egregious and what is not. So under King Dark Oz's rules, if a president nominates a SCJ one day before the end of the President's term, is that egregious? 1 month? 3 months? 1 year? ALL 4 years? Please enlighten us since YOU apparently know what the cutoff is and the rest of us don't.

(King SOOPOO says the nominee should get a hearing if nominated on the last day of a Presidency, so my above point is more Devil's advocate as I agree with you that the Repubs should have brought Garland to a vote)
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 7232
July 1st, 2018 at 5:35:16 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I thought they tried that to block Neil Gorsuch but the GOP invoked the nuclear option to need a simple majority only. Why can't they simply do that again, before the election, to not take any chances losing the majority?



Apparently they will if needed and ABLE. The Dems will lean on the few pro abortion Repub Senators to block an anti Roe v Wade nominee. They only need to Repubs to vote no if all 49 Dems vote no.

I am strongly for abortion rights. I just find it is not the most important issue of our time, and feel sad for all the one issue people who think it is the most important thing since Al Gore invented the internet.
NokTang
NokTang
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
July 1st, 2018 at 5:51:29 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Finished? Really? How do you figure? What will be the legal hitch that overturns it?



Once the next Justice is seated, a case will be found which can in essence as I mentioned, put abortion back to a rich vs poor issue, and the rich usually win.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 12164
July 1st, 2018 at 5:52:24 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO



I am strongly for abortion rights. I just find it is not the most important issue of our time, and feel sad for all the one issue people who think it is the most important thing since Al Gore invented the internet.



This is both amazing and scary. Their lives seem to revolve around it. So much that the whole issue has frozen a great deal of other politics for over 40 years now, closer to 50. Same as several slavery rulings did in the 1800s.

Result might one day end up the same.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 244
  • Posts: 7484
July 1st, 2018 at 7:37:37 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Thanks for telling me what is egregious and what is not. So under King Dark Oz's rules, if a president nominates a SCJ one day before the end of the President's term, is that egregious? 1 month? 3 months? 1 year? ALL 4 years? Please enlighten us since YOU apparently know what the cutoff is and the rest of us don't.

(King SOOPOO says the nominee should get a hearing if nominated on the last day of a Presidency, so my above point is more Devil's advocate as I agree with you that the Repubs should have brought Garland to a vote)



Good. Glad we agree

Its always good when a king has agreeable subjects
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 244
  • Posts: 7484
July 1st, 2018 at 7:47:23 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Thanks for telling me what is egregious and what is not. So under King Dark Oz's rules, if a president nominates a SCJ one day before the end of the President's term, is that egregious? 1 month? 3 months? 1 year? ALL 4 years? Please enlighten us since YOU apparently know what the cutoff is and the rest of us don't.

(King SOOPOO says the nominee should get a hearing if nominated on the last day of a Presidency, so my above point is more Devil's advocate as I agree with you that the Repubs should have brought Garland to a vote)



Here is my more serious answer to your post

There have been TWENTY-NINE (29) supreme court justices NOMINATED in the final year of a presidency in our US history

ELEVEN (11) of those were CONFIRMED

Please explain to King DarkOz why King Soopoo thinks US history is not worthy of setting precedent
Last edited by: darkoz on Jul 1, 2018
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 175
  • Posts: 9967
July 1st, 2018 at 8:46:14 AM permalink
To quote Ollie Cromwell, the only good kings are dead ones.
If forced to chose between two monarchs, don't.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 7232
July 1st, 2018 at 8:52:31 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Here is my more serious answer to your post

There have been TWENTY-NINE (29) supreme court justices NOMINATED in the final year of a presidency in our US history

ELEVEN (11) of those were CONFIRMED

Please explain to King DarkOz why King Soopoo thinks US history is not worthy of setting precedent

.

It is not relevant if they were confirmed. What is relevant is if the Senate had hearings and voted. If the Repubs did not confirm Garland after hearings and a vote that would be fine. Not having the hearing and the vote is what was wrong. Of the 18 not confirmed, did any not have a hearing and/or vote?
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 244
  • Posts: 7484
July 1st, 2018 at 9:29:31 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

.

It is not relevant if they were confirmed. What is relevant is if the Senate had hearings and voted. If the Repubs did not confirm Garland after hearings and a vote that would be fine. Not having the hearing and the vote is what was wrong. Of the 18 not confirmed, did any not have a hearing and/or vote?



Here is a link that should answer current and future questions

https://www.afj.org/myths-vs-facts-on-scotus-vacancy

There have even been lame duck period confirmations

If you are saying its egregious no hearing was conducted for garland then we are in agreement. Yippee!!

Of the 18 not confirmed some were withdrawn for whatever reason. We are talking politics of 200+ years

Also I think it fair to point out that only in the last half of the previous century were presidents limited to 2 terms. I.e. Obamas 8th year was definitively his last but any president in their 4th year is subject to that being his last
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee

  • Jump to: