Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

no clue what your talking about, correcting a false claim from the right with the truth is not "flame baiting"

sorry I am not letting the right re-write history, facts are facts

 

Rise up against him? For following the Biden Rule? https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...ominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

Geez, the front runner for your party's nomination came up with the rule.

But hey, maybe it should be revisited next year

 

No re-write needed, the GOP simply extended the nuclear option the left decided to go with for Presidential appointees. I appreciate the fact you are upset at the unprecedented move Reid and Obama decided to go down in their quest for power....sorry it backfired

 

they did not enable the rule change, they changed the rule on lower judges, republicans changed it on SC judges.... that is just the facts

both were wrong in what they did

 

McConnell did not follow any rule other than putting party first. Somewhat different. Biden made a suggestion to the president, and his hypothetical was based on a potential retirement in the last couple of months before the election. He didn't say "we WILL do X". He said it could happen. Not a "rule" at all.

But you got what you wanted this time. I guess that is all that matters. Pretend you are doing something based on some kind of principle, but then discard that principle when it doesn't suit you. So no principles at all, other than party before country.

 

Biden was the chair of the judicial committee. He made it clear his intent if something happened. It happened, but when he was VP. The Senate followed it. Maybe he and the left should actually think before they act

 

My bad....it was Edward A. Bradford.

But how typically toxic from a anti-trumper. Instead of being classy and request clarification, a link, or a citation, you go straight to throwing insults to hide your own ignorance.

What is not made up is the FACT that the Democrats did the same exact thing and denied a hearing to a Presidential Supreme Court nominee for the same exact reasons the Garland nomination was held up:

In Millard Fillmore's last year in office (1952), a sitting SC Justice, John McKinley passed away (July 1952). Fillmore nominated Bradford to replace him. The Democrats refused to provide a hearing for Bradford on the basis that a sitting President in his last term of office should not be allowed to nominate a SC Justice. The Democrats were counting on General Franklin Pierce being elected President in the next election...which he was. Piece nominated John Campbell to replace McKinley and he was confirmed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_A._Bradford

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/history-stolen-supreme-court-seats-180962589/

So, is this the point where you claim the Smithsonian is a bias source and is "making things up"?

 

yes, the right did it for SC judges, the left did it for lower Judges, both were wrong and shortsighted

 

The left did it with more then lower court judges....they were warned over and over again, but did it anyway. Now you all whine because the GOP took power and simply finished it off for the SCOTUS. It's rather sad

 

the right did it for SC judges, we warned them, so they are responsible for dems increasing the number of judges when they take power, no blame for dems right

btw, I condemned the left when they did it with lower judges too

 

DEMOCRATS: TRUMP IS A BULLY WHO THREATENS THE INTEGRITY OF OUR INSTITUTIONS.

Also Democrats: If the Supreme Court upholds the Second Amendment, we’ll totally pack it when we get back in power.

 

with republicans change to 50 votes, they are not lying, they will do the same as republicans did

 

They won't live through it either. When the rule of law breaks down the rioters, rapists, looters, and murderers aren't going to look at the books to see if their victims were good little democrats.

 

I favored a vote on Garland, said so numerous time. But you're wrong about packing. McConnell should have allowed the vote on Garland, no doubt about it. Why he didn't to me was utterly asinine. There were 54 Republican senators vs. 46 Democrats in the senate. There is no way Garland would have been confirmed if McConnell went ahead with the vote. 46 votes won't get anyone confirmed.

Quite a lot of folks think Garland would have been confirmed if the vote had taken place. He wouldn't have, McConnell had 54 votes against him to 46 for confirmation.

 

The GOP, and heck the Dems haven't yet...gone nuclear with legislation....I wouldn't put it past the dems, but to pack the Court they'd have to do that.

 

Ahh. Zorro. The totalitarian wannabe.

 

OK - you got the name wrong. And you mean 1852, not 1952. However, there was a much more recent history of the Senate CONFIRMING nominees in election years. It happened at least five times under Taft, Wilson, Hoover and Roosevelt. It happened a further 8 times under Bradley, Cleveland, Hayes, Lincoln, Jefferson, J Adams and Washington.

From 1870 until 2017 (i.e. prior to Garland) every SCOTUS nomination that had lapsed (at the end of any Congress, regardless of whether it was a presidential election year or not) without action by the Senate was re-nominated in the next Congress and acted upon.

What Mitch McConnell did was unprecedented in modern politics and was entirely politically-driven. But I guess that is OK for you guys. The ends justify the means. Rules and traditions are there to be followed - until it is inconvenient. Then they can be ignored.

 

I think there should be 50 Justices, one from every State.

 

Take me O Death, but let me take a dozen first.

 

I'm glad you at least think that it should have gone to a vote. I would not have had as much of a problem with it if he had let it go to a vote.

But you are still looking at it in a hyper-partisan way. The way the Senate should act is to assess if the nominee is competent and has no skeletons in his (or her) closet. On that basis Garland should have been confirmed (subject to what came out at his confirmation hearing, which he wasn't afforded the courtesy of), Gorsuch should have been confirmed with a big majority, and Kavanaugh would not have been nominated (because the Kennedy seat went to Gorsuch). If he had been nominated, he should have been rejected by a big majority and the president told to come back with someone who didn't have the same kind of issues.

 

Yes, they did. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you? The GOP didn't want the rule change. Quit revising history, we can all read.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry-reid-nuclear-senate/3662445/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pushed through a controversial change to Senate rules Thursday that will make it easier to approve President Obama's nominees but threatens to further divide an already polarized Congress.

Fifty-two Senate Democrats and independents voted to weaken the power of the filibuster. The change reduces the threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees against unanimous GOP opposition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8da3f4-7ba7-11e8-93cc-6d3beccdd7a3_story.html

 

Actually that isn't a bad idea. Of course it wouldn't necessarily match the voting patterns in each state, because the nominations would still be made by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

But other countries have a system whereby there is a large number of SC judges and they don't all hear every case. Out of those 50, you do a random draw of 9 for each case and let those 9 decide. It would, at a stroke, make the court less partisan and would also allow FAR more SC cases to be heard each term.

Or maybe you could have two from each of the twelve circuits (so 24 SCOTUS judges) and use the same system of randomly picking 9 for each appeal.

ANYTHING to make the court less political.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is in either party's interest to de-politicise the court.

 

The issue is not "in an election year". The argument was "in the last year of a President's last term in office". How many of those nominations were done in the last year of a President's term? Personally, I would be ok with a law that a sitting President in the last year of their last term is not allowed to nominate a person for the position of SC Justice.

Sure, it was politically driven. And the Democrats would have done the same exact thing if given a chance (and did). The Democrats are certainly not innocent of playing their own political games. You talk about "rules and tradition"....well, the precedence WAS set in 1852, so I guess it WAS tradition. I guess it is inconvenient for the left that the "tradition" (that they started) was carried forward.

And stop it with the flame-baiting "you guys" crap. You treat what is happening in our country like it was a sporting event with the players wearing blue and red jerseys. I am a conservative, but I support the position of the US President....no matter who in office. I called out those on the right for things they did towards Obama as much as I have against what the left is doing to Trump. Personally, I do not like Trump and think that the country will be much better off without him in office. However, there is not a single candidate that the Democrats are putting up that would be much of an improvement, with the exception of Biden. However, Biden is a puppet and will not be much of an improvement either, except I suspect he will be less divisive.

 

Partisanship comes into play more and more these days. We've enter an era of hyper partisanship and polarization. It's not like it used to be when what you described would most likely have taken place. Before ex-Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid used the nuclear option, set the precedence for its use. It would have taken 60 votes for cloture on any SCOTUS nominee. The 60 votes usually guaranteed no radical extreme nominee would ever be confirmed. Now any president whose party also controls the senate can nominate and get confirmed the most extreme radical, left or right due to Reid's use of the nuclear option for a short term political gain.

Escalation and payback are now the rule of the day.