i prefer this "Rule" not be followed at all. Election year politics should not hinder a sitting President from making an appointment as is that President's right under the Constitution.So did you tell McConnell that when he declined to let the Senate confirm the Merrick Garland nomination?
regardless of party, that sitting President should make the appointment and the Senate should act like adults and hold a confirmation. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
- lustylad
- 06-30-2018, 08:36 AM
- lustylad
- 06-30-2018, 08:40 AM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 06-30-2018, 02:37 PM
So did you tell McConnell that when he declined to let the Senate confirm the Merrick Garland nomination? Originally Posted by lustylad
No. because now we are even. lol.
Hahaha... that worked so well when FDR tried it, didn't it?i read that yesterday and nearly dropped my coffee cup laughing. 11? 15? how 'bout 101 dalmatians?
The only "ideas" the left has are old, failed ones! Originally Posted by lustylad
lol
- dilbert firestorm
- 06-30-2018, 02:54 PM
personally, there should be at least 13 judges on the court. 4 of them can serve as back up when one dies/resigns or one has to recuse.
- lustylad
- 06-30-2018, 04:34 PM
Another feather in his cap for "Dirty Harry"!
Harry Reid, Republican Mastermind
Democrats can blame themselves for blowing up the judicial filibuster.
By The Editorial Board
Updated June 28, 2018 7:34 p.m. ET
Schadenfreude is overrated, but it is amusing to see Democrats apoplectic that Republicans might confirm a Supreme Court Justice with 51 Senate votes. Let’s review the tape on the Sage of Searchlight, Nevada, because Harry Reid made this moment possible by blowing up the filibuster for judicial nominees.
Democrats are in various stages of grief about the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy but the prevailing mood is rage. Democrats are insisting that the Senate not confirm a replacement until after the November election. The left is still furious that GOP Leader Mitch McConnell barred until after the 2016 election a vote on Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia. They think Mr. McConnell should be “consistent” now.
But that Court opening came amid a presidential election, when Americans decide who will determine the direction of the courts for four years. No less than a quarter of Donald Trump’s voters said their reason was the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton would have had her pick of nominees, and Mr. Garland or a more radical jurist would be on the Court. The real Democratic grievance as ever should be with Mrs. Clinton for losing.
Supreme Court confirmations ahead of a midterm election are routine. The Senate confirmed Justice Elena Kagan in August 2010, Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994, and David Souter a month before midterms in 1990. The Great Scalia was confirmed in September 1986.
If Democrats are unable to stop Republicans from confirming a new Justice, they can also thank Mr. Reid. In 2013 the Democratic Majority Leader changed Senate rules on a party-line vote and ended the filibuster on appellate court and executive nominees. That allowed Democrats to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and win some favorable rulings on Mr. Obama’s regulatory agenda.
A few on the left worried about eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, particularly abortion groups that view Roe v. Wade as divinely inspired. But the precedent assured that the 60-vote check on High Court nominees would disappear; the only question was when. Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor: “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”
Democrats compounded the blunder when they united to oppose Mr. Trump’s first nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Replacing Scalia with Mr. Gorsuch didn’t alter the ideological composition of the Court. Democrats could have lent 60 votes to confirm Mr. Gorsuch and kept their powder dry for a filibuster fight for a replacement for Justice Kennedy, who everyone knew might retire.
The political pressure on the GOP to preserve the filibuster would have been intense, not least because conservatives are sympathetic to conventions that prevent change passed by narrow majorities. But no. Senate Democrats tried to block Mr. Gorsuch, and Senate Republicans responded by cashiering the filibuster for the Supreme Court too.
At the time of the Reid gambit we wrote that the “next GOP President should line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport.” The left apparently thought a Republican would never again be President.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-r...rmi-1530225408
Harry Reid, Republican Mastermind
Democrats can blame themselves for blowing up the judicial filibuster.
By The Editorial Board
Updated June 28, 2018 7:34 p.m. ET
Schadenfreude is overrated, but it is amusing to see Democrats apoplectic that Republicans might confirm a Supreme Court Justice with 51 Senate votes. Let’s review the tape on the Sage of Searchlight, Nevada, because Harry Reid made this moment possible by blowing up the filibuster for judicial nominees.
Democrats are in various stages of grief about the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy but the prevailing mood is rage. Democrats are insisting that the Senate not confirm a replacement until after the November election. The left is still furious that GOP Leader Mitch McConnell barred until after the 2016 election a vote on Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia. They think Mr. McConnell should be “consistent” now.
But that Court opening came amid a presidential election, when Americans decide who will determine the direction of the courts for four years. No less than a quarter of Donald Trump’s voters said their reason was the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton would have had her pick of nominees, and Mr. Garland or a more radical jurist would be on the Court. The real Democratic grievance as ever should be with Mrs. Clinton for losing.
Supreme Court confirmations ahead of a midterm election are routine. The Senate confirmed Justice Elena Kagan in August 2010, Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994, and David Souter a month before midterms in 1990. The Great Scalia was confirmed in September 1986.
If Democrats are unable to stop Republicans from confirming a new Justice, they can also thank Mr. Reid. In 2013 the Democratic Majority Leader changed Senate rules on a party-line vote and ended the filibuster on appellate court and executive nominees. That allowed Democrats to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and win some favorable rulings on Mr. Obama’s regulatory agenda.
A few on the left worried about eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, particularly abortion groups that view Roe v. Wade as divinely inspired. But the precedent assured that the 60-vote check on High Court nominees would disappear; the only question was when. Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor: “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”
Democrats compounded the blunder when they united to oppose Mr. Trump’s first nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Replacing Scalia with Mr. Gorsuch didn’t alter the ideological composition of the Court. Democrats could have lent 60 votes to confirm Mr. Gorsuch and kept their powder dry for a filibuster fight for a replacement for Justice Kennedy, who everyone knew might retire.
The political pressure on the GOP to preserve the filibuster would have been intense, not least because conservatives are sympathetic to conventions that prevent change passed by narrow majorities. But no. Senate Democrats tried to block Mr. Gorsuch, and Senate Republicans responded by cashiering the filibuster for the Supreme Court too.
At the time of the Reid gambit we wrote that the “next GOP President should line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport.” The left apparently thought a Republican would never again be President.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-r...rmi-1530225408
- Ex-CEO
- 06-30-2018, 10:24 PM
Funny how these clowns whine about the specter of a "partisan court," yet are all-in on the idea of elevating jurists such as Sonia Sotomayor, aka "the wise Latina."
- I B Hankering
- 06-30-2018, 10:29 PM
Funny how these clowns whine about the specter of a "partisan court," yet are all-in on the idea of elevating jurists such as Sonia Sotomayor, aka "the wise Latina." Originally Posted by Ex-CEOIt is more than a little hypocritical of her to declaim this decision because Trump's campaign rhetoric wasn't factored into the ruling considering how her own remarks about her "Hispanic heritage" taking precedent over the rule of law wasn't considered when she was confirmed for the bench.
- Ex-CEO
- 06-30-2018, 10:33 PM
It is more than a little hypocritical of her to declaim this decision because Trump's campaign rhetoric wasn't considering how her own remarks about her "Hispanic heritage" taking precedent over the rule of law wasn't considered when she was confirmed for the bench. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Yes, indeed.
But lefties are all about "identity politics" nowadays, aren't they?
- lustylad
- 07-01-2018, 02:11 AM
Funny how these clowns whine about the specter of a "partisan court," yet are all-in on the idea of elevating jurists such as Sonia Sotomayor, aka "the wise Latina." Originally Posted by Ex-CEORemember when Trump complained 2 years ago that the federal judge hearing a class action lawsuit against Trump U. was biased due to his Mexican heritage? Here is one reaction:
Why is it so offensive when Donald Trump equates ethnicity with judicial bias but it is fine when Sonia Sotomayor does it? In a speech given at the UC Berkeley School of Law (Oct. 26, 2001) on the effect of gender and ethnicity on judging, the future Supreme Court justice spoke about the influence her Latina identity had on her presence on the bench. Her remarks were far more diplomatic than Mr. Trump’s, but she reached virtually the same conclusion. Some examples from the speech: “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” .... “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.” .... “But I accept there will be some [difference] based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” Finally, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
It is hard to argue with any of these statements. They appear to be simply common sense. But when The Donald makes the same points, he is called a bigot and a racist. Why?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-t...nas-1465751689