The SCOTUS Nomination and Confirmation Thread
- Thread starter striker42
- Start date
Or you know, you could attack the Republican Senators who blatantly lied about this very same thing in 2016. I mean, since you care so much about people telling the truth.
acesfull86
Well-known member
If you’re reading about this story in the press, you might be convinced there’s a SCOTUS Judge “dying wish” clause in the Constitution that supersedes a presidential nomination/Senate confirmation.
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," he said four years ago when arguing against then-President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.
And there's a plethora of other quotes from various Republicans stating similar opinions.
sturg33
I
Please watch the video i posted above
striker42
Well-known member
Guys, no one in Washington actually cares about the rightness or wrongness of the Senate confirming or refusing to confirm a SCOTUS nominee in a Presidential election year. This is not an issue of right and wrong or honesty any deceit. This is an issue of political influence.
The Republicans were faced with losing the most conservative justice on the court and having him replaced with a liberal. They had the power to stop it and they did. Now the most liberal member of the court has died and the Republicans see a chance to replace her with a conservative. If they can muster the power to do it, they will.
It's as simple as that. If the roles were reverse you better believe the Democrats do the same thing.
If we strove to pick the wisest, most fair, and most intelligent justices we could find, we wouldn't have this problem. Instead, things like fairness and wisdom are ignored. We strive to choose the most partisan justices we can find. And so we end up with a court that acts as a super legislature instead of a body removed from the fray who can make the tough decisions.
The Republicans were faced with losing the most conservative justice on the court and having him replaced with a liberal. They had the power to stop it and they did. Now the most liberal member of the court has died and the Republicans see a chance to replace her with a conservative. If they can muster the power to do it, they will.
It's as simple as that. If the roles were reverse you better believe the Democrats do the same thing.
If we strove to pick the wisest, most fair, and most intelligent justices we could find, we wouldn't have this problem. Instead, things like fairness and wisdom are ignored. We strive to choose the most partisan justices we can find. And so we end up with a court that acts as a super legislature instead of a body removed from the fray who can make the tough decisions.
I did. Republicans are just as guilty, if not more. Did you read the words I posted? Lindsey Graham literally said to use his words against him.
I agree. No one plays by the rules. But I do believe the voters should have a say this close to the election.
sturg33
I
Indeed.
I guess he's changed his mind after the Dems accused the last jodge of leading a gang rape ring.
Thems the breaks.
sturg33
I
How are they "more guilty" (whatever that means)?
You posted a quote of one senator. I posted video of literally every democratic leader, including the presidential candidate, demanding that the seat must be filled.
Now they're all sad and threatening violence and court packing and impeachment if R's do exactly what they wanted them to do 4 years ago.
So why on earth should anybody care about them at this point? They need to do their job. And they will.
Then the dems can pack the court and complain 10 years from now when the R's follow the new rules
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
They shouldn't have with Garland and they shouldn't now. What did Ginsburg say herself? A president is elected for a 4 year term, not a 3.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
The Dems will pack the court, taking it to 13. And then perchance the Rs get in control again, how about making it 25? Lunacy.
striker42
Well-known member
It's all a question of what lines are willing to be crossed. There was a time where when the Senate considered its job to be to simply keep unqualified or unfit people from the bench. Here are a list of some "recent" confirmations and the final votes:
1993 Ginsburg: 96-3
1994 Breyer: 87-9
2005 Roberts: 78-22
2006 Alito: 58-42
2009 Sotomayor: 68-31
2010 Kagan: 63-37
2017 Gorsuch: 54-45
2018 Kavanaugh: 50-48
It's interesting to see how the votes have eroded over the years and how things have become more partisan. There's definitely a disconnect between Breyer's confirmation and Roberts'. I have to wonder if the Clinton impeachment was the watershed moment as it was with so much of the rise of hyper-partisanism.
It's clear now that lines once considered inviolate are not considered so anymore.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Clarence Thomas 52-48
William Rehnquist 68-26
William Rehnquist 65-33 (for Chief Justice)
Clement Haynsworth defeated by a 55 to 45 vote
Robert Bork defeated 42 to 58
Ideological animus toward justices goes back a long way. I posted the sign for Earl Warren's impeachment earlier. He was nominated by Eisenhower. Former Republican governor of California. He ended up siding with the more activist liberal wing of the court (which included Douglas, Brennan, Black ) and became the bête noire of conservatives who railed against the activist Warren court.
Brennan was also an Eisenhower appointee. So was John Harlan, who for me represents the best parts of the conservative tradition of judicial restraint. Bob Woodward wrote a book titled The Brethren, which looks at the court under Warren and Burger. I highly recommend it. Many of the cases that came before the Warren and Burger courts continue to reverberate.
The best part of the book is a description of a screening of some pictures or video that was part of the evidence in a pornography case. One of the justices with poor hindsight (Harlan I think) got really close to the screen and exclaimed "by jove!" or something like that.
William Rehnquist 68-26
William Rehnquist 65-33 (for Chief Justice)
Clement Haynsworth defeated by a 55 to 45 vote
Robert Bork defeated 42 to 58
Ideological animus toward justices goes back a long way. I posted the sign for Earl Warren's impeachment earlier. He was nominated by Eisenhower. Former Republican governor of California. He ended up siding with the more activist liberal wing of the court (which included Douglas, Brennan, Black ) and became the bête noire of conservatives who railed against the activist Warren court.
Brennan was also an Eisenhower appointee. So was John Harlan, who for me represents the best parts of the conservative tradition of judicial restraint. Bob Woodward wrote a book titled The Brethren, which looks at the court under Warren and Burger. I highly recommend it. Many of the cases that came before the Warren and Burger courts continue to reverberate.
The best part of the book is a description of a screening of some pictures or video that was part of the evidence in a pornography case. One of the justices with poor hindsight (Harlan I think) got really close to the screen and exclaimed "by jove!" or something like that.
Last edited: