The SCOTUS Nomination and Confirmation Thread

Kavanaugh appears to be a garden variety Irish Catholic.

Of the current justices, Thomas has by far the most interesting faith journey.
 
Mike Pence urges the Senate to confirm SCOTUS nominee quickly, with "a hearing if needs be," because there may be litigation following the election

Isn't there a word for this ????
 
57Brave said:
Mike Pence urges the Senate to confirm SCOTUS nominee quickly, with "a hearing if needs be," because there may be litigation following the election

Isn't there a word for this ????
Click to expand...

Hearings aren't required by the constitution. A president could nominate and the senate could give an up or down vote.

In reality, the results would not be markedly different. The hearings are mostly theater.
 
Foaming at the mouth, gnashing teeth, and hyperventilating about Trump adding another justice? Rallying for packing the court? Y'all need to go for a walk. Roberts will keep drifting toward you. Gorsuch will throw a curveball ever now and then. You'll keep your sacrament. It won't go away.
 
striker42 said:
Hearings aren't required by the constitution. A president could nominate and the senate could give an up or down vote.

In reality, the results would not be markedly different. The hearings are mostly theater.
Click to expand...

no they are not, but a public hearing where a Supreme Court nominee is questioned by our elected representatives is part of the advise and consent process.

Theatre, of course it is theatre, has been for ages, and where did Brute get his "et tu... " Public forum ?
Wanna talk about theatre

Again, you seem alright with rubber stamping the " nominee" ala Mitt and Lindsey
 
Last edited:
I saw it written yesterday about Mittt, " White moderate gonna white moderate"
followed by the MLK warning
 
57Brave said:
no they are not, but a public hearing where a Supreme Court nominee is questioned by our elected representatives is part of the advise and consent process.

Theatre, of course it is theatre, has been for ages, and where did Brute get his "et tu... " Public forum ?
Wanna talk about theatre

Again, you seem alright with rubber stamping the " nominee" ala Mitt and Lindsey
Click to expand...

I'm of two minds on this stuff. There's the idealistic side of me and the realistic side of me.

Ideally, I think there should be hearings and a thorough and sifting examination of the nominee. I think giving a chance for the American people to see a representative of the most quiet and reclusive branch of our government explored before getting that job is a good thing. I think Senators should carefully watch the hearings and consider the fitness of the nominee without consideration of the nominee's partisanship. If it's felt that the nominee would be unable to render neutral, fair decisions then the nominee should be rejected. That would be the ideal.

Realistically, that's not how the system works. Realistically, the hearings rarely change anyone's mind. The result is known before the process begins and this is true no matter who is nominating the judge.

I'm not fine with rubber stamping the judge. I want Senators to act with more care and with a greater sense of responsibility than that. I would love to see them rise above partisanship for once and roll back SCOTUS confirmation system to the way it used to be. But I also know that's a dream with little chance of coming true.
 
Last edited:
Apparently the Dems are backing off the court packing talk for fear that it wont play well in the election and would just increase turnout for Trump. Whether that means they're backing off the idea is a different story however they might not have the votes in the Senate to do it even if they take control. Sen Shaheen from NH has already said she doesn't support adding more seats. Shes' up for re-election but she's not facing any real threat so it's probably an honest comment.
 
goldfly said:
one of the 2 main differences between democrats and republicans
Click to expand...

Not really. The Dems were the first to use the nuclear option so they've shown they're just as willing to change the rules.

If the situations were reversed, do you get 51 Republicans on board with packing the court? I'm not sure you do. It's a definite crossing of a line and one that will inevitably backfire.
 
The hypocrisy of wanting to end both abortion and ACA is distressing. Save a few thousand to let millions suffer.
 
Runnin said:
The hypocrisy of wanting to end both abortion and ACA is distressing. Save a few thousand to let millions suffer.
Click to expand...

The ACA case is legal nonsense. They'd have to gut the current law on severability and the conservatives have written in favor of severability in the past.

It's possible the individual mandate gets struck down but the penalty is currently zero so that wouldn't really change things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top