Is Russia Our Enemy?

[kmoney]

Democrats vowed to filibuster every single nominee Trump put up there.

Now,. What was this nonsense about no justification for the nuclear option?

I was against the Dems using the filibuster on Gorsuch because I didn't want to see the nuclear option be put into place. I can certainly understand their anger though, after the travesty the Republicans pulled with Garland.

I don't know if that means that I think the nuclear option was justified, because if the Republicans had any integrity they would have Garland there, but the two sides seemed to be at a stand-still so going nuclear was about the only way forward.

 

[kmoney]

It would have been refreshing to see Gorsuch stand up for a fellow judge and decline the nomination and say Garland should be there. Of course, even if he had done that then Trump probably would have simply chosen someone else who may not have the same principles.

 

[ok doser]

It would have been refreshing to see Gorsuch stand up for a fellow judge and decline the nomination and say Garland should be there. Of course, even if he had done that then Trump probably would have simply chosen someone else who may not have the same principles.

it would have been nice in 2008 for bammy to stand aside for McCain, citing his superior experience and qualifications :idunno:



and it would have been nice if i had gotten the pony i wanted for my fifth birthday :sozo2:

 

[ClimateSanity]

It would have been refreshing to see Gorsuch stand up for a fellow judge and decline the nomination and say Garland should be there. Of course, even if he had done that then Trump probably would have simply chosen someone else who may not have the same principles.

Obama is the first president to nominate someone during an election. That breaks protocol. An election gives voters a chance to vote for someone who will nominate the kind of nominee they wanted. Garland isn't the nominee that Trump voters wanted.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Ktoyou]

It would have been refreshing to see Gorsuch stand up for a fellow judge and decline the nomination and say Garland should be there. Of course, even if he had done that then Trump probably would have simply chosen someone else who may not have the same principles.

Was Garland conservative enough?

 

[Foxfire]

Obama is the first president to nominate someone during an election. That breaks protocol.

14 presidents have appointed 21 justices during presidential election years. A half-dozen presidents, classic lame ducks, filled Supreme Court seats even though their successors had been elected.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/29/one-third-of-all-u-s-presidents-appointed-a-supreme-court-justice-in-an-election-year/

 

[ClimateSanity]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/29/one-third-of-all-u-s-presidents-appointed-a-supreme-court-justice-in-an-election-year/

That's not what I read.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[WizardofOz]

:rotfl:

 

[Foxfire]

That's not what I read.

Starting with Washington.

George Washington, who established precedents that shape the office to this day, declined to run for a third term, but he added an associate justice and a chief justice during the election year of 1796.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Starting with Washington.

It's not the fact that Obama made a supreme Court nomination during an election year that's at issue. It's the fact that he nominated someone almost further ideologically left than anyone on the court. If placed on the court, Garland would have radically shift the Court to the left.

Here is a quote from the NYT:
"The chart published by the*Times*on March 16, 2016, demonstrated that Garland was to the*left*of two of the court’s current liberals –*Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan*–*and a virtual match for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, leaving only Sonia Sotomayor slightly to the left of him."

That's what is unprecedented about the Garland pick. He was the first nomination that would radically change the courts balance to be nominated in an election year.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ClimateSanity]

From National review: "Claims that Gorsuch’s seat was “stolen” from Obama or Garland are as absurd as they are telling. Obama had no inherent right to demand that a Republican Senate majority acquiesce in his desire to flip the court from a conservative majority to a liberal one."

I would add that Obama had no right to demand that a Republican Senate majority vote for a candidate who would radically change the courts balance during an election year.

It's simply not fair because any senator who refused to vote for Garland would have been tarred as a partisan radical in Democrat campaign ads.

That would pressure senators to vote for Garland because of fear of losing their seat during an election.




Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Ktoyou]

Actually, I was a Russian double agent who came in from the cold under George H. W. Bush. I defected because Russia was too cold.

I thought Ruth Blader Ginsburg was the most liberal?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Actually, I was a Russian double agent who came in from the cold under George H. W. Bush. I defected because Russia was too cold.

I thought Ruth Blader Ginsburg was the most liberal?

Garland was Ginsburg's ideological match.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Foxfire]

It's not the fact that Obama made a supreme Court nomination during an election year that's at issue.

Q #1: Who makes nominations for supreme court justices?
A: The President.
Q #2: How many presidents are there at a time?
A: One (1)

 

[ClimateSanity]

Q #1: Who makes nominations for supreme court justices?
A: The President.
Q #2: How many presidents are there at a time?
A: One (1)

Which does nothing to change the argument I'm making .

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Foxfire]

Which does nothing to change the argument I'm making .

There is no litmus test for nominations.

 

[ok doser]

There is no litmus test for nominations.

well, there should be

if the litmus paper turns red, for example, it means the person's blood is acidic

and they're dead


surely we don't want to nominate dead judges for the supreme court

 

[WizardofOz]

Obama is the first president to nominate someone during an election.

It's not the fact that Obama made a supreme Court nomination during an election year that's at issue.

I'd like to thank [MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION] :chuckle:

 

[ClimateSanity]

There is no litmus test for nominations.

Trying to see how that is relevant to the point I'm making. There is good justification for not allowing a vote on Garland. There is no good justification for filibustering Gorsuch.


Garland would have radically changed the balance of the court. Republicans have justification for blocking the nomination on that basis during an election year. If Scalia had died this year, and if Hillary had won and the Republicans lost control of the senate, they would have no justification for filibustering Garland since Hillary would have the right to change the court to her desire as long as Garland was judicially fit.

When I say a president has the right or not the right to a particular nomination, I don't mean legal , constitutional right. I mean by way of protocol or precedent. The forcing of the senate to vote for a man ideologically equal to Ginsburg during an election year is unprecedented and they had every right to deny his chance for a vote based on the break in precendence.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I'd like to thank @ok doser :chuckle:

I was wrong in my first statement. So? More useless mockery? Do you think that furthers your argument?