Senator Lisa Murkowski to vote "Aye" on confirmation.
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
Does the hypocrisy between a refusal to consider Garland, who' was much more middle of the road with nearly a year before the election, and this polarized nominee a week before the election bother anyone? My concern is this process just serve as a justification for more hyper politicalization in years to come.
Of course it does. Eliminating filibustering, changing a vote from a super majority to a simple majority, and not letting one get in a year before, and then letting one get in on the other side, a few months before, says no holds barred politization. What do they thinks going to happen if the Democratic party takes control. The GOP is just just asking for expansion of the courts. When you throw civility and courtesy out the door, you get what you get. It is in a tit for tat atmosphere now.
Should bother any fair minded people. Garland should have been considered and brought to a vote as should Barrett. Reid should have foreseen the day when the Dems didn’t control the Senate and the likely outcome before he changed Senate rules. Garland deserved a vote by the Pubs. The party who controls the Senate controls the judiciary selection and appointment process with no need for bipartisanship. That wasn’t the way the system was suppose to work.
Court packing would obviously set a dangerous precedent and send us into banana republic territory where the leader of the republic can add judges of his choosing to the Supreme Court until he reaches the number which gives him the ability to enact any laws he wishes. I can’t think of many things which represent a greater threat to our collective civil liberties. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail.
Court packing would obviously set a dangerous precedent and send us into banana republic territory where the leader of the republic can add judges of his choosing to the Supreme Court until he reaches the number which gives him the ability to enact any laws he wishes. I can’t think of many things which represent a greater threat to our collective civil liberties. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail.
Admittedly I’m not old enough to have been around for some of the back and forth Supreme Court shenanigans over the years. However, I am old enough to remember Miguel Estrada, a Bush nominee to the DC circuit, being filibustered and not given a vote because he was seen as a likely SC candidate who would be politically hard to oppose because he’s Latino. As far as I’m concerned the senate should block or confirm as they wish and shouldn’t give any other phony explanation about it being in an election year. Dems didn’t want to confirm Estrada. That’s fine. They need no other reason than they didn’t want to allow Bush to put him on the court. And Rs didn’t want to confirm Obama’s nominee. That’s fine. They need no other reason.
Last edited:
Agree. But at the same time, if you know it's a forgone conclusion that a nominee will not pass the vote...why go through the dog and pony show? Oh neat, we waited an extra 2 weeks of wasted time and Garland still wasn't confirmed. Next.
No. If the dems hold the senate and the WH is Republican, if they have the majority to vote no anyway, then theres no reason to even interview the nominee.
Hasn't it always been tit for tat? Theres a major difference b/w hearing 1 nominee and not another and packing the court. One is just stupid politics. The other is a potential path to democratic destruction.
Well, Republicans shouldn't have done what they did if they wanted the Democrats to play fair. Why is it always up to Democrats to be civil and Republicans are allowed to bully however they want? Hold the conservative side as accountable as you want to hold the liberals.
Ultimately, we probably need a constitutional amendment to prevent these Shenanigans.
The shenanigans obviously started with Mr. Reid. That said, the Dems should follow the Pubs lead when they gain control of the Senate block a Pub nominee during the last year of their term. Setting the precedent of a president being able to change the number of justices and appoint them in mass in order to pass whatever laws he wishes to enact is a dangerous act which no one with any foresight should support. Unfortunately, many people won’t be that forward thinking.
I have no issues w a constitutional amendment
How is it possible for anyone to say “why is it always my side that has to be the good guys while your side is allowed to do all the bad things?” I have friends on the right who say this too. How is there anyone left in America that believes this? There are two sides that do whatever they think they can get away with politically. That’s it. Every decision by political leaders on either side is a political calculation, not a moral one. People in general have become less moral and less civil, so our leaders know they will not pay a political price for being assholes.
Last edited:
There is certainly a double standard existent out there. It's evident in the things that Trump's base has overlooked compared to how stringent they were to the Obama admin... and it goes beyond simple politics. Trump has been allowed to get away with more "unpresidential" actions in 4 years than the last 10 presidents combined and people are still voting for him. The same thing happens in the Senate. They turn a blind eye to McConnell and then expect the Democrats to be the ones to 'let cooler heads prevail'.
Yes, Pelosi is always civil...like when she is tearing up her copy of the State of the Union address.
Was that the one that Trump gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a disk jockey that made a living off of calling liberals every derogatory name in the book and spread lies and conspiracy theories to individuals who aren't smart enough to know that he's lying for decades?
Or, was that the one that he was giving while he was being impeached and tried for acts detrimental to the country?
The one where he was found not guilty? Including by Mueller.
...and people wonder why we have problems in this country with divisive politics where partisans can’t get past their own bias to even consider opposing positions. My side is always right and their side is always wrong.
I could argue that Trump acting non presidential and doing unprecedented things is exactly why he was elected the first time around and very very likely will win re-election. People have a disdain for career politicians and those voting for Biden are not voting for his policies but bc he represents the political style many are used to.
When Biden told a group of African Americans that Romney and republicans were going to put them back in chains that was a great moment in civility.
Trump is on another level for sure, but he’s a symptom of cultural rot that is not confined to one political ideology or another.
Trump is on another level for sure, but he’s a symptom of cultural rot that is not confined to one political ideology or another.
To me it’s hard to make the connection of cultural rot. He is the ultimate alpha in the sense that he was attacked from the min he said he was running for President. Instead of taking the criticism, he pushed back and actually bullied the competition into submission. Most people have a fight or flight mentality but it’s clear to everyone that if you fire at him you better buckle up and brace yourself. This same alpha personality is exactly what we love and hate in our sports hero’s. He is the embodiment of American Sports hero in a President. Some love it while others hate it. Either way, it’s prime time entertainment
A) Wasn't the same investigation. Mueller was Russia. Impeachment was Ukraine + Giuliani. (Also, Mueller didn't find him "not guilty")
B) He was only found not guilty in the Ukraine scandal after the same Senate that's screwing around with the Supreme Court Noms decided to have a trial without witnesses, which is unheard of.
Obama and his entire administration was lightyears more civil than this. Heck, the Bush administration was more civil. No president in recent memory walked out of an interview because they didn't like how hard the questions were.
Last edited:
I considered your position. "Expanding Court = Bad". We agree on that fact, but we should also agree that one Party do whatever it wants with no consequences in terms of losing seats and / or losing influence power is also bad.
Moreover, doing so to control an entire co-equal branch of government for decades to come is worse.
If you want to play with words, Mueller did not find him guilty of anything rather than finding him "not guilty." I understand there is a difference.
Both Biden and Trump had a Ukraine scandal. Biden could not be impeached because he is not an office holder.
Both Biden and Trump had a Ukraine scandal. Biden could not be impeached because he is not an office holder.
Every intelligence agency concurred that there was no collusion between Trump and the Ruskies. Everyone in my career field was digging, hoping to be the one to find that one connection that would break the case and put them into the IC Hall of Fame. It was a complete waste of time.
I would argue it’s beyond bad. It’s a technique used by those who wish to suppress or worse punish ones political enemies or the public in general by creating a court structure and appointing your own lackies for the purpose of rubber stamping whatever new laws or orders you propose. I have repeatedly said Garland deserved an up or down vote. I also said when Reid change Senate rules it would come back to haunt the Dems and shouldn’t be done. Don’t recall a single Dem on this board taking my position.
Actually the attributes he has are not what we look for in the sports hero, but even if they were, those are not the attributes one should look for in a politician. People used to realize that. And doing everything different for shock value is not the candidate you want. Doing it different because you have a strong premise or policy that is aided by doing it different and this helps, is one thing. Doing it different just because it is abrasive is another. You need strong and wise reasons behind you to change things for a good cause. The closing of the American Mind(A Bloom) is rearing it's ugly head right now, and there is not much going back from it.
It's exactly what the Senate Republicans are doing. At least when Reid changed the rules, he did so only for Federal Judgeships specifically below the Supreme Court level. I'm not even really angry about the voting rules. What I'm angry about is the disparate positions taken in 2016 and today. I don't mind as much that Kavanaugh was appointed by a simple majority instead of a supermajority in the middle of Trumps term. I thought he was a skeezy nominee, but the R's deserve to make their nomination and to confirm him. I mind that Senate Republicans sold the American people a bill of good in 2016, and they're doing it again in 2020.
How it should have gone: A) Garland gets appointed in 2016. Gorsuch is appointed when Kennedy retires and Trump gets his second nominee confirmed and appointed be it Kavanaugh or this lady. Or. B) Garland Doesn't get appointed. Trump gets Gorsuch and Kavanaugh but not this nominee. It doesn't matter how many votes it takes to confirm them... if you're going to set a precedent with the American publicly, you need to stick with it for more than one presidential term.
Last edited:
Note separate from above quote. I'm hacked about the simple over the super. It allows more moderate choices that both parties can agree on be nominated.
When the election numbers are in and all is said and done, you will come to the realization the way you think is about as obsolete as an 8 Track! As much as you reminisce about the old political way, it’s dead and gone!
Even if that were true, that say nothing about the value of trading one for the other. As a true conservative one should know that. Throwing out yesterdays values for todays is the motto of the progressive. Brings out the worst elements in both parties.
Last edited:
It’s what the Senate Pubs did with Garland not with Barrett. A sitting president should be able to nominate and have his justice voted on. The issue was in 2016. If you recall I said at the time Reid’s move would be applied to Justices and result in more extreme candidates getting seated as well as greatly reduce the two parties necessity for working with each other.
A. I don't find you not guilty of speeding
B. The house could have had more witnesses but shiff would not allow it and said his witnesse's opinions were enough to find him quilty.
