Senator Lisa Murkowski to vote "Aye" on confirmation.

[astonmartin708]

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.

That has nothing to do with rushing through or refusing to hear a vote though. The majority vs. supermajority is a separate issue which I don't love, but it's not as much of a problem. What if Trump wins but the Dems take the Senate, and another justice retires? The Dems could just not hold a vote on his nominee for his entire term. That's the problem here, and that's why I think at least one of his confirmations should have been invalid and it was done at the behest of McConnel. It wasn't because of Reid that the Senate didn't vote in 2016, and it wasn't Reid's change that convinced them to flip flop now. That's why you're going to see escalation the next time the Dems control all three branches... because McConnel chose to not hold a vote and then he strategically flipped the opposite way when beneficial. I haven't seen one dem flip flopping on the majority vs. supermajority confirmation change.

 

[astonmartin708]

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.

Investigators don't find anyone guilty or not guilty. It's up to the prosecutor to bring charges based on the facts. Go figure the prosecutor in the Mueller case was appointed by the person accused of the crime. Conflict of interest much?

 

[lawpoke87]

That has nothing to do with rushing through or refusing to hear a vote though. The majority vs. supermajority is a separate issue which I don't love, but it's not as much of a problem. What if Trump wins but the Dems take the Senate, and another justice retires? The Dems could just not hold a vote on his nominee for his entire term. That's the problem here, and that's why I think at least one of his confirmations should have been invalid and it was done at the behest of McConnel. It wasn't because of Reid that the Senate didn't vote in 2016, and it wasn't Reid's change that convinced them to flip flop now. That's why you're going to see escalation the next time the Dems control all three branches... because McConnel chose to not hold a vote and then he strategically flipped the opposite way when beneficial. I haven't seen one dem flip flopping on the majority vs. supermajority confirmation change.

We wouldn’t have Justice Barrett if Reid had left the Senate rules alone. I assume there would have been a decent chance of a Justice Garland as the pubs would have know getting 60 votes to confirm the nominee after the election would have been damn near impossible. Pretty hard for the Dems to flip when they own the current rules. I’m not sure if it’s good or bad but the one thing the rule change has done is it has enabled every federal judicial vacancy to be filled for the first time in 40 years. The obvious problem is those seats are being filled without having to work with the party not in control of the Senate which leads to extreme judges. The supermajority was a well thought out rule which forced the parties into compromises. Reid F’d it up.

 

[URedskin54]

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.

I have seen the up and coming young leadership of the democratic party. They are not better than Trump in terms of civility. When they act the way they act I ask my dem friends the same thing I ask my republican friends: How are you not embarrassed? The truth is that both parties' voters *want* incivility and the excuse is always "the other side is mean and I'm sad so I want to be mean too."

 

[astonmartin708]

I have seen the up and coming young leadership of the democratic party. They are not better than Trump in terms of civility. When they act the way they act I ask my dem friends the same thing I ask my republican friends: How are you not embarrassed? The truth is that both parties' voters *want* incivility and the excuse is always "the other side is mean and I'm sad so I want to be mean too."

Which leadership are you talking about? Cortez? Buttigieg?

 

[aTUfan]

Trump responds in kind.

 

[TUMe]

Good thing I’m a registered independent! 😂

Why would an independent need to register?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Good thing I’m a registered independent! 😂

Good thing your registered as anything that let's me not have any values.

 

[astonmartin708]

We wouldn’t have Justice Barrett if Reid had left the Senate rules alone. I assume there would have been a decent chance of a Justice Garland as the pubs would have know getting 60 votes to confirm the nominee after the election would have been damn near impossible. Pretty hard for the Dems to flip when they own the current rules. I’m not sure if it’s good or bad but the one thing the rule change has done is it has enabled every federal judicial vacancy to be filled for the first time in 40 years. The obvious problem is those seats are being filled without having to work with the party not in control of the Senate which leads to extreme judges. The supermajority was a well thought out rule which forced the parties into compromises. Reid F’d it up.

We wouldn't have a Justice Barrett if McConnell had any honor either. Again... Reid's getting rid of the rule for non-supreme court justices has literally nothing to do with McConnell holding or not holding votes in the last year of a president's term, and it's exactly why the court will expand. It wasn't Reid who decided not to vote on Garland.

 

[lawpoke87]

We wouldn't have a Justice Barrett if McConnell had any honor either. Again... Reid's getting rid of the rule for non-supreme court justices has literally nothing to do with McConnell holding or not holding votes in the last year of a president's term, and it's exactly why the court will expand. It wasn't Reid who decided not to vote on Garland.

Correct. But it was Reid who created the rules which enabled Barrett to join the Supreme Court. If it weren’t for Reid we would either have a Justice Garland or 7 current Justices imo. Knowing you need the help of the opposition party necessitates compromise. Reid wanted his way without the need to compromise and that’s the path he chose. If I could predict the ramifications of his nuclear option then why couldn’t he or any of the other Dems? A President adding Justices so he can get his laws passed is third world stuff and risks the freedom of us all.

 

[URedskin54]

This court packing play is the dumbest thing in politics since the last really dumb thing. It should be very simple for Dems. Win the senate and block Trump's next nomination if he wins, and if he loses replace vacancies as they come open. If you're a party that consistently competes to win the senate, you're not crying that McConnell beat you in one hand of poker. Court packing is an indication of a lack of confidence.

 

[astonmartin708]

Correct. But it was Reid who created the rules which enabled Barrett to join the Supreme Court. If it weren’t for Reid we would either have a Justice Garland or 7 current Justices imo. Knowing you need the help of the opposition party necessitates compromise. Reid wanted his way without the need to compromise and that’s the path he chose. If I could predict the ramifications of his nuclear option then why couldn’t he or any of the other Dems? A President adding Justices so he can get his laws passed is third world stuff and risks the freedom of us all.

That's your opinion. There was no guarantee that McConnell wouldn't have done the same thing in 2016 just so Republicans could replace the justice with one of their choosing. Sure, the candidate might have been a bit more moderate. Reid's rules didn't do anything to enable Barrett because his rule didn't apply to the Supreme Court Noms.

Effectively, you're saying that McConnell is alright to do what he did because Reid implemented committed a more minor offense so McConnell's actions were justified. They weren't. McConnell could have gone back to a supermajority rule if he wanted to. He could have held a vote on Garland. He could have followed his own precedent from 2016 and not voted on Barrett. He had every opportunity to de-escalate the situation. Instead he escalated it multiple times, and for that same reason the court will expand.

The court expanding isn't just to protect laws. It's also to secure protections for women's rights that have been in existence for 50 years. It's to secure protections for Gays, for immigrants, etc... It's to combat constructionist interpretations of the constitution which are detrimental to a technologically progressing society.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

We wouldn't have a Justice Barrett if McConnell had any honor either. Again... Reid's getting rid of the rule for non-supreme court justices has literally nothing to do with McConnell holding or not holding votes in the last year of a president's term, and it's exactly why the court will expand. It wasn't Reid who decided not to vote on Garland.

I don't like the situation at all, and this would be a justifiable action, if the action would not have future consequences on the state of our union. At some point, somebody has got to act as an adult, instead of doing tit because the other party did tat. Yes the Democrats would be losing dramatic power in the immediate to medium term. But no matter who began to act as an adult in this unfair semblance of actions, that party would in almost all situations, lose out in the immediate future.

 

[astonmartin708]

This court packing play is the dumbest thing in politics since the last really dumb thing. It should be very simple for Dems. Win the senate and block Trump's next nomination if he wins, and if he loses replace vacancies as they come open. If you're a party that consistently competes to win the senate, you're not crying that McConnell beat you in one hand of poker. Court packing is an indication of a lack of confidence.

Nope. You have to show that you're not going to be F*c*ed with.

 

[astonmartin708]

I don't like the situation at all, and this would be a justifiable action, if the action would not have future consequences on the state of our union. At some point, somebody has got to act as an adult, instead of doing tit because the other party did tat. Yes the Democrats would be losing dramatic power in the immediate to medium term. But no matter who began to act as an adult in this unfair semblance of actions, that party would in almost all situations lose out in the immediate future.

The problem is, this isn't just about politics. It actually will have an effect on people's lives. Putting judges in the highest office, for life, who have views that are detrimental to large swaths of the population in terms of personal freedoms goes beyond politics. I don't love the nuclear option for circuit court justices... but at least with the circuit court judges being basically political appointees, you still had some semblance of a fair and balanced court to appeal to when the SC was more fairly split. It gave people wanting a federal appeal a pretty fair shake. Now it's unbalanced. That's why I would support the court going to a number that puts the balance of conservatives and liberals (or whatever the judicial equivalent is) closer to 50-50. I'm not advocating putting 50 liberal judges on the court to drown out the conservatives.

I recognize that this would be a precarious position for the country, but packing the court to one side via scheming and deceit is also a precarious position for the country. McConnell already effectively packed the court from the Republican side with his antics by allowing his party an opportunity to make at least one pick they never should have been able to. I just want the scales of justice to be more balanced and not let a guy like Trump or McConnell put their finger on the scales.

 

[lawpoke87]

That's your opinion. There was no guarantee that McConnell wouldn't have done the same thing in 2016 just so Republicans could replace the justice with one of their choosing. Sure, the candidate might have been a bit more moderate. Reid's rules didn't do anything to enable Barrett because his rule didn't apply to the Supreme Court Noms.

Effectively, you're saying that McConnell is alright to do what he did because Reid implemented committed a more minor offense so McConnell's actions were justified. They weren't. McConnell could have gone back to a supermajority rule if he wanted to. He could have held a vote on Garland. He could have followed his own precedent from 2016 and not voted on Barrett. He had every opportunity to de-escalate the situation. Instead he escalated it multiple times, and for that same reason the court will expand.

The court expanding isn't just to protect laws. It's also to secure protections for women's rights that have been in existence for 50 years. It's to secure protections for Gays, for immigrants, etc... It's to combat constructionist interpretations of the constitution which are detrimental to a technologically progressing society.

My opinion based on decades of precedent. We can play “what if” all day but it’s never a good argument especially up against years and years of history. Precedent which Reid saw fit to break. Again...there’s is no way Trump’s appointees get seated if the Pubs had refused a vote on Garland. If I know that the leaders of the Senate on both sides certainly do. Hell...I imagine the Dems would have told the Pubs straight out those would be the consequences.

I can’t believe you’re trying to justify a President adding justices to the highest court in the land so he can pass the agenda of his choosing. We’ve seen this before in other countries. Never has turned out well. Partisanship is a powerful thing and unfortunately results in really poor decisions.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The problem is, this isn't just about politics. It actually will have an effect on people's lives. Putting judges in the highest office, for life, who have views that are detrimental to large swaths of the population in terms of personal freedoms goes beyond politics. I don't love the nuclear option for circuit court justices... but at least with the circuit court judges being basically political appointees, you still had some semblance of a fair and balanced court to appeal to when the SC was more fairly split. It gave people wanting a federal appeal a pretty fair shake. Now it's unbalanced. That's why I would support the court going to a number that puts the balance of conservatives and liberals (or whatever the judicial equivalent is) closer to 50-50. I'm not advocating putting 50 liberal judges on the court to drown out the conservatives.

I recognize that this would be a precarious position for the country, but packing the court to one side via scheming and deceit is also a precarious position for the country. McConnell already effectively packed the court from the Republican side with his antics by allowing his party an opportunity to make at least one pick they never should have been able to. I just want the scales of justice to be more balanced and not let a guy like Trump or McConnell put their finger on the scales.

Our making a move that is banana republicish, will infringe on rights in the future too. Especially if the republicans decide to add more justices when they take back power. Everybody loses in this situation. Somebody has to say no to the next rataliatory move.

 

[TU_BLA]

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.

Well it's just more of the same hypocrisy we've come to expect from the ethically devoid GOP. Anyone who doesn't see the attempt at a consolidation of power a la Hitler and the Nazis doesn't read enough about history. It's literally the same game plan. Race, ethnicity, create fear.

The other part of the hypocrisy is a lot closer in that every GOP panned the impeachment process as nothing but a partisan attack. Well kettle, you are calling the pot black. This was nothing more than a partisan. And in January when Biden announces his court balancing plan, the GOP will once again attack it as a purely partisan move. **** the entire GOP. In a week when Dems will have control of the House, Senate, and Executive branches they should ran through enough measures as they can and then lock up all the GOP leaders complicit in and aiding the Trump treason train.

 

[URedskin54]

Get a grip guys. You win some, you lose some.

 

[shon46]

Trump responds in kind.

Nope. You have to show that you're not going to be F*c*ed with.

im all about standing up for your party and not being bullied around. Clearly both sides are guilty but is court packing really in the best interest of the people? Our country is already teetering on the verge of a civil war. Forget pride, court packing would just be more fuel to the already burning fire!

 

[URedskin54]

Nope. You have to show that you're not going to be F*c*ed with.

I mean....what I just said would be dems doing exactly what republicans did so I’m not really sure what this is supposed to mean. And no matter how hard you try it’s impossible to make those student council geeks in congress seem like tough guys, so “show them you won’t be effed with” doesn’t really work here. Most of them are wimps who became lawyers who became congressmen.

 

[lawpoke87]

Added FOUR Justices to the Supreme Court is a “court balancing plan”? OMG. That move has zero to do with balancing and everything to do with control. I can’t believe there are intelligent people who are supporting such a radical move which will have far reaching implications into how this country is governed over the next 50 years. All this before we even know where Barrett will fall among the current justices. See Roberts for example. The most moderate justice currently on the court. The proposal is to take a current court who is likely split 5-3 in favor of conservatives to 7-5 but that is somehow balanced. Nonsense justification. Anything over 2 has zero to do with balance.

A leader increasing the size of the highest court in the land by almost 50%with his hand picked appointments is third world stuff yet there are those who apparently support it. If this were being done in another country we would be outraged.

 

[tbryce]

The one where he was found not guilty? Including by Mueller.

Fact Check says otherwise...

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” But, the report said, “ecause we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.”

Factoring into the decision to not weigh in on prosecution, according to the report (and as we’ve written before), was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel that found that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

 

[astonmartin708]

Added FOUR Justices to the Supreme Court is a “court balancing plan”? OMG. That move has zero to do with balancing and everything to do with control. I can’t believe there are intelligent people who are supporting such a radical move which will have far reaching implications into how this country is governed over the next 50 years. All this before we even know where Barrett will fall among the current justices. See Roberts for example. The most moderate justice currently on the court. The proposal is to take a current court who is likely split 5-3 in favor of conservatives to 7-5 but that is somehow balanced. Nonsense justification. Anything over 2 has zero to do with balance.

A leader increasing the size of the highest court in the land by almost 50%with his hand picked appointments is third world stuff yet there are those who apparently support it. If this were being done in another country we would be outraged.

Who said 4 justices? I advocate 1.... maybe 2 but 2 would be pretty punitive. In a completely fair world, Trump would have had 2. Obama would have had the one at the end of his term.

The only reason I could see 2 is because it would maintain the voting dynamics regarding having a tie breaking number of votes.

 

[astonmartin708]

Our making a move that is banana republicish, will infringe on rights in the future too. Especially if the republicans decide to add more justices when they take back power. Everybody loses in this situation. Somebody has to say no to the next rataliatory move.

I agree... which is why this really needs to be sorted out with a constitutional amendment that prevents it from happening over and over. To me, justice would be the Dems adding 1-2 justices... then an amendment being passed addressing confirmation of judges in the Senate and setting a limit on the number of judges. It would bring us back to pre-2016 balance in the court and we could add back in the supermajority rule (although I don't like the constant fillebustering of lower level court judges by either party)

 

[shon46]

Fact Check says otherwise...

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” But, the report said, “ecause we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.”

Factoring into the decision to not weigh in on prosecution, according to the report (and as we’ve written before), was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel that found that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

The word “Capable” is Dem speak for thought crime. We think he meant this, we think this means that.........assumptions without facts equal opinion! Unlike Sleepy Joe and his Son of a B$&@“$) admission of a real crime that the Dems accused Trump of!

 

[TUMe]

Fact Check says otherwise...

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” But, the report said, “ecause we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.”

Factoring into the decision to not weigh in on prosecution, according to the report (and as we’ve written before), was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel that found that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

In a follow up post I changed "Found not guilty" to "Not found guilty." That better describes Mueller's report.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Kavanaugh trying to set up the precedent in the media, after Barrett's appointment.

 

[astonmartin708]

Kavanaugh trying to set up the precedent, after Barrett's appointment.

Coincidently, Kavanaugh Roberts and Barrett were all on Bush's legal team in 2000, and they were arguing that the votes arriving late and without postmarks SHOULD be counted.

 

[lawpoke87]

Who said 4 justices? I advocate 1.... maybe 2 but 2 would be pretty punitive. In a completely fair world, Trump would have had 2. Obama would have had the one at the end of his term.

The only reason I could see 2 is because it would maintain the voting dynamics regarding having a tie breaking number of votes.

My more “enlightened” friends are calling for 4.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Coincidently, Kavanaugh Roberts and Barrett were all on Bush's legal team in 2000, and they were arguing that the votes arriving late and without postmarks SHOULD be counted.

Kavanaugh trying to set up the precedent in the media, after Barrett's appointment.

I added 'in the media' to precedent, to clarify he is not trying to set up the 'court' precedent.

 

[astonmartin708]

I added 'in the media' to precedent, to clarify he is not trying to set up the 'court' precedent.

I just think his opinion is pretty terrible in terms of facts and logic. Kavanaugh seems like the kind of person that rode friendships to where he is rather than getting there on merit.

 

[lawpoke87]

Coincidently, Kavanaugh Roberts and Barrett were all on Bush's legal team in 2000, and they were arguing that the votes arriving late and without postmarks SHOULD be counted.

To be fair that argument was limited to active duty military personnel who were stationed overseas. The reasoning were the issues with international mail as well as international postmarks. Apples to oranges when we’re talking about US mail.

 

[astonmartin708]

To be fair that argument was limited to active duty military personnel who were stationed overseas. The reasoning were the issues with international mail as well as international postmarks. Apples to oranges when we’re talking about US mail.

I mean... kind of... except when you factor in the Shenannigans Trump's appointed postmaster general tried to pull.

 

[URedskin54]

The mail truthers were funny for the two days they lasted

 

[astonmartin708]

My more “enlightened” friends are calling for 4.

Four is ludicrous and pushed the scales too far the other way. 1 is fair... 2 is logical but a bit unfair. In any case, I would lobby that something be done to cap the number available on the court after any potential re-balancing.

Best case scenario if two needed to be added for tie-breakers is that one of the additions is a left-leaner and then the other would be a moderate (could actually be Garland himself). It would maintain the slight right-leaning advantage that the conservatives rightfully won in 2016. Of course this all assumes Trump loses and the Dems grab the Senate... both of which are looking like 50-50 shots right now.

 

[tbryce]

Partisanship is a powerful thing and unfortunately results in really poor decisions.

Good point. What is the difference between the precedent busting and partisanship of the last four years and concerns about the next four years?

 

[TUMe]

Let's get back to basics. The Constitution Thingy says that when there is a vacancy that they president shall choose a replacement and the Senate shall vote on it. It missed the part about tradition, about what happened in 2016, about waiting until after the next election. Yes, McConnel messed with tradition in the Garland case. That was probably infuriating to many. It was a violation of Senate rules, but they don't override the Constitution. The Senate voted on Barrett, which also didn't break any law or any statement in the Constitution. Some here want to hobble the Constitution rather than violate tradition. When the Senate rules and traditions violate the simple language of the Constitution then the president nominates and the Committee in the final case obeys the Constitution. Schumer represents the minority and McConnel represent the majority which wanted to proceed. Schumer and some on here want to ignore the Constitution.

As was said above, sometimes you lose. If you don't have the Constitution, and you don't have the votes, you are likely to lose. As Schumer threatened, there may come a time for paybacks. But that is not this time. It may come January 20th or four years later.

 

[tbryce]

In a follow up post I changed "Found not guilty" to "Not found guilty." That better describes Mueller's report.

Don't juries determine guilt? Mueller ran an investigation where recommending indictment of a sitting President was not allowed.

 

[aTUfan]

Fact Check says otherwise...

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” But, the report said, “ecause we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.”

Factoring into the decision to not weigh in on prosecution, according to the report (and as we’ve written before), was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel that found that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Investigators? Same ones who wrote emails that they hated Trump, and help hatch a plan to get rid of him.