Breaking News Dems to SCOTUS - "Heal" or be "Restructred."

Scottty said:
A question here - can the Senate consider a candidate, and officially turn him or her down?
Click to expand...
The standard procedure is to bring the candidate's nomination before the Senate for a vote, at which point it is either approved, or denied. McConnell said that he would not hold hearings or bring any nomination for a Supreme Court justice for a vote, regardless of who they were. It's reaching to call it unconstitutional, or illegal, as some did, but it has never been done before in over a century.

And why? What Big Steve said, plus the open seat probably helped in the elections.
 
Scottty said:
So why didn't they just do that?
Click to expand...

Because Garland was qualified and had been confirmed shortly before to the DC Circuit with something like 90+ votes. The only objection to him was that he would be replacing Scalia (pretty much the face of the Originalist/Textualist legal movement) without someone much closer to Kagan in political valence.

If the Republicans in the Senate approved him then their base would have crucified them come election day as it would be seen as giving up the Supreme Court when they had a chance to keep it. If he came up for a vote though, the only reason to vote know was Garlands politics (which really aren't outside the mainstream).

So McConnell just doesn't hold a vote, and then if Hillary wins he rams through Garland in a day or two to keep Hillary from withdrawing him and replacing him with a more "liberal" pick. This gives the Republican base all the incentive that they need to get out and vote for anyone that the Republicans nominated for President.
 
Yeah, come to think of it, this boils down to: "No Dems, you don't get to murder Scalia and then put someone liberal in his place."
Because Scalia was murdered, or so a lot of people believe.
 
Emperor Tippy said:
Attempting to threaten the Supreme Court in official legal filings? I'm pretty sure that Republican Senators haven't ever stooped to that particular low before.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not legal filings and not Senators, but there has certainly been legislation proposed and rhetorical lambasting of SCOTUS decisions. The 'We the People' Act as an easy hit that basically proposed the wholesale neutering of SCOTUS oversight on religious or marriage matters. Then there has been years of grumblings within the Republican party's membership and representatives over Roe v. Wade, and a pretty common angle of the Court (or lower ones--which remains to this day) getting decried for how much it 'legislated from the bench' and was usurping power from the other branches.

Democrats may have escalated on SCOTUS, but there was a preexisting anti-court sentiment in the Republican party that escalation did build from. And, honestly, it does seem to have followed who saw their side as having a more secure position in the courts. Now that a more conservative SCOTUS (and lower courts) are on the upswing, hostility to the third branch is declining in the right and rising on the left.

Which, to note, I'm still skeptical of--especially this recent take that apparently really wants to pull a mulligan on FDRs court-packing scheme--one of the most bankrupt and obvious attempted abuses of power in American history.
Do have to admit I'm a bit miffed over how leaving things to the states or lower authorities seems to be an A-OK answer in some cases to some members of the court while not allowing it in others, though. There doesn't seem to be much consistency across the spectrum in that respect with SCOTUS members.
 
It's always been a kangaroo court, the dems are just responding to the republicans going nuclear by pulling the same shit FDR did.
 
Scottty said:
Yeah, come to think of it, this boils down to: "No Dems, you don't get to murder Scalia and then put someone liberal in his place."
Because Scalia was murdered, or so a lot of people believe.
Click to expand...

I've never once encountered anyone who believed that Scalia was murdered, and it makes no sense to claim he was. When he died, everyone was certain Hillary was going to win, and given the age of the court she'd likely have the chance to replace one or two of the right leaning justices, there was no need to replace one right this minute. If such people do exist, they're an incredibly small minority.


Now, I have encountered people who think that Ginsburg is dead and has been for a while, but the dems have orchestrated an elaborate coverup to conceal that fact. But I think most of them are just joking so they can make "weekend at Ginsburg's" jokes.
 
Last edited:
Battlegrinder said:
I've never once encountered anyone who believed that Scalia was murdered, and it makes no sense to claim he was. When he died, everyone was certain Hillary was going to win, and given the age of the court she'd likely have the chance to replace one or two of the right leaning justices, there was no need to replace one right this minute. If such people do exist, they're an incredibly small minority.
Click to expand...

Nice to meet you. :)
The murder might not have been political - but there were some strange things apparently, about how quickly the man's death was declared natural, without the normal investigations. But that's going a bit off-topic for this thread.

Battlegrinder said:
Now, I have encountered people who think that Ginsburg is dead and has been for a while, but the dems have orchestrated an elaborate coverup to conceal that fact. But I think most of them are just joking so they can make "weekend at Ginsburg's" jokes.
Click to expand...

How many people would need to be "in on" something like that?
I've seen that one too actually - someone on Vox Day's blog asked something along the lines of "what if Ginsburg is already gone, and the other eight Supreme Court judges are helping to conceal this?"
Vox Day's tongue-in-cheek answer: "Then Trump gets to make nine new Supreme Court appointments."
 
Scottty said:
But that's going a bit off-topic for this thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe have a new thread for that, or PM me or something.

Scottty said:
How many people would need to be "in on" something like that?
Click to expand...

Depends. The...uh..."sane" theories claim she's replaced by a body double, you could proably keep that quiet and fairly small. The fun ones, including the literal weekend at Bernie's Ginsberg marionette idea, that would need basically everyone ever to be in on it.
 
HistoryMinor said:
It's always been a kangaroo court, the dems are just responding to the republicans going nuclear by pulling the same shit FDR did.
Click to expand...
I'm interested to hear how the Republicans have 'gone nuclear' about the Supreme Court.

Strangely enough, Republicans tend to just go ahead and vote for Democrats' nominees, not try to ruin their lives like the Democrats have done to multiple Originalist Justices (Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Brett Kavanaugh).
Ioseb Jughashvili said:
Dems wanting to end scotus opposition politically is in part due to that shady stuff Mcconel did near the end of Obama's tenure.
Click to expand...
Please define how what The Turtle did was 'shady.'
 
Speaker4thesilent said:
Please define how what The Turtle did was 'shady.'
Click to expand...

Shady as in hypocritical and going against the political norm. Not wanting your opponents to get in a Supreme court justice? All well and good. Suggesting a justice to nominate and then refusing to allow them to be a justice when said opponents go, "yeah okay we can work with that" Obstructionism and rules lawyering to a fucking T, especially now that we have Kavanaugh of all people in the position now. Who has rape accusations against him, oh joy.

Mcconel essentially threw the concept of bipartisanship down the toilet, so it would be safe to say that if he's not playing by the prior rules, the Dem's might decide to go full roosevelt as a "fuck you" in return.
 
Ioseb Jughashvili said:
Shady as in hypocritical and going against the political norm. Not wanting your opponents to get in a Supreme court justice? All well and good. Suggesting a justice to nominate and then refusing to allow them to be a justice when said opponents go, "yeah okay we can work with that" Obstructionism and rules lawyering to a fucking T, especially now that we have Kavanaugh of all people in the position now. Who has rape accusations against him, oh joy.

Mcconel essentially threw the concept of bipartisanship down the toilet, so it would be safe to say that if he's not playing by the prior rules, the Dem's might decide to go full roosevelt as a "fuck you" in return.
Click to expand...
Rape accusations that appear to have been made up whole cloth, and were certainly never substantiated. Much less proven to be true.

As for throwing the concept of bipartisanship down the toilet and fucking around with SCOTUS picks; the Dem's started that fight back with Bork and continued it with Thomas.

Granted, the really stupid part was the Dem's filibustering Gorsuch. It is highly unlikely that the votes would have existed to toss the filibuster when it came to the Kavanaugh nomination but thanks to (pointless) Democrat antics during the Gorsuch nomination it was already gone by the time Kavanaugh was nominated.
 
Ioseb Jughashvili said:
Shady as in hypocritical and going against the political norm. Not wanting your opponents to get in a Supreme court justice? All well and good. Suggesting a justice to nominate and then refusing to allow them to be a justice when said opponents go, "yeah okay we can work with that" Obstructionism and rules lawyering to a fucking T, especially now that we have Kavanaugh of all people in the position now. Who has rape accusations against him, oh joy.

Mcconel essentially threw the concept of bipartisanship down the toilet, so it would be safe to say that if he's not playing by the prior rules, the Dem's might decide to go full roosevelt as a "fuck you" in return.
Click to expand...
It's strange how often 'bipartisanship' and 'compromise' mean 'let the Democrats have it their own way.'

Turnabout is fair play. Joe Biden proposed the Biden Rule. Do you think that he wouldn't have pushed to use it against a Republican? For that matter, where does it say that making a suggestion means that the suggestion is final if the other side agrees?

He heard back from his constituents, and they were Not Happy with the suggestion, so he pulled it. If being wishy-washy is some sort of horrible offense, then both parties are equally guilty here, not just the Republicans.

Then we get to Kavanaugh. So an utterly unsubstantiated accusation of rape where the accuser can't buy a single supporting witness (and, yes, I meant buy), can't remember when the supposed crime was committed, and can't remember where it was committed at means that someone is automatically guilty? Wow! Amazing! I didn't realize we were suddenly operating under an even stricter version of the Napoleonic Code!

In that case, how about I accuse you of a crime, and you have to prove you're innocent. Oh, but I can't remember where or when the crime occurred, but I'm suuuuuuuuuuuure it was you. I'll even talk in a little girl voice to make myself seem more vulnerable! Oh, but let me scrub my social media presence first before I do, so that hopefully people won't remember that I'm an activist with an axe to grind. What the Democrats tried to do to Kavanaugh was an abomination, and it isn't their first offense, either.

If you want to talk about 'shady,' lets talk shady practices. This shit was pulled against Bork and Thomas as well. Anita Hill might as well be the original for CBF. She also had no credibility and made a rape accusation. Democrats try this crap all the time.

This has gotten rant-y, which I apologize for. I'll stop here so as not to totally derail the thread.

Edit: And ninja'd too.
 
Speaker4thesilent said:
It's strange how often 'bipartisanship' and 'compromise' mean 'let the Democrats have it their own way.'

Turnabout is fair play. Joe Biden proposed the Biden Rule. Do you think that he wouldn't have pushed to use it against a Republican? For that matter, where does it say that making a suggestion means that the suggestion is final if the other side agrees?

He heard back from his constituents, and they were Not Happy with the suggestion, so he pulled it. If being wishy-washy is some sort of horrible offense, then both parties are equally guilty here, not just the Republicans.

Then we get to Kavanaugh. So an utterly unsubstantiated accusation of rape where the accuser can't buy a single supporting witness (and, yes, I meant buy), can't remember when the supposed crime was committed, and can't remember where it was committed at means that someone is automatically guilty? Wow! Amazing! I didn't realize we were suddenly operating under an even stricter version of the Napoleonic Code!

In that case, how about I accuse you of a crime, and you have to prove you're innocent. Oh, but I can't remember where or when the crime occurred, but I'm suuuuuuuuuuuure it was you. I'll even talk in a little girl voice to make myself seem more vulnerable! Oh, but let me scrub my social media presence first before I do, so that hopefully people won't remember that I'm an activist with an axe to grind. What the Democrats tried to do to Kavanaugh was an abomination, and it isn't their first offense, either.

If you want to talk about 'shady,' lets talk shady practices. This shit was pulled against Bork and Thomas as well. Anita Hill might as well be the original for CBF. She also had no credibility and made a rape accusation. Democrats try this crap all the time.

This has gotten rant-y, which I apologize for. I'll stop here so as not to totally derail the thread.

Edit: And ninja'd too.
Click to expand...

....

Yeah I ain't touching this with a ten foot pole.
 
Speaker4thesilent said:
I'm interested to hear how the Republicans have 'gone nuclear' about the Supreme Court.

Strangely enough, Republicans tend to just go ahead and vote for Democrats' nominees, not try to ruin their lives like the Democrats have done to multiple Originalist Justices (Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Brett Kavanaugh).

Please define how what The Turtle did was 'shady.'
Click to expand...

Reducing the amount of votes needed to a simple majority and using the vp to do it, pushing through a literal frat bro, etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top