Then the next time the Republicans take over they add 10 seats... Then the Democrats take over and add 20 seats... Then the Republicans take over and add 40 seats...
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed
- Thread starter SqueakyClean
- Start date
I thought that was kinda implied in the "bad path to go down" part. But yup.
In 2016 I didn't follow politics as much as I do today. I was only 23 at that time. In hind site, yes, they probably should have filled the seat. I think even if they had filled the seat then, Dems would do everything they possibly could to keep Trump from nominating someone now. Look what they attempted to do with Kavanaugh.
What rule would be violated by reviewing and approving a SCOTUS nominee this year?
There's a world of difference between rhetoric and action. Regardless of who said what when, it was never ever put into action until Mitch decided to do that, and then used that stupid "election year" justification. It was crass and childish and stupid then, it is now still. The sitting president should have nominated, and the senate should have held the hearing, then and now. Just as you understand that creating a precedent and then flip-flopping just because you can 4 years later, means everyone is now allowed to act to the max of their legality.
Adding states, arguing for proportional representation as allowed by the constitution and packing the supreme court are all very legal. There's no reason why dems shouldn't go that route if the repubs push this through.
What are the rules?
The POTUS must nominate a SC candidate.
The Senate reviews and votes on the nominee.
So currently the Republicans have a majority in the Senate and hold the Presidency.
They control this procedure.
The election results of the 2016 and 2018 elections have consequences.
The voters have spoken. The elected officials have an obligation to their voters.
HRC LOST, the Republican's hold the Senate. Get over it.
yes that's the madness that starts when we go away from norms, set arbitrary self-serving precedents, reverse those same precedents on self-serving grounds. Why should your opponent play a game with with you when you arbitrarily switch the rules whenever it suits you.
Absolutely none. I have already stated that they should fill the seat.
My problem is McConnel didn't follow the rules four years ago. He himself broke the rule and then gave a justification for it. If he had followed that same justification this time, I would have been fine with it.
The logic may be unprecedented, but the act sure was! The logic for just about any action is not new. Acts, not logic, are what judge precedents by. Rhetoric informs actions, but at the end of the day, rhetoric is just rhetoric. And action is action.You really need to educate yourself. It was no unprecedented. The logic behind not holding the hearing was actually produced by JOE BIDEN back in 1992 when HW was president.
Opinion | Why the ‘Biden Rule’ Doesn’t Apply in 2020
Voters in 2016 and 2018 showed a clear preference for Trump nominees’ originalist philosophy.www.wsj.com
Then you should have no problem with Democrats increasing the number of justices to 13 when the Senate is flipped. Agreed?
Why wait until the Senate is flipped.
Do it now!
Put 4 conservative Judges on the board.
The Republicans have the majority in the Senate and still have the POTUS.
Agreed?
So you don't think Joe Biden (your current Presidential candidate) would have acted on his words had the situation occurred? What about how Biden was all for forcing through Garland in 2016? What about Biden now being against election year nominees once again? How has Joe Biden not flip flopped on his position from 4 years ago?
Dems can go the route of adding states, changing political representation, and packing the supreme court, but then Republicans will just do the same when they retake control. There's also a chance such action would lead to escalated action if the Dems tried to rig the election to where Republicans can no longer win. It wouldn't be in the best interest of Dems to try such a move.
Your presidential candidate is the one who came up with the idea of not allowing nominations for SC during an election year when differing parties control the Senate and WH. It was a dumbass idea by a dumbass congressmen. Both parties will do anything possible to keep control. We are heading down a path of escalation.
RBG's wish is irrelevant. Supreme Court justices don't dictate the process of how they are replaced.
By your logic, yes.
For the record though, they can't. You need both the House and the Senate to do it.
It's all about the escalation.
Republicans have a chance to step back and keep things from getting crazy. So far, indications are that they are not.
The action would have taken place in 1992 if a seat had opened up and HW had nominated someone. Look at what the Dems did with Kavanaugh. They would stop at nothing to try to keep power. Same with Republicans.
Hey, wait a minute! That's not true!
I've seen Judge Dredd. The retiring judge's final wish is taken into consideration!
How do you know? It's all well and good to theorize it, but again, only one side has actually acted upon that (bad) idea.
Where is Jon Rhys Davies and the Sliders device when you need it?
(Not sure if you are old enough to appreciate that one Pete).
I'm not old enough to remember appreciate that one.
We don't know for sure that Dems would have acted on The Biden Rule. We do know Biden's views on the matter changed from 1992-2016-2020. Regardless if they approve the appointee or not , the Republicans will hold control over the SC for at least a decade. The oldest Republican is 72 while the oldest Democrat is 82.
would have taken place - pure hypothetical. In 2016, we actually all witnessed it take place. And for me until the R's actually follow through on the reversal in 2020, the reversal is all just rhetoric. Personally, I am fine with them doing that.
Please tell me what was unprecedented about Kavanaugh's nomination and confirmation. Old SC died, President nominated, a hearing was held, some past allegations against him came out, vote was held, he got enough votes. He was confirmed. Was the hearing contentious yes? Was anything about the process unprecedented? No.
2016 was a new low. But if you are going to create a new precedent, you can at least follow yours.
It is hypothetical, but it's more likely than not they would have tried something similar. Whether that's refuse to hear the nominee, or just reject the nominee to save time, who knows.
The left went on a smear campaign based on false allegations against Kavanaugh. The only reason he was confirmed is because Republicans controlled the Senate. Exactly 1 Democrat voted to confirm him even though the allegations were false. It's exactly what both political parties have become. They latch onto and spread narratives even though they are false.
If you get a chance to check it out sometime, the first two to three seasons are decent. Fantastic concept if a little formulaic.
Do you know if it takes a super majority in either/both houses to make the SC additions?
Also does it take a super majority to allow DC, Puerto Rico etc. to have Senators/State Status?
Just curious..
Last edited:
Honestly don't know off the top of my head. I know the current number of 9 was set based upon an Act back in the mid 1800's. I am fairly certain that it is something that both the House and Senate have to approve and then signed by the President. Not sure if it is something that is veto-proof if both the House and Senate have a 75% approval.
If someone doesn't know now, I will look it up later.
Where did I say they do? Where did I say RBG's wishes should affect the process?
Trump essentially said she wasn't telling the truth and blamed it on the Dems.
Why didn't he just say what you said and be done with it? Because anything that doesn't go the way he thinks it should is blamed on the Dems.
I looked it up. It only requires a simple majority and a presidential signature.
To be fair, anything that doesn't go the Dems way is blamed on Trump as well. There is a huge divide in our country.
Thanks,
I looked the State admission requirements up and I believe it just takes a simple majority of the House and Senate and a presidential signature.
Puerto Rico did vote to be admitted to the US by a 97% majority.
Acceptance by the District is also a requirement.
I would have thought something as drastic as changing the # of Supreme Court Judges would take more than a simple majority vote. Same for State Hood.
Fortunately a large portion of Americans don't agree with you that the president calling the granddaughter of a respected, recently deceased SCJ a liar and making the alleged statement a political issue.
It's like giving Brees extra time at the end of the game after he lost the game with more passing yards in a game than his opponent. If that doesn't work, add another goal line play with 2 additional offensive players making it 13 vs 11 and if that doesn't work..................
Last poll I saw it was about 50/50. It certainly won’t hurt Trump with the Catholics to put a Catholic on The court.
Similar threads
