bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

quash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

blackie said:

---

Both parties have engaged in whatever they could do to thwart the other once partisanship took over. Neither has the moral high ground on this. They both need to also be careful to change things (filibuster rule, number of Supreme Court justices, etc) as history has shown that situations get reversed and you then end up on the short end of the stick and it bites you in the a**..

End of the two party system would seem to help, but doubt it will ever come, certainly in my lifetime. We need more options. The Reps and Dems have both lost it.

---

I love you blackie. You sound like my 19 year old son. I just try to tell him, we gotta keep the Republic in place and hold our nose and vote for Trump to survive the next four years. Both decks gets reshuffled in 2024. We need a third party to step up. The bat**** crazy Libertarian Party is not the answer.

---

You'll say the same thing in 2024 and be just as wrong.

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

blackie said:

---

Both parties have engaged in whatever they could do to thwart the other once partisanship took over. Neither has the moral high ground on this. They both need to also be careful to change things (filibuster rule, number of Supreme Court justices, etc) as history has shown that situations get reversed and you then end up on the short end of the stick and it bites you in the a**..

End of the two party system would seem to help, but doubt it will ever come, certainly in my lifetime. We need more options. The Reps and Dems have both lost it.

---

I love you blackie. You sound like my 19 year old son. I just try to tell him, we gotta keep the Republic in place and hold our nose and vote for Trump to survive the next four years. Both decks gets reshuffled in 2024. We need a third party to step up. The bat**** crazy Libertarian Party is not the answer.

---

You'll say the same thing in 2024 and be just as wrong.

---

You don't think we'll have two new candidates in 2024 to pick from including another obscure, invisible Libertarian candidate? I do.

---

J.R. said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

RIP

---

It's nice of you to wish, but highly unlikely, given her advocacy for murdering babies.

---

idiot

---

No need to sign your posts. We know.

---

You do realize that you have marginalized yourself to the laughing stock on this board? You are like Trump...incoherent, rambling, dumbed down. At least rifle act has a take. You just aren't that smart. Enjoy.

---

HashTag said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

RIP

---

It's nice of you to wish, but highly unlikely, given her advocacy for murdering babies.

---

idiot

---

No need to sign your posts. We know.

---

You do realize that you have marginalized yourself to the laughing stock on this board? You are like Trump...incoherent, rambling, dumbed down. At least rifle act has a take. You just aren't that smart. Enjoy.

---

I'm disappointed. I thought I was the non-smart one.

I feel cheated on.

---

J.R. said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

RIP

---

It's nice of you to wish, but highly unlikely, given her advocacy for murdering babies.

---

idiot

---

No need to sign your posts. We know.

---

You do realize that you have marginalized yourself to the laughing stock on this board? You are like Trump...incoherent, rambling, dumbed down. At least rifle act has a take. You just aren't that smart. Enjoy.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Democrats burned their bridges, now they want to whine about it.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

Bearitto said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

RIP

---

It's nice of you to wish, but highly unlikely, given her advocacy for murdering babies.

---

idiot

---

No need to sign your posts. We know.

---

You do realize that you have marginalized yourself to the laughing stock on this board? You are like Trump...incoherent, rambling, dumbed down. At least rifle act has a take. You just aren't that smart. Enjoy.

---

Do you think the opinions of ret arded animals interest me?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

This is a long thread, so I understand if you haven't read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure I already addressed this and agree with you on both the ethics and prudence of changing senate rules for partisan purposes.

But perpetuating this tit for tat because "they started it" all but ensures that it will never end, and we'll be stuck with the ****ty brand of partisan politics that has put us in our current situation.

I don't care who's more responsible for the current toxic state of our congressional politics. I despise both parties. I just want it to end. And as long as the electorate is content to allow their team to bend or break the rules because (or before) the other team does it, that will never happen.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

This is a long thread, so I understand if you haven't read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure I already addressed this and agree with you on both the ethics and prudence of changing senate rules for partisan purposes.

But perpetuating this tit for tat because "they started it" all but ensures that it will never end, and we'll be stuck with the ****ty brand of partisan politics that has put us in our current situation.

I don't care who's more responsible for the current toxic state of our congressional politics. I despise both parties. I just want it to end. And as long as the electorate is content to allow their team to bend or break the rules because (or before) the other team does it, that will never happen.

---

So, since both parties suck and hate the tit for tat.... I'm guessing, should pelosi and her gang decide to try and impeach Trump to stall the confirmation... you would equally be against that fuming at the democrats too?

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

This is a long thread, so I understand if you haven't read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure I already addressed this and agree with you on both the ethics and prudence of changing senate rules for partisan purposes.

But perpetuating this tit for tat because "they started it" all but ensures that it will never end, and we'll be stuck with the ****ty brand of partisan politics that has put us in our current situation.

I don't care who's more responsible for the current toxic state of our congressional politics. I despise both parties. I just want it to end. And as long as the electorate is content to allow their team to bend or break the rules because (or before) the other team does it, that will never happen.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

This is a long thread, so I understand if you haven't read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure I already addressed this and agree with you on both the ethics and prudence of changing senate rules for partisan purposes.

But perpetuating this tit for tat because "they started it" all but ensures that it will never end, and we'll be stuck with the ****ty brand of partisan politics that has put us in our current situation.

I don't care who's more responsible for the current toxic state of our congressional politics. I despise both parties. I just want it to end. And as long as the electorate is content to allow their team to bend or break the rules because (or before) the other team does it, that will never happen.

---

So, since both parties suck and hate the tit for tat.... I'm guessing, should pelosi and her gang decide to try and impeach Trump to stall the confirmation... you would equally be against that fuming at the democrats too?

---

I think Pelosi, like McConnell, is terrible for this country and have said so many, many times. And I thought the impeachment was a bad political decision based on a flimsy case with no productive outcome for the Democrats or the country. Unfortunately they didn't ask me before they proceeded with it.

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

This is a long thread, so I understand if you haven't read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure I already addressed this and agree with you on both the ethics and prudence of changing senate rules for partisan purposes.

But perpetuating this tit for tat because "they started it" all but ensures that it will never end, and we'll be stuck with the ****ty brand of partisan politics that has put us in our current situation.

I don't care who's more responsible for the current toxic state of our congressional politics. I despise both parties. I just want it to end. And as long as the electorate is content to allow their team to bend or break the rules because (or before) the other team does it, that will never happen.

---

So, since both parties suck and hate the tit for tat.... I'm guessing, should pelosi and her gang decide to try and impeach Trump to stall the confirmation... you would equally be against that fuming at the democrats too?

---

I think Pelosi, like McConnell, is terrible for this country and have said so many, many times. And I thought the impeachment was a bad political decision based on a flimsy case with no productive outcome for the Democrats or the country. Unfortunately they didn't ask me before they proceeded with it.

---

cool story, but you stil didn't answer my question.

---

Green My Eyes said:

---

As long as one party is willing to go farther in its means of accomplishing its objectives than the other party is willing to go, then you have a "ratchet wrench" form of political progression. The first party changes the rules by ungentlemanly means, and the other party cannot reverse it without being equally ungentlemanly. Thus the first party slowly and surely turns the bolt.

When the second party finally takes off the gloves, the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the first party becomes a banshee's cry of deafening proportions.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

This is a long thread, so I understand if you haven't read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure I already addressed this and agree with you on both the ethics and prudence of changing senate rules for partisan purposes.

But perpetuating this tit for tat because "they started it" all but ensures that it will never end, and we'll be stuck with the ****ty brand of partisan politics that has put us in our current situation.

I don't care who's more responsible for the current toxic state of our congressional politics. I despise both parties. I just want it to end. And as long as the electorate is content to allow their team to bend or break the rules because (or before) the other team does it, that will never happen.

---

So, since both parties suck and hate the tit for tat.... I'm guessing, should pelosi and her gang decide to try and impeach Trump to stall the confirmation... you would equally be against that fuming at the democrats too?

---

I think Pelosi, like McConnell, is terrible for this country and have said so many, many times. And I thought the impeachment was a bad political decision based on a flimsy case with no productive outcome for the Democrats or the country. Unfortunately they didn't ask me before they proceeded with it.

---

cool story, but you stil didn't answer my question.

---

You didn't ask a question. You stuck a question mark on the end of an opinion.

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

This is a long thread, so I understand if you haven't read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure I already addressed this and agree with you on both the ethics and prudence of changing senate rules for partisan purposes.

But perpetuating this tit for tat because "they started it" all but ensures that it will never end, and we'll be stuck with the ****ty brand of partisan politics that has put us in our current situation.

I don't care who's more responsible for the current toxic state of our congressional politics. I despise both parties. I just want it to end. And as long as the electorate is content to allow their team to bend or break the rules because (or before) the other team does it, that will never happen.

---

So, since both parties suck and hate the tit for tat.... I'm guessing, should pelosi and her gang decide to try and impeach Trump to stall the confirmation... you would equally be against that fuming at the democrats too?

---

I think Pelosi, like McConnell, is terrible for this country and have said so many, many times. And I thought the impeachment was a bad political decision based on a flimsy case with no productive outcome for the Democrats or the country. Unfortunately they didn't ask me before they proceeded with it.

---

cool story, but you stil didn't answer my question.

---

You didn't ask a question. You stuck a question mark on the end of an opinion.

---

It's a question.... but hey if you don't want to answer it, I can't say that I'm surprised

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

This is a long thread, so I understand if you haven't read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure I already addressed this and agree with you on both the ethics and prudence of changing senate rules for partisan purposes.

But perpetuating this tit for tat because "they started it" all but ensures that it will never end, and we'll be stuck with the ****ty brand of partisan politics that has put us in our current situation.

I don't care who's more responsible for the current toxic state of our congressional politics. I despise both parties. I just want it to end. And as long as the electorate is content to allow their team to bend or break the rules because (or before) the other team does it, that will never happen.

---

So, since both parties suck and hate the tit for tat.... I'm guessing, should pelosi and her gang decide to try and impeach Trump to stall the confirmation... you would equally be against that fuming at the democrats too?

---

I think Pelosi, like McConnell, is terrible for this country and have said so many, many times. And I thought the impeachment was a bad political decision based on a flimsy case with no productive outcome for the Democrats or the country. Unfortunately they didn't ask me before they proceeded with it.

---

cool story, but you stil didn't answer my question.

---

You didn't ask a question. You stuck a question mark on the end of an opinion.

---

It's a question.... but hey if you don't want to answer it, I can't say that I'm surprised

---

What am I meant to answer? Would a second impeachment attempt be bad for America? Yes. The first was bad for America.

I don't think the Democrats are stupid enough to try that stunt again. But they've surprised me many times since 2016.

---

HashTag said:

---

If Pelosi tried to impeach Trump (again) in order to stall a Supreme Court Justice nomination and confirmation, would you be angry and calling out the democrats on this board for their BS, at least as much as you are the Republicans?

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

This is a long thread, so I understand if you haven't read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure I already addressed this and agree with you on both the ethics and prudence of changing senate rules for partisan purposes.

But perpetuating this tit for tat because "they started it" all but ensures that it will never end, and we'll be stuck with the ****ty brand of partisan politics that has put us in our current situation.

I don't care who's more responsible for the current toxic state of our congressional politics. I despise both parties. I just want it to end. And as long as the electorate is content to allow their team to bend or break the rules because (or before) the other team does it, that will never happen.

---

So, since both parties suck and hate the tit for tat.... I'm guessing, should pelosi and her gang decide to try and impeach Trump to stall the confirmation... you would equally be against that fuming at the democrats too?

---

I think Pelosi, like McConnell, is terrible for this country and have said so many, many times. And I thought the impeachment was a bad political decision based on a flimsy case with no productive outcome for the Democrats or the country. Unfortunately they didn't ask me before they proceeded with it.

---

cool story, but you stil didn't answer my question.

---

You didn't ask a question. You stuck a question mark on the end of an opinion.

---

It's a question.... but hey if you don't want to answer it, I can't say that I'm surprised

---

What am I meant to answer? Would a second impeachment attempt be bad for America? Yes. The first was bad for America.

I don't think the Democrats are stupid enough to try that stunt again. But they've surprised me many times since 2016.

---

Geesh, are you really this dense?

I'll spell it out for you....

If Pelosi tried to impeach Trump (again) in order to stall a Supreme Court Justice nomination and confirmation, would you be angry and calling out the democrats on this board for their BS, at least as much as you are the Republicans?

---

riflebear said:

---

Rioters & the media trying to pull the heart strings that RBG wanted the pick to wait. Well she knows better than anyone what she says is flat out wrong in this case, but they've also uncovered her saying what every other liberal did back in 2016. Everyone is a hypocrite in DC but the media is trying to paint it as one sided as usual by committing Obama Biden RBG Hillary Schumer's etc comments where they have also flip flopped.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

---

On the contrary, of the thirty-five Supreme Court nominations that have failed, only twelve received a vote on the floor. Two of John Tyler's nominations were tabled for almost a year.

There is one course of action that would be truly unprecedented, and it happens to be the very one that Democrats are insisting on. Never in our history has a president simply refused to fill a seat when his party controlled the Senate.

---

Like so many other things that both parties have tried to normalize in recent decades, this is not typical senate behavior. To paint it as business as usual just isn't accurate.

---

bear
I'm not trying to convince you to support Trump or his nominee to SCOTUS. I am trying to convince you that the rules of the US Senate do not equal the Constitution. There is a difference.

The Senate rules exist to facilitate the execution of the Constitutional duties assigned to the Senate.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules concerning the confirmation of federal judges. I didn't like it then and I suspect you didn't like them as McConnell used them to confirm Kavanaugh or kill Obama's nomination of Garland. "Advise and Consent" isn't defined in the Constitution. Advise and Consent is defined as the Senate wishes it and no court can overrule it because of the Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

The powers of the Senate majority leader were radically changed when LBJ became the Leader. The powers of the Leader are not enumerated in the Constitution, but rather in the rules of the Senate. Same thing applies to the filibuster. It isn't in the Constitution.

I didn't like the way G.W. Bush's judicial nominees were treated by the Democrat minority. They used the filibuster rules to kill good nominees, but senators used the Senate rules to accomplish that. They were not guaranteed an up or down vote.

Schumer is talking about changing Senate rules to do away with filibusters. I don't like that.

He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.

---

This is a long thread, so I understand if you haven't read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure I already addressed this and agree with you on both the ethics and prudence of changing senate rules for partisan purposes.

But perpetuating this tit for tat because "they started it" all but ensures that it will never end, and we'll be stuck with the ****ty brand of partisan politics that has put us in our current situation.

I don't care who's more responsible for the current toxic state of our congressional politics. I despise both parties. I just want it to end. And as long as the electorate is content to allow their team to bend or break the rules because (or before) the other team does it, that will never happen.

---

I'd be a lot more impressed if you spoke up like this and defended qualified nominees like Bork. Far as I am concerned the Democrats' conduct during the Kavanaugh hearings and the impeachment trial told me they are to be opposed and defeated at every turn.

It's about the bridges burned, and too damn bad if you want to rethink that move now.

---