bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

First, I was 2 years old when Bork was rejected. Second, I don't have a problem with someone who opposed the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discriminatory legislation being rejected -- particularly given that he was the only nominee to be so in a span of 16 supreme court confirmation hearings dating from 1970 to 2010.

Reagan's other nominees were confirmed by votes of 99-0, 65-33, 98-0, 97-0. Bork clearly had red flags that O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy didn't.

---

Pretty weak sauce. Just proves to me your integrity is malleable according to your politics.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

First, I was 2 years old when Bork was rejected. Second, I don't have a problem with someone who opposed the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discriminatory legislation being rejected -- particularly given that he was the only nominee to be so in a span of 16 supreme court confirmation hearings dating from 1970 to 2010.

Reagan's other nominees were confirmed by votes of 99-0, 65-33, 98-0, 97-0. Bork clearly had red flags that O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy didn't.

---

Pretty weak sauce. Just proves to me your integrity is malleable according to your politics.

---

Bork couldn't even carry the Republican senate in his confirmation vote. In fact, he didn't come close. If you think he was so mistreated, take it up with those folks.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

First, I was 2 years old when Bork was rejected. Second, I don't have a problem with someone who opposed the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discriminatory legislation being rejected -- particularly given that he was the only nominee to be so in a span of 16 supreme court confirmation hearings dating from 1970 to 2010.

Reagan's other nominees were confirmed by votes of 99-0, 65-33, 98-0, 97-0. Bork clearly had red flags that O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy didn't.

---

Pretty weak sauce. Just proves to me your integrity is malleable according to your politics.

---

Bork couldn't even carry the Republican senate in his confirmation vote. If you think he was so mistreated, take it up with those folks.

---

More excuses. Even the media of the time created the verb "borked" to refer to someone railroaded by powerful enemies.

If you think you are fooling anyone who knows history, you are only fooling yourself, son.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

First, I was 2 years old when Bork was rejected. Second, I don't have a problem with someone who opposed the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discriminatory legislation being rejected -- particularly given that he was the only nominee to be so in a span of 16 supreme court confirmation hearings dating from 1970 to 2010.

Reagan's other nominees were confirmed by votes of 99-0, 65-33, 98-0, 97-0. Bork clearly had red flags that O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy didn't.

---

Pretty weak sauce. Just proves to me your integrity is malleable according to your politics.

---

Bork couldn't even carry the Republican senate in his confirmation vote. If you think he was so mistreated, take it up with those folks.

---

More excuses. Even the media of the time created the verb "borked" to refer to someone railroaded by powerful enemies.

If you think you are fooling anyone who knows history, you are only fooling yourself, son.

---

Again, 10 Republicans voted against Bork. To act as though there weren't legitimate concerns there is to rewrite history.

As I stated before, he shouldn't have had his character assassinated the way he did. But he held some fairly radical positions, even for that time period.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

First, I was 2 years old when Bork was rejected. Second, I don't have a problem with someone who opposed the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discriminatory legislation being rejected -- particularly given that he was the only nominee to be so in a span of 16 supreme court confirmation hearings dating from 1970 to 2010.

Reagan's other nominees were confirmed by votes of 99-0, 65-33, 98-0, 97-0. Bork clearly had red flags that O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy didn't.

---

Pretty weak sauce. Just proves to me your integrity is malleable according to your politics.

---

Bork couldn't even carry the Republican senate in his confirmation vote. If you think he was so mistreated, take it up with those folks.

---

More excuses. Even the media of the time created the verb "borked" to refer to someone railroaded by powerful enemies.

If you think you are fooling anyone who knows history, you are only fooling yourself, son.

---

Again, 10 Republicans voted against Bork. To act as though there weren't legitimate concerns there is to rewrite history.

As I stated before, he shouldn't have had his character assassinated the way he did. But he held some fairly radical positions, even for that time period.

---

I hope you convinced yourself, because you're not changing any minds, especially of those who remember what happened.

Carlos Safety said:

---

If Robert Bork was morally disqualified for a seat on the Court, then Joe Biden's committee would not have needed to slander the man.

---

Again, I think the character assassination stuff was over the top. But I don't think it was morals that cost him a seat on the court -- particularly with the 10 Republicans who voted against his confirmation.

I think it was a constitutional interpretation that was outside of the mainstream even for that time ... and on a number of different topics.

The justices before (Scalia) and after him (Kennedy) were confirmed unanimously. Bork got 42 votes in a senate with 52 Republicans. Why would he have been singled out in a time when most justices were confirmed with overwhelming support?

Oldbear83 said:

---

The character assassination succeeded in pressuring 10 Republicans to turn coward. That slimy trick by Democrats has been used ever since, because they know they can bully the weak into going against qualified nominees.

---

There is no call to slander ten good men who recognized a judge with outlier stances as an inappropriate nominee. Those of us who remember will also recall that the vote was not about Judge Bork's morals, Democratic attacks notwithstanding.

As b2b has patiently and correctly noted other Republican nominees were approved, some overwhelmingly and with Democratic votes.

And I'm sure you agreed with Hillary at the time.

Instead of these folks:

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas):
"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.):
"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election."

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):
"I don't think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president's term - I would say that if it was a Republican president."

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.):
"The very balance of our nation's highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people."

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa):
"A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn't be denied a voice."

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.):
"The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president."

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.):
"In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president."

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.):
"The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president."

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.):
"I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision."

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio):
"I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn't be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it's been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year."

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.):
"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate."

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Mitch McConnell, March 2016

Carlos Safety said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

If Robert Bork was morally disqualified for a seat on the Court, then Joe Biden's committee would not have needed to slander the man.

---

Again, I think the character assassination stuff was over the top. But I don't think it was morals that cost him a seat on the court -- particularly with the 10 Republicans who voted against his confirmation.

I think it was a constitutional interpretation that was outside of the mainstream even for that time ... and on a number of different topics.

The justices before (Scalia) and after him (Kennedy) were confirmed unanimously. Bork got 42 votes in a senate with 52 Republicans. Why would he have been singled out in a time when most justices were confirmed with overwhelming support?

---

If the problem was his constitutional originality, then why did Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden need to slander him?

Answer: To politicize the court and engage in power politics. This is exactly why the Republicans should ram the nominee down Schumers throat. And yours too.

---

All of the character attacks stemmed from Bork's judicial record -- either judgments he made or opinions/critiques of other judges' rulings as a law professor. And while some of the personal characterizations were unfair, particularly those brought forth by Kennedy, there were plenty of legitimate judicial red flags underneath the hyperbolic nonsense.

Go back and watch the Bork hearings and look at just how many times he had to clarify past positions ... and how poor a job he did of that in most cases. And look at the volume of issues on which he had a questionable past -- civil rights, women's rights, right to privacy, freedom of speech, etc. Add in the Saturday Night Massacre baggage, and Bork was a really bad nominee, and he was treated as such by both parties during the confirmation hearing and vote.

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.

---

Your statistic is misleading as 12 of the 37 failed nominations were withdrawn by the nominating president. Excluding rejections (12), withdrawals (12), delays (3) and instances where the nominee declined the position (7), there have only been 10 unconfirmed nominations in this country's history where no action was taken by the senate. And excluding Garland, to find a case where such a judge was not re-nominated and confirmed within three months, you'd have to go all the way back to 1866.

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. In fact, for most of our history, this hasn't even been a terribly partisan process. Most judges regardless of nominating party have been confirmed with overwhelming support. Only recently did this become hyper-politicized, and McConnell has played as large a role in that as anyone.

---

Most of the "actions" pertaining to failed nominees are either motions to table or failed motions to consider. So while they are technically actions, they don't involve an up-or-down vote. This has happened pretty regularly throughout the Court's history.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Mitch McConnell, March 2016."

We were all there. We saw and heard him.

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

And I'm sure you agreed with Hillary at the time.

Instead of these folks:

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas):
"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.):
"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election."

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):
"I don't think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president's term - I would say that if it was a Republican president."

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.):
"The very balance of our nation's highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people."

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa):
"A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn't be denied a voice."

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.):
"The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president."

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.):
"In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president."

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.):
"The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president."

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.):
"I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision."

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio):
"I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn't be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it's been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year."

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.):
"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate."

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Mitch McConnell, March 2016

---

And you know the Dems have completely switched their view too, all of them. Both parties are guilty but no one is doing anything illegal.

---

quash said:

---

And I'm sure you agreed with Hillary at the time.

Instead of these folks:

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas):
"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.):
"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election."

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):
"I don't think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president's term - I would say that if it was a Republican president."

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.):
"The very balance of our nation's highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people."

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa):
"A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn't be denied a voice."

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.):
"The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president."

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.):
"In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president."

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.):
"The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president."

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.):
"I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision."

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio):
"I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn't be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it's been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year."

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.):
"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate."

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Mitch McConnell, March 2016

---

What were the Democrats saying in 2016? Could you provide some quotes from them as well?

Edit: I see the post above has some of these quotes, so were those quotes right or wrong?

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

And I'm sure you agreed with Hillary at the time.

Instead of these folks:

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas):
"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.):
"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election."

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):
"I don't think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president's term - I would say that if it was a Republican president."

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.):
"The very balance of our nation's highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people."

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa):
"A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn't be denied a voice."

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.):
"The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president."

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.):
"In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president."

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.):
"The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president."

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.):
"I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision."

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio):
"I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn't be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it's been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year."

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.):
"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate."

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Mitch McConnell, March 2016

---

And you know the Dems have completely switched their view too, all of them. Both parties are guilty but no one is doing anything illegal.

---

What standards have the Dems changed?

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

And I'm sure you agreed with Hillary at the time.

Instead of these folks:

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas):
"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.):
"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election."

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):
"I don't think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president's term - I would say that if it was a Republican president."

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.):
"The very balance of our nation's highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people."

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa):
"A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn't be denied a voice."

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.):
"The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president."

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.):
"In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president."

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.):
"The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president."

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.):
"I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision."

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio):
"I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn't be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it's been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year."

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.):
"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate."

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Mitch McConnell, March 2016

---

And you know the Dems have completely switched their view too, all of them. Both parties are guilty but no one is doing anything illegal.

---

What standards have the Dems changed?

---

The circuit court threshold, which was the precursor to McConnell changing the supreme court threshold in 2017.

bear2be2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

And I'm sure you agreed with Hillary at the time.

Instead of these folks:

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas):
"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.):
"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election."

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):
"I don't think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president's term - I would say that if it was a Republican president."

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.):
"The very balance of our nation's highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people."

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa):
"A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn't be denied a voice."

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.):
"The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president."

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.):
"In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president."

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.):
"The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president."

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.):
"I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision."

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio):
"I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn't be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it's been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year."

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.):
"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate."

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Mitch McConnell, March 2016

---

And you know the Dems have completely switched their view too, all of them. Both parties are guilty but no one is doing anything illegal.

---

What standards have the Dems changed?

---

The circuit court threshold, which was the precursor to McConnell changing the supreme court threshold in 2017.

---

Here's why the filibuster was changed. Republicans never play by the rules:

The turning point in the decades-long debate over Senate filibuster rules was Republicans' decision to block all three of Obama's latest nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the nation's second-most-powerful court with vast jurisdiction over federal agencies and regulations.

The court currently has four judges appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats, with three vacancies. But six "senior" judges, five of them Republican nominees, tilt the court to the right. Republicans claim no more judges are needed, basing their opposition on workload, not the qualifications of Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert W

cinque said:

---

What standards have the Dems changed?

---

None. They are still miserable @$$holes!

Thee University said:

---

cinque said:

---

What standards have the Dems changed?

---

None. They are still miserable @$$holes!

---

You drinking early today?

1. The President has always had the authority to nominate a SCOTUS Justice at any time during his/her tenure. In fact, if Trump lost the election, he would still have complete authority to nominate someone for the high court all the way to the inauguration of his successor. Twenty-nine times in US history, a President has nominated a SCOTUS Justice during an election year. It's completely legit, no matter how much someone screams about it;

2. There is no Constitutional requirement to grant a nominee hearings, anymore than a Senate is required to confirm the President's nominee. History is chock full of actions and decisions by the party controlling the Senate that the other side does not like. None of that makes it less legit. Throwing a fit before the nomination only makes you look like a 3 year old in need of a nap and a diaper change;

3. Naming a nominee is smart for Trump. Before someone is named, the argument is about a hypothetical pick. Once a person is named, the opposition must deal with their actual qualities and experience, which is often a more difficult task than arguing theory alone. If Trump names a woman as he says he will, especially if that woman happens to be a minority, the Democrats have to understand they will hurt themselves a lot of they try their now traditional lynching tactics, a la the Bork, Thomas, or Kavanaugh hearings;

4. Stating the obvious, emotional arguments won't change opinions on your own side or on the other end of the political chamber, but Democrats are making a big mistake to threaten violence and court-packing if they can't bully the President. It's not a good look to look hysterical right before an election.

Oldbear83 said:

---

1. The President has always had the authority to nominate a SCOTUS Justice at any time during his/her tenure. In fact, if Trump lost the election, he would still have complete authority to nominate someone for the high court all the way to the inauguration of his successor. Twenty-nine times in US history, a President has nominated a SCOTUS Justice during an election year. It's completely legit, no matter how much someone screams about it;

2. There is no Constitutional requirement to grant a nominee hearings, anymore than a Senate is required to confirm the President's nominee. History is chock full of actions and decisions by the party controlling the Senate that the other side does not like. None of that makes it less legit. Throwing a fit before the nomination only makes you look like a 3 year old in need of a nap and a diaper change;

3. Naming a nominee is smart for Trump. Before someone is named, the argument is about a hypothetical pick. Once a person is named, the opposition must deal with their actual qualities and experience, which is often a more difficult task than arguing theory alone. If Trump names a woman as he says he will, especially if that woman happens to be a minority, the Democrats have to understand they will hurt themselves a lot of they try their now traditional lynching tactics, a la the Bork, Thomas, or Kavanaugh hearings;

4. Stating the obvious, emotional arguments won't change opinions on your own side or on the other end of the political chamber, but Democrats are making a big mistake to threaten violence and court-packing if they can't bully the President. It's not a good look to look hysterical right before an election.

---

I agree. Let Mitch and Trump do all of the pontificating. Dems should respond at the appropriate time.

cinque said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

1. The President has always had the authority to nominate a SCOTUS Justice at any time during his/her tenure. In fact, if Trump lost the election, he would still have complete authority to nominate someone for the high court all the way to the inauguration of his successor. Twenty-nine times in US history, a President has nominated a SCOTUS Justice during an election year. It's completely legit, no matter how much someone screams about it;

2. There is no Constitutional requirement to grant a nominee hearings, anymore than a Senate is required to confirm the President's nominee. History is chock full of actions and decisions by the party controlling the Senate that the other side does not like. None of that makes it less legit. Throwing a fit before the nomination only makes you look like a 3 year old in need of a nap and a diaper change;

3. Naming a nominee is smart for Trump. Before someone is named, the argument is about a hypothetical pick. Once a person is named, the opposition must deal with their actual qualities and experience, which is often a more difficult task than arguing theory alone. If Trump names a woman as he says he will, especially if that woman happens to be a minority, the Democrats have to understand they will hurt themselves a lot of they try their now traditional lynching tactics, a la the Bork, Thomas, or Kavanaugh hearings;

4. Stating the obvious, emotional arguments won't change opinions on your own side or on the other end of the political chamber, but Democrats are making a big mistake to threaten violence and court-packing if they can't bully the President. It's not a good look to look hysterical right before an election.

---

I agree. Let Mitch and Trump do all of the pontificating. Dems should respond at the appropriate time.

---

If by "respond", you mean more tantrums and whining, you have already shown your hand.

Easy to look up... number of times in an election year this has come up. Number of times it was filled when there were same party senate and president is like 7 of 9 times. Number of times when it was filled with opposing party president and senate is 2 out of 10!

Yall all worked up over nothing, happened alot before 2016 and 2020

cinque said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

1. The President has always had the authority to nominate a SCOTUS Justice at any time during his/her tenure. In fact, if Trump lost the election, he would still have complete authority to nominate someone for the high court all the way to the inauguration of his successor. Twenty-nine times in US history, a President has nominated a SCOTUS Justice during an election year. It's completely legit, no matter how much someone screams about it;

2. There is no Constitutional requirement to grant a nominee hearings, anymore than a Senate is required to confirm the President's nominee. History is chock full of actions and decisions by the party controlling the Senate that the other side does not like. None of that makes it less legit. Throwing a fit before the nomination only makes you look like a 3 year old in need of a nap and a diaper change;

3. Naming a nominee is smart for Trump. Before someone is named, the argument is about a hypothetical pick. Once a person is named, the opposition must deal with their actual qualities and experience, which is often a more difficult task than arguing theory alone. If Trump names a woman as he says he will, especially if that woman happens to be a minority, the Democrats have to understand they will hurt themselves a lot of they try their now traditional lynching tactics, a la the Bork, Thomas, or Kavanaugh hearings;

4. Stating the obvious, emotional arguments won't change opinions on your own side or on the other end of the political chamber, but Democrats are making a big mistake to threaten violence and court-packing if they can't bully the President. It's not a good look to look hysterical right before an election.

---

I agree. Let Mitch and Trump do all of the pontificating. Dems should respond at the appropriate time.

---

Democrat responses are so predictable.


https://tenor.com/view/fromjess-lmaoa-tantrums-gif-12954222

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

And I'm sure you agreed with Hillary at the time.

Instead of these folks:

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas):
"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.):
"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election."

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):
"I don't think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president's term - I would say that if it was a Republican president."

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.):
"The very balance of our nation's highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people."

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa):
"A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn't be denied a voice."

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.):
"The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president."

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.):
"In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president."

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.):
"The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president."

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.):
"I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision."

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio):
"I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn't be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it's been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year."

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.):
"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate."

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Mitch McConnell, March 2016

---

And you know the Dems have completely switched their view too, all of them. Both parties are guilty but no one is doing anything illegal.

---

What standards have the Dems changed?

---

Cinque makes a good point. The Democrats have not had standards since JFK was President!