Chuck Schumer's words are PERFECT (regarding waiting to replace RBG's SC Seat)...

[GDViking]

It's kind of ridiculous to wait four years to fill this vacancy when we have a new president.

No we don't we have an incumbent during an ongoing election...

 

[lwf]

i don't agree with it. i don't think they should stoop to leftists levels but schumer said obama should be able to appoint one in his last year so they are not the only hypocrites.

politics is dirty business.

"In the last year" is different than "in the last month."

The bigger problem here is the blatant lack of respect for established precedent. The only way I see this going the GOP's way is if they hold the Senate. But what do you think happens if the Democrats retake all branches of government in less than three months? Do you expect them to respect precedent moving forward? If they can get a partisan advantage by ignoring established precedent, then why shouldn't they? They can now point to Republicans and say: "You did it first."

Do you know what stopped Democrats from packing the Supreme Court during previous administrations? Precedent. The waters of ignoring precedent are dangerous to wade in. If you'd prefer your opponent not to fight dirty, then it's better to simply take the loss than to win with a hit below the belt, because if there is one thing we know about Trump-era Democrats, it's that they may be down, but they are far from out.

 

[OscarLevant]

Exactly right. The Senate said, "Neh! We ain't votin' on him". See how that works?

See, here's the problem. It was NOT the GOP's job to rubberstamp Obummer's pick of a far left whackjob for the SCOTUS. Since the Constitution says 'Advise and Consent" regarding the Senate's role, I believe telling Oblamer to kiss their collective ass, fulfills that role.

Ahh, the old, very tired 'advise and consent' argument justifying McConnell's denying Garland a hearing.

McConnell said that depriving Garland of a hearing and a vote, in the last year of Obama's presidency equaled 'advise and consent' as instructed by the Constitution.

The founding fathers never imagined a Senate, a group of noble and learned men, they thought, would be so low that they would engage in a petty partisan move whereby one party would cling to power so much so as not to allow a sitting president to nominate a judge, and deny him or her, who well deserved, at the minimum, a hearing ( where the actual 'advise and consent' takes place ) and a vote.

They didn't imagine that in the future, the caliber of the Senate would decline so much, that they should have 'defined' more clearly what they meant by 'advise and consent'. Had they the ability to foresee such an erosion of the caliber of the Senate, they most surely would have, in my view

They just assumed they would understand the spirit of the thing, the founding fathers gave the Senate the benefit of the doubt, that to define it would be insulting to their intelligence, that having to define every little damned thing that Trump and republicans can twist words to further their agenda, and bend the constitution until it screams for mercy, had the founding fathers had been clairevoyant enough to foresee the moral decline of this senate, the constitution would have had far more definitions given as to precisely what their intent was. That is a reasonable conclusion.
.
It begs the question; What is the real reason McConnell wouldn't give a hearing and vote? The Senators knew Garland very well. They know he's qualified, and so, with a hearing and a vote, they'd have to look him in the eye and vote against him, and they KNOW that if they gave a hearing, they would not be able to look him in the eye and say 'you're not qualified" when they, and he, know that he is more than qualified and that if they voted no, it would be OBVIOUS they are being highly partisan, especially after a lengthy hearing whereby his answers to probing questions would be more than satisfactory. This would be difficult to do if you had to do it directly to the eyes of someone whom you know, professionally, whom you know, and he knows, damn well you don't have a legitimate reason to vote against. They didn't give him a hearing and a vote because they lack spine and integrity. By not giving a hearing and a vote they prove, incontrovertibly, they are spineless cowards and they have no moral compass whose only objective is naked power for power's sake. And, we now can add 'colossal hypocrites' to that list of adjectives.

 

[jnug]

I used to oppose naked political retribution, now, not so much... It's time for the DNC to take the gloves off... Relegate the current GOP to history if the DNC wins both houses of congress and the presidency... Make fundamental change stick... four new senators and a 13 seat supreme court by eliminating the filibuster... serious election reform right after that and then end the first term of the house with a M4A or public option and make the GOP go into the 2022 midterms weakened...

I actually think the DEM Party is finally ready to throw in the towel on expecting anything but a rank raw exercise in Power from the GOP. The GOP has now gone and despoiled the Senate, the once fabled created deliberative body on the planet. Ah-huh. They are know a bunch of knee-jerk congressman with six year terms. We now have two entirely Gingrich-ized bodies on the Hill. Fine GOP, wait till the worm turns for them. They will be whining like stuck pigs which in fact they are.

I have to admit Schumer has played this well so far. It took him three years to find his voice in this Trump/McConnell takeover but he has finally found it and has played Mitch like a violin twice now in the last year. While some within Schumer's Party likely wanted a stronger first step out into the RBG replacement debate, the fact is McConnell much like Trump now leaps at every piece of raw meat tossed in front of him. He has turned from a great Senate strategist to a political jingoist version of himself. He is now the George Armstrong Custer of politics ready to be sucked in at every turn.

In this case Schumer knew which GOP Senators were possible candidates to vote to delay any Senate confirmation and he knew McConnell knew as well. Schumer tosses out the idea that they "could" flip and join the DEMs and like clockwork, McConnell has them come out and make public statements that they will support a vote on the floor ahead of the election. Smooth Mitch, real smooth. You have been completely sussed out in a mere 72 hours after telling your caucus to "keep their powder dry". Should have taken your own advice Mitch.

The result, GOP massive hypocrisy and ability to lie straight to you face, their preference for raw power play exposed for all to see. Plays well for the GOP base but is absolutely plague like everywhere else and with every other voter in this country and there are not enough Trumpets to matter. Could not win an Election for Dog Catcher on what they have.

So now Schumer has McConnell boxed again. Mitch is going to feel the heat from GOP Senators sinking lower and lower in the polls heading into the election. McConnell will choose his SCJ seat over GOP Senators need to win in November. So, it just gets worse for McConnell and the GOP Senate all the way up and through the election. Schumer does not have to step out into the hailstorm of expanding the SJC post January 20th and he does not force Biden to step out into that hailstorm either. Leave that for the party firebrands to build from the bottom up, not from the top down. By January the country will be screaming to expand the Court and pass legislation that makes the primary issues in this campaign statute through Legislation. Heck they might could get statehood for DC out of this.

 

[Paradoxical]

"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."


Perfect, no?

As McElhaney said, the PRESIDENT gets to nominate someone.

Guess who is president? Hint. It is not Schumer

 

[Moderate Right]

They don't mean, "the next president." They mean, "the president who wins the 2020 election."

They said the next president.

 

[Moderate Right]

No we don't we have an incumbent during an ongoing election...

Trump is the 45th president. The next president is number 46. We might not get the next president for four more years. It's ridiculous to wait another four years for the next president to fill the vacancy.

 

[BlueTex]

As McElhaney said, the PRESIDENT gets to nominate someone.

Guess who is president? Hint. It is not Schumer

And we will expect you to remain silent when they expand the court and Biden nominates the new justices?

 

[Tbird19482]

Man, in 2016 there was going to be a next president that election, no ifs, ands, or buts. With this election we may not have a new president for four more years.

Yes but will will have a " next "President He may be the same one we have now but we will have a next President
Have a nice evening

 

[GDViking]

Please remember that, the tides are about to change
....

Like the power thirsty Democrats acted like the paragon of virtue in their political attempt to remove this president from office.
What goes around, comes around...

Not everyone shares the chronic bellyaching over a duly elected president.

Interesting how you still feel the need to refer to him as "duly elected".
That can only mean that in the heart of your hearts you know he is nothing near duly elected...

 

[bullseyelqcs]

When McConnell said that, there was going to be a next president that election. Obama's second term was ending. There was going to be a next president! With this election there may not be a next president for four more years. We're not waiting four more years to fill a vacancy.

you embarrassed yet?

You should be, since its completely possible that Trump loses the election. They we WOULD have a next president. Technically, Trumps term is ending. He doesn't get another one unless he wins.

Therefore, we should wait to see if he accomplishes that.

This bullshit you are coming up with about having to wait 4 years is just plain stupid.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

I wonder if either party realizes what boobs they look like after having swapped their positions from 2016.

Probably not. I suspect if a politician could ever experience cognitive dissonance, it would probably kill him.

Only one party changed thier position.

The Dems back in 2016 wanted to use the established parameters for this process. Fast forward 4 years, and they are still saying we should use the parameters that the Republicans put in place back in 2016. The whole time they have been saying use the parameters that are currently in place.

Apparently, only the Republicans want to change the rules every 4 years.

 

[GDViking]

N

i don't agree with it. i don't think they should stoop to leftists levels but schumer said obama should be able to appoint one in his last year so they are not the only hypocrites.

politics is dirty business.

Big difference between 9 months before the election and during an ongoing election don't ya see...

 

[bullseyelqcs]

N


Big difference between 9 months before the election and during an ongoing election don't ya see...

9 months is a long time for them to have had to be on record for having voted down a perfectly suitable judge for nothing more than political gain. They knew that it may cost them in the upcoming election, so they did the next best thing and ran and hid.

As they would say in the hood......pretty bitchmade.

 

[jimbo]

Nope. The Senate did not meet its Constitutional obligation. “Advise and Consent” are actions. The Senate had a responsibility to either say yes or not. Doing nothing was not an option.

Obviously it was.

 

[ludin]

N


Big difference between 9 months before the election and during an ongoing election don't ya see...

there is no difference.
not that you care.

schumer has flipped and flopped more on nominations than anyone else i know.

his objections are theatrics nothing more.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

i don't agree with it. i don't think they should stoop to leftists levels but schumer said obama should be able to appoint one in his last year so they are not the only hypocrites.

politics is dirty business.

You can only be a hypocrite if you want to change how things go based on what works best for you.

See, the Republicans did that back in 2016. The Democrats wanted to do things the way they have always done them.

Now, the Republicans want to go back to the way things were before, and the Dems are STILL saying we should use the rules we have in place.

No hypocrisy needed on thier part.

 

[Paradoxical]

And we will expect you to remain silent when they expand the court and Biden nominates the new justices?

Trump has a constitutional duty to fulfill and he is doing just that.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Trump has a constitutional duty to fulfill and he is doing just that.

Obama had one as well.

So did the Senate.

Only one of those two parties fulfilled thier duty. Hint: it wasn't the Senate.

 

[Paradoxical]

Obama had one as well.

So did the Senate.

Only one of those two parties fulfilled thier duty. Hint: it wasn't the Senate.

Obama wasn't running again. He was termed out.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Obama wasn't running again. He was termed out.

If only he wasn't 9 months away from the election.

See, last time I checked, presidents are elected for a full 4 years, not 3.5. So yeah, it was still his Constitutional responsibility.

 

[Yakshi]

nah, they just stonewalled for 9 months because they hated him. that's all it was.

and, now, their own words come back to haunt them (well, not really. they have no integrity).

Being hypocrites was their goal all along.

Goal #2 was Troll the Libz!

The outcome of this strategy is the likelihood of a Democratic Congress, presidency, and, a few months later, an overwhelming liberal majority on the Supreme Court.

Being victims is their self-fulfilling destiny.

 

[Moderate Right]

Yes but will will have a " next "President He may be the same one we have now but we will have a next President
Have a nice evening

No. You are wrong. Trump is president number 45. The next president is number 46. Trump will not be the next president, even if he wins.

 

[Paradoxical]

If only he wasn't 9 months away from the election.

See, last time I checked, presidents are elected for a full 4 years, not 3.5. So yeah, it was still his Constitutional responsibility.

It's all sour grapes.

 

[lurchadams]

"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."


Perfect, no?

Sounds so familiar. Almost like McConnel's decision on the subject in 2016.