• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Many GOP Votes Will Judge Jackson Get?

How many GOP Senators vote to confirm KBJ?

  • Total voters
    71
  • Poll closed .
She'll get all the squishy Republicans: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney .. the likes.
 
Perotista said:
Probably the same amount of votes the Democrats gave Kavanaugh and Barrett. With the nuclear option in place, how many votes the nominees received from the minority party is irrelevant. Be that Kavanaugh, Barrett or Jackson. It means these hearings are also irrelevant. In today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship, Democrats will vote against any Republican nominee and Republicans against any Democratic nominee. That’s life and a political reality in today’s modern political era.

Hence, these hearings are nothing more than a political show, political theater. They mean nothing outside of giving the minority party a chance to heap their scorn on the nominee. Probably makes their base feel better since there’s no chance of the nominee not being confirmed. The fact is these hearings accomplish nothing outside of giving folks like us a chance to spout our opinions on DP. With the nuclear option, these confirmations are a done deal. Guaranteed results.
Click to expand...
I agree with the camera aspect, they, (cameras,) should be banned from these hearings, they would be shorter and more fruitful, imo.
 
Rexedgar said:
Susan Collins thinks Ginni Thomas has learned her lesson.
Click to expand...
Not sure what that has to do with the confirmation of KBJ ... regardless, she'll (Susan Collins) vote positively for this nominee. If I say "she," will KBJ understand that?
 
phoenix2020 said:
I suspect 1 or 2. Since she was nominated during a (D) administration, I expect the vast majority of (R) to have decided to vote against her before hearing, because how else is one expected to practice zero-sum political warfare?
Click to expand...

See post #9 and let us know how that zero sum political welfare isn't working on the left either.
 
jotathought said:
Not sure what that has to do with the confirmation of KBJ ... regardless, she'll (Susan Collins) vote positively for this nominee. If I say "she," will KBJ understand that?
Click to expand...

Collins voted against Barrett.

If she votes to confirm this one, I'd be really curious to know how and why she think one is better than the other.
 
Lovebug said:
Why is justice a partisan issue? Get a grip.
Click to expand...

Because the SCOTUS can (and does) decide which partisan legislation is allowed to stand.

A perfect example was PPACA. By the time that 100% demorat legislation got to the SCOTUS, it would have been impossible for the congress to create and pass a modified version of it (because the Senate lacked the required 60 votes). Thus the SCOTUS modified it (‘severing’ some clearly unconstitutional parts) rather than make congress amend the law.

How it was was constitutional to force individuals to buy (or otherwise have) insurance, but not constitutional to force the states to expand Medicaid was pure legislating from the bench. No other provision in the federal income tax (FIT) code imposes a penalty (additional tax) based on how one’s income was not later spent (or for what goods they did not buy or services they did not elect to use). Using that (new?) federal taxation power, the congress could impose a FIT penalty for anyone who did not buy an EV, IC powered vehicle getting above X/mpg or ride public transit.
 
jpevans said:
Cheney, kinzinger, Collins & maybe Romney.
Much optimism!
Click to expand...
Cheney will not have a vote. She is in the house of reps, not the Senate. RINO's Collins and Romney will probably vote for her.
 
Probably 0. And that is quite sad.

We really should go back to the old way of doing it where the president gets to pick whoever he wants, more or less. And to the extent that the Senate vets the nominee, it's just to make sure they are qualified and don't have any scandals.

But I have no idea how we get back to that point.
 
Crovax said:
Manchin, are yall still counting him?

And 2 red state senators up for re-election
Click to expand...
Point being that Republicans keeping comparing the process to that of Kavanaugh and Barrett, and completely forget about Gorsuch.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Because the SCOTUS can (and does) decide which partisan legislation is allowed to stand.

A perfect example was PPACA. By the time that 100% demorat legislation got to the SCOTUS, it would have been impossible for the congress to create and pass a modified version of it (because the Senate lacked the required 60 votes). Thus the SCOTUS modified it (‘severing’ some clearly unconstitutional parts) rather than make congress amend the law.

How it was was constitutional to force individuals to buy (or otherwise have) insurance, but not constitutional to force the states to expand Medicaid was pure legislating from the bench. No other provision in the federal income tax (FIT) code imposes a penalty (additional tax) based on how one’s income was not later spent (or for what goods they did not buy or services they did not elect to use). Using that (new?) federal taxation power, the congress could impose a FIT penalty for anyone who did not buy an EV, IC powered vehicle getting above X/mpg or ride public transit.
Click to expand...
Should be a matter of law not politics.
 
Gatsby said:
Probably 0. And that is quite sad.

We really should go back to the old way of doing it where the president gets to pick whoever he wants, more or less. And to the extent that the Senate vets the nominee, it's just to make sure they are qualified and don't have any scandals.

But I have no idea how we get back to that point.
Click to expand...
The only meaningful fix I can think of is to end lifetime appointments.
 
Advice and Consent once meant the Senate would advise and then consent. Now it means that if the party opposing the president has a senate majority, the president's picks might not come up for a vote.
 
It used to be that a nominee would be confirmed with about 90 senate votes, regardless of what party.

But C. Thomas got no democratic votes. This after Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden smeared Robert Bork before his hearing.

Sotomeyer got 68 votes (senate was almost 60 democrats at the time).

Kagen only got about 55 from what I recall.

It's just another example of the partisan SS that is now Washington D.C.

The fact that Biden specified the race and gender of his nominee as qualifications was incredible to me. But most seemed happy to think that was acceptable. Just another example.
 
Cardinal said:
The only meaningful fix I can think of is to end lifetime appointments.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would definitely help. It would lower the stakes a lot if there was an understanding that each nominee would be there for a fixed amount of time, and each president would get the same number of court picks per term.
 
Perotista said:
Probably the same amount of votes the Democrats gave Kavanaugh and Barrett. With the nuclear option in place, how many votes the nominees received from the minority party is irrelevant. Be that Kavanaugh, Barrett or Jackson. It means these hearings are also irrelevant. In today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship, Democrats will vote against any Republican nominee and Republicans against any Democratic nominee. That’s life and a political reality in today’s modern political era.

Hence, these hearings are nothing more than a political show, political theater. They mean nothing outside of giving the minority party a chance to heap their scorn on the nominee. Probably makes their base feel better since there’s no chance of the nominee not being confirmed. The fact is these hearings accomplish nothing outside of giving folks like us a chance to spout our opinions on DP. With the nuclear option, these confirmations are a done deal. Guaranteed results.
Click to expand...

I don't watch the hearings (when I can) for the Senators, though... I watch them for the nominee - to try and get a read on who they are as a person and as a prospective Supreme Court Justice.

I got a good read on Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson. Kavanaugh, not so much... and it wasn't even because of what he was accused of doing in high school - that just points to the beginnings of a pattern. The guy just strikes me as a snake. He has ever since he was in the Bush White House.... and I'm pretty sure he lied under oath to Senators Leahy and Durbin during his confirmation hearings to be an Appellate Judge about his supposed "non-involvement" with the detainee program. I hazard a guess that an examination of the record by a more unbiased eye than a Trump legal fixer could easily serve up ample material for an impeachment.
 
HikerGuy83 said:
I'll take that as a no.

Look it up yourself.
Click to expand...
I did. Gorsuch got three Democratic votes. Do you think Jackson will get that many Republican votes?
 
Cardinal said:
I did. Gorsuch got three Democratic votes. Do you think Jackson will get that many Republican votes?
Click to expand...

Then why ask me. You need people to do your homework ?

She gets 3 GOP votes easily.

I wish she'd get 95 votes total.

The clown show that is D.C. right now would do itself a big favor if they stopped acting like petulant children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom