McConnel discusses why we don't confirm Supreme Court justices in an election year.

[Bullseye]

Disagree. Barring any disqualifying revelations, even a GOP lead Senate would not dare reject Garland. Judge Garland was a well known moderate who was respected and openly praised by many Republicans in D.C., where he was (still is) Chief Judge of the Appeals Court.

That is why McConnell had to torpedo Garland before he could even get a hearing.

He was no "moderate". That was just the party line the Dems trotted out.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

He was no "moderate". That was just the party line the Dems trotted out.

Bull shit.


“While some Republicans say they don't want the Senate to consider Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's to the Supreme Court, a few prominent GOP voices have said some nice things about him in the past.
The chief judge for the Washington, D.C. appeals court was confirmed in 1997 by 76-23 after being appointed by former President Bill Clinton.

At least seven of the Republican senators who confirmed Garland are still in office, including Sens. Dan Coats, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Orrin Hatch, Jim Inhofe, John McCain and Pat Roberts.”

GOP leaders repeatedly praised SCOTUS pick

While some Republicans say they don't want the Senate to consider Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, a few prominent GOP voices have said some nice things about him in the past.

www.cnn.com

President Obama's choice to serve as the newest Supreme Court justice is Merrick Garland, a moderate federal appeals court judge and former prosecutor with a reputation for collegiality and meticulous legal reasoning.

Garland, who has won past Republican support, has "more federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history," a White House official said. "No one is better suited to immediately serve on the Supreme Court."

“So respected is Garland as a judge that Chief Justice Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, answered a question about one of his majority opinions by noting that Judge Garland had dissented and, said Roberts, "Anytime Judge Garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area."

Merrick Garland Has A Reputation Of Collegiality, Record Of Republican Support

Merrick Garland, a judge with 18 years' experience, was not the first choice of liberals. But President Obama hopes his ability to win over conservatives will extend to the Supreme Court.

www.npr.org

 

[ElChupacabra]

Time to face a few facts. Had McConnell called hearings with a GOP major judiciary committee what are the odds Garland would have been referred to the full Senate and that the GOP led Senate would approve him? hint: zip, zilch, none.

Maybe not had the GOP chosen to hold the line, but then at least the process would have worked the way it's supposed to rather than the idiocy he's created for himself and the GOP. RareBulgarian's post is a sound assumption because I suspect McConnell thought Garland had a chance. So if it's going to be dirty pool, the GOP won't have much to complain about if this is done to them. I think even Graham understood the implications at the time based on his statement about his words being used against him.

 

[Bullseye]

Bull shit.


“While some Republicans say they don't want the Senate to consider Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's to the Supreme Court, a few prominent GOP voices have said some nice things about him in the past.
The chief judge for the Washington, D.C. appeals court was confirmed in 1997 by 76-23 after being appointed by former President Bill Clinton.

At least seven of the Republican senators who confirmed Garland are still in office, including Sens. Dan Coats, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Orrin Hatch, Jim Inhofe, John McCain and Pat Roberts.”

GOP leaders repeatedly praised SCOTUS pick

While some Republicans say they don't want the Senate to consider Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, a few prominent GOP voices have said some nice things about him in the past.

www.cnn.com

President Obama's choice to serve as the newest Supreme Court justice is Merrick Garland, a moderate federal appeals court judge and former prosecutor with a reputation for collegiality and meticulous legal reasoning.

Garland, who has won past Republican support, has "more federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history," a White House official said. "No one is better suited to immediately serve on the Supreme Court."

“So respected is Garland as a judge that Chief Justice Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, answered a question about one of his majority opinions by noting that Judge Garland had dissented and, said Roberts, "Anytime Judge Garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area."

Merrick Garland Has A Reputation Of Collegiality, Record Of Republican Support

Merrick Garland, a judge with 18 years' experience, was not the first choice of liberals. But President Obama hopes his ability to win over conservatives will extend to the Supreme Court.

www.npr.org

CNN and NPR? Not exactly the most unbiased of sources.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

CNN and NPR? Not exactly the most unbiased of sources.

^^ Empty, meritless rebuttal.

Your bias against the sources doesn’t negate the praise for Judge Garland by several notable Republicans and the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

McConnell took the lying chicken shit route in ‘16 because he knew Garland couldn’t be denied if given a fair hearing. That is fact.

 

[jnug]

Oh lucky us. Yet again we get to be embarrassed by the laughable absurdity of the Senate Judiciary Committee in hearing this time for another SJC pick. Half the GOP panel completely absorbed by their power grab yet hampered by old age and dotage. Half the DEM panel plagued by the usual DEM diarrhea of the mouth, old age and dotage. It is without question the most embarrassing aspect of our current governance, even more embarrassing than Donald.

The saying goes that Power Corrupts and absolute Power corrupts absolutely. That is why Schumer has had some of his best moments as Senate Minority Leader lately. Its not that he has gotten so much better. It's that the great Senate Strategist McConnell is so old and corrupt now that he is simply too easy to ambush. He begs to be ambushed.

As the GOP continues on its power mad surge for Minority Rule and achieves more power along the way, they have reached levels of corruption now that are simply outside the bounds of what even an old fart like me thought possible. I have seen just about everything and the current GOP takes the cake. That is why claims that the DEMs are just as corrupt are ludicrous. Not even close Trumpets, not even close.

Bill Barr is beyond the bounds of any AG in history. He is so far outside his portfolio now and is operating so far outside the structure of DOJ that I am not sure there will be a DOJ left when he is done. Laughable that the GOP took Eric Holder's "I am the President's wingman and ran with it" as if Holder had actually said something meaningful. That is a clear example of DEM diarrhea of the mouth. What the flying frig did you even mean ERIC?v Compare that rather tame and meaningless comment from Holder to where Barr has taken his role as AG and there is simply no way to compare the two. Barr is in orbit now. Holder at least remained on the ground.

Sen Feinstein suffers diarrhea of the mouth regularly now as dotage has clearly left her hobbled. In the Barrett hearings for her appellate court appointment, Feinstein decided to focus on Barrett's religious convictions as her point of contention with elevating Barrett to the Court. That promptly blew up in Feinstein's face as well it should have. Diarrhea of the mouth just as Feinstein's ham handed handling of testimony in the Kavanaugh hearings was once again diarrhea of the mouth.

So the Barrett Hearings will just be the latest example of the GOP's Minority Rule power grab. They no longer even care to fake being in step with governance as we have known it for 250 odd years. The Hearings will also be yet another example of the utterly dependable tendency of the DEM's to suffer DIARRHEA of the MOUTH. It will also be yet another example of how many friged up old people we have running around DC.

Fortunately I have more than one flat panel TV. Though in truth, I might put my foot though all of them before it's over.

 

[Bullseye]

^^ Empty, meritless rebuttal.

Your bias against the sources doesn’t negate the praise for Judge Garland by several notable Republicans and the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

McConnell took the lying chicken shit route in ‘16 because he knew Garland couldn’t be denied if given a fair hearing. That is fact.

LOL, sure. Whatever you say.

 

[Moderate Right]

Well, Mcconnell is cheating and showing everybody his true colors. I think he's going to retire after the election and he should.

How is he cheating?

 

[JMR]

Time to face a few facts. Had McConnell called hearings with a GOP major judiciary committee what are the odds Garland would have been referred to the full Senate and that the GOP led Senate would approve him? hint: zip, zilch, none.

Not so sure of that. Garland was quite moderate, and voting against him would take a little explaining on the part of the Senators.
Sotomayor vote: 68 - 31
Kagan vote: 63 - 37
Alito vote: 58 - 42
Roberts vote: 78 - 22

It's only recently that the GOP has gone fully partisan in its considerations. It's really not something to be proud of.

 

[JMR]

CNN and NPR? Not exactly the most unbiased of sources.

Though both rated highly factual.

 

[Bullseye]

Though both rated highly factual.

Not on this planet.

 

[Bullseye]

Not so sure of that. Garland was quite moderate, and voting against him would take a little explaining on the part of the Senators.
Sotomayor vote: 68 - 31
Kagan vote: 63 - 37
Alito vote: 58 - 42
Roberts vote: 78 - 22

It's only recently that the GOP has gone fully partisan in its considerations. It's really not something to be proud of.

Maybe so, but confirming a lame duck's choice seems like legislative masturbation.

 

[JMR]

Not on this planet.

I'm not sure what planet you're on...maybe you will share.

 

[JMR]

Maybe so, but confirming a lame duck's choice seems like legislative masturbation.

Ah, I see you have done the hopscotch from "election year" to "lame duck" Too bad McConnell's on video.

And as your hero Donald has said, he is only doing his Constitutional duty by making a nomination. Just like Obama, 10 months from the election.

 

[BlueTex]

We don't even need to listen to McConnell... How about Amy Coney Barrett herself...

 

[lurchadams]

He makes some good points, don't you think?

That was then. McConnell and the Republicans have proven themselves to be nothing but evil, hypocritical, power-grabbers.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

LOL, sure. Whatever you say.

It isn’t what I say.

If you aren’t able to debate with actual facts, as I have done here, you shouldn’t even participate.

 

[Bullseye]

Ah, I see you have done the hopscotch from "election year" to "lame duck" Too bad McConnell's on video.

And as your hero Donald has said, he is only doing his Constitutional duty by making a nomination. Just like Obama, 10 months from the election.

Got anything but worn out liberal slogans? Shall I post a couple of vids with Schumer and Pelosi crying to confirm judges immediately?

 

[JMR]

We don't even need to listen to McConnell... How about Amy Coney Barrett herself...

I wonder if it will be deemed too aggressive to point out what a hypocrite she is by recalling this statement.

 

[JMR]

Got anything but worn out liberal slogans?

Sure, but I save it for members who don't spout BS at every opportunity. You get what you give.

 

[Bullseye]

Got anything but worn out liberal slogans?

Sure, but I save it for members who don't spout BS at every opportunity. You get what you give.

So you admit you're spewing BS.

 

[JMR]

So you admit you're spewing BS.

So you assume you have made a point?

Reading comprehension is a useful skill.

 

[Ontologuy]

Not so fast. Mitch never even gave Garland a chance for a reason. He was a highly qualified moderate and could have been confirmed.

Garland was described as "brilliant" regarding his smarts, his intelligence and understanding of the law, etc., though no one had ever heard him comment about Roe v. Wade and the like, so he was kind of a "stealth" candidate.

However, from the right's perspective back then:

1. Garland was described as a liberal moderate .. which I think was meant to say that he is close to the dividing line between moderate and liberal.

2. Garland was .. a Democrat.

3. Garland was Jewish.

4. And, Garland has two daughters.

Statistics indicated that left-leaning Jewish Democrats with daughters would very highly likely support the judicial activism and moral relativism of Roe v. Wade and similar reached decisions.

That simply would not do for the Republican-controlled Senate, so there really was no chance at all that Garland would be confirmed.

As it turned out, Garland was the "best" candidate, from the Republicans' perspective, Obama had, and, Obama knew it. So when McConnell told Obama that because of points 1-4 there was no way Garland would be confirmed so the Senate wasn't even gonna waste their time, Obama just gave up right there, and spun his unfortunate situation into the ludicrously falacious "we have now set a precedent that no President in an election year will nominate a SCOTUS justice".

 

[RaleBulgarian]

1. Garland was described as a liberal moderate .. which I think was meant to say that he is close to the dividing line between moderate and liberal.

2. Garland was .. a Democrat.

3. Garland was Jewish.

4. And, Garland has two daughters.

So when McConnell told Obama that because of points 1-4 there was no way Garland would be confirmed so the Senate wasn't even gonna waste their time, Obama just gave up right there, and spun his unfortunate situation into the ludicrously falacious "we have now set a precedent that no President in an election year will nominate a SCOTUS justice".

Flat out lie. Ridiculous, stupid flat out lie.

“Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of that year, nearly nine months before that year’s election. With President Barack Obama set to nominate a replacement who would pull the court to the left, Senate Republicans said that the seat should not be filled in an election year, and refused to hold hearings to consider Obama’s eventual nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. McConnell argued that not since 1888 had the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee by an opposing party’s President to fill a vacancy that arose in an election year.“

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell:

Then: “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,” McConnell said in a statement on February 13, 2016, the day Scalia died.

Now: “In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda ....”

And McConnell’s lying, hypocrite Southern brother, Lindsey Graham:

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will oversee committee hearings examining the nominee’s credentials. Graham is up for re-election this fall.

Then: “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right. We’re setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year, at least of a lame-duck eight-year term, I would say it’s going to be a four-year term, that you’re not going to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court based on what we’re doing here today. That’s going to be the new rule,” Graham said at a Judiciary Committee meeting in March 2016.

Now: “I therefore think it is important that we proceed expeditiously to process any nomination made by President Trump to fill this vacancy. I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same,” Graham said in a Sept. 21 statement.

Here's What GOP Senators Said About the 2016 Supreme Court Vacancy—And What They're Saying Now

The Senate GOP's current position on filling the Supreme Court vacancy in an election year is a departure from their 2016 stance

www.google.com

 

[joko104]

Oh how much the Democratic Party and many Democrats now openly hate the US Constitution. No surprise about that.