• 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!

McConnell Torches Democrats Over the Current SCOTUS Nomination Process

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
25,130
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, I changed the title of the included video. Blaze TV's was too "incendiary" for me. ;)

This is Mitch McConnell's recent response to the Democrat "objections" to a speedy SCOTUS appointment:



Points made:

1. Democrats are raising misinformation and threats to prevent a rapid SCOTUS appointment.

2. They say there is insufficient time to confirm a nominee;

a. At time of video there are 43 days until the November election, and 104 days until the end of the current Congress.​
b. Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed 19 days after his nomination.​
c. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was confirmed 33 days after her nomination.​
d. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed 42 days after her nomination.​

3. Other's claim the situation is the same as Justice Scalia's passing and Merrick Garland's nomination under Obama.

a. McConnell reminds us that he said "The Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was a divided government since 1888, 130 years ago."​
b. McConnell reminds us the next day he also said "You have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was President to find the last time a vacancy created in a Presidential election year was approved by a Senate of a different Party."​
c. That up till then only six times has this situation occurred, and the majority of those times. there was no confirmation.​
d. Voter's elect their Party to office to check and balance the other Party. And that the Party that controls each part of Congress does so.​
e. That President Obama was asking Senate Republicans for an unusual favor that hasn't been granted in 130 years.​
4. That the Democrats state they would do the same thing themselves were they in control.

a. In 1992 during Bush 41 Joe Biden, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, declared his committee might refuse to cooperate if a vacancy (on SCOTUS) arose; and​
b. In 2007 during Bush 43, Democrats controlled the Senate and Chuck Schumer declared that the Democrats "except in extraordinary circumstances" should boycott any further nominations to SCOTUS.​

Essentially, and as I have argued in the past, the Senate has the Constitutional power to confirm, or refuse to confirm a Presidential appointment.

There is no reason for the Republican controlled Senate to refuse confirmation of a Republican President's nomination, any more than there is any reason to compel Democrats to go along with it. Each Party's Senators may do as they choose within the scope of this Constitutional authority.

Any argument that it should be delayed is simply Partisan confirmation bias speaking.
 
Last edited:

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
98,281
Reaction score
83,407
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't know what McConnell said, but he can get ****ed.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
60,089
Reaction score
51,610
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
<length snip>

Any argument that it should be delayed is simply Partisan confirmation bias speaking.

You may have run that swill through a thesaurus and gotten someone to put it in outline format for you, but that doesn't make it any less hyperpartisan or any less idiotic.

The GOP made up a bunch of crap to justify refusing to vote on Garland so they could later steal the seat. The GOP is now excusing itself from honoring the crap they made up so they can steal another. No more, no less.




Then again, you are the Trumpist who claimed that videos and photographs of police slashing tires was not "evidence" of slashing tires, so who knows if you even understand why what you are saying is so absurd.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,864
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Yes, I changed the title of the included video. Blaze TV's was too "incendiary" for me. ;)

This is Mitch McConnell's recent response to the Democrat "objections" to a speedy SCOTUS appointment:



Points made:

1. Democrats are raising misinformation and threats to prevent a rapid SCOTUS appointment.

2. They say there is insufficient time to confirm a nominee;

a. At time of video there are 43 days until the November election, and 104 days until the end of the current Congress.​
b. Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed 19 days after his nomination.​
c. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was confirmed 33 days after her nomination.​
d. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed 42 days after her nomination.​

3. Other's claim the situation is the same as Justice Scalia's passing and Merrick Garland's nomination under Obama.

a. McConnell reminds us that he said "The Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was a divided government since 1888, 130 years ago."​
b. McConnell reminds us the next day he also said "You have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was President to find the last time a vacancy created in a Presidential election year was approved by a Senate of a different Party."​
c. That up till then only six times has this situation occurred, and the majority of those times. there was no confirmation.​
d. Voter's elect their Party to office to check and balance the other Party. And that the Party that controls each part of Congress does so.​
e. That President Obama was asking Senate Republicans for an unusual favor that hasn't been granted in 130 years.​
4. That the Democrats state they would do the same thing themselves were they in control.

a. In 1992 during Bush 41 Joe Biden, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, declared his committee might refuse to cooperate if a vacancy (on SCOTUS) arose; and​
b. In 2007 during Bush 43, Democrats controlled the Senate and Chuck Schumer declared that the Democrats "except in extraordinary circumstances" should boycott any further nominations to SCOTUS.​

Essentially, and as I have argued in the past, the Senate has the Constitutional power to confirm, or refuse to confirm a Presidential appointment.

There is no reason for the Republican controlled Senate to refuse confirmation of a Republican President's nomination, any more than there is any reason to compel Democrats to go along with it. Each Party's Senators may do as they choose within the scope of this Constitutional authority.

Any argument that it should be delayed is simply Partisan confirmation bias speaking.

Bottom line is, there is a process for this stuff and the process has always been followed, no matter which party is in what branches. 2016 happened because the process allowed it to happen and 2020 is happening because the process allows it to happen. In 2016 the Senate was run by Republicans. Obama knew the Senate was run by Republicans. If he had wanted his nominee to get a vote and confirmed he could have nominated either Gorsuch or Kavannaugh then, instead of Garland. The Senate is under no obligation to confirm the president's nominee. Just because they vote on it doesn't mean they have to confirm the president's nominee, just as in 1987 Democrats refused to confirm Ronald Reagan's nominee, Robert Bork to the court. Sure, if they had wanted to waste their time back in 2016 the Republicans could have voted on Garland and not confirmed him, as was their right and, by then, we would have had a new president anyway.
 

Patriotic Voter

Smarter than trolls
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
26,463
Reaction score
7,420
Location
Flaw-i-duh
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Any argument that it should be delayed is simply partisan confirmation bias speaking.

There is no reason to call wanting to wait until after Ruth Bader Ginsburg;s funeral and burial partisan bias. What the Republicans are doing is showing a total lack of respect for her wish to be replaced by the next president, Joe Biden.
 

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
15,532
Reaction score
3,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
McConnell makes a solid point. President of one party and Senate controlled by a different party is fundamentally different than the current situation. I have no doubt Harry Reid would have put a Bush nomination on ice in 2008. As noted, Reid passed Obama nominations went very quickly.

There is no reason to call wanting to wait until after Ruth Bader Ginsburg;s funeral and burial partisan bias.
No one is claiming it is. Quite the contrary.

What the Republicans are doing is showing a total lack of respect for her wish to be replaced by the next president, Joe Biden.
They are giving it the respect it deserves--a moment of silence.
 

HennyBogan

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
749
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That’s how the cookie crumbles, just add apple sauce and slurp it up
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
25,130
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is no reason to call wanting to wait until after Ruth Bader Ginsburg;s funeral and burial partisan bias. What the Republicans are doing is showing a total lack of respect for her wish to be replaced by the next president, Joe Biden.

First, your argument is a non-starter as it is based on an emotional appeal. It assumes that this "granddaughter" was telling the truth instead of creating a "myth." Second, even accepting it as true for the sake of argument, what does it matter what Ruth Bader Ginsburg "wished?" Justices don't decide who sits on the Court. That is up to the President and the Senate. PERIOD!

Meanwhile, there is EVERY reason to push for an appointment while one has the power, authority, and TIME to do so.

Right NOW, the Senate is controlled by the Republicans, and so is the Presidency.

As pointed out by McConnell, this is when successful appointments are pretty much guaranteed. Thus it is the time to do so, not wait because the opposition wants to do so and expects to win the opportunity after a future election.

You know damn well if the roles were reversed, and the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the Presidency, they would not hesitate to appoint a replacement as fast as they could...and IMO they would be right to do so.
 

trixare4kids

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
55,370
Reaction score
46,115
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First, your argument is a non-starter as it is based on an emotional appeal. It assumes that this "granddaughter" was telling the truth instead of creating a "myth." Second, even accepting it as true for the sake of argument, what does it matter what Ruth Bader Ginsburg "wished?" Justices don't decide who sits on the Court. That is up to the President and the Senate. PERIOD!

Second, there is EVERY reason to push for an appointment while one has the power, authority, and TIME to do so.

Right NOW, the Senate is controlled by the Republicans, and so is the Presidency.

As pointed out by McConnell, this is when successful appointments are pretty much guaranteed. Thus it is the time to do so, not wait because the opposition wants to do so and expects to win the opportunity after a future election.

You know damn well if the roles were reversed, and the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the Presidency, they would not hesitate to appoint a replacement as fast as they could...and IMO they would be right to do so.

Precisely!
Maybe these Democratic partisans should have thought about the consequences of their bogus impeachment.
Karma's a bitch.
 

HennyBogan

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
749
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
First, your argument is a non-starter as it is based on an emotional appeal. It assumes that this "granddaughter" was telling the truth instead of creating a "myth." Second, even accepting it as true for the sake of argument, what does it matter what Ruth Bader Ginsburg "wished?" Justices don't decide who sits on the Court. That is up to the President and the Senate. PERIOD!

Second, there is EVERY reason to push for an appointment while one has the power, authority, and TIME to do so.

Right NOW, the Senate is controlled by the Republicans, and so is the Presidency.

As pointed out by McConnell, this is when successful appointments are pretty much guaranteed. Thus it is the time to do so, not wait because the opposition wants to do so and expects to win the opportunity after a future election.

You know damn well if the roles were reversed, and the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the Presidency, they would not hesitate to appoint a replacement as fast as they could...and IMO they would be right to do so.

Pretty obvious, I am surprised how ****ing dumb people are
 

Candyman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
3,339
Location
Central NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Turtle has spoken...

You can slice it any way you want, but in the end it still shows what a piece of shit McConnell is. As is, for the most part, the entirety of Congress. Republicans torpedoing Garland was bullshit. I don't care what kind of contrived argument McConnell makes. Obama was well within his right to nominate and Congress should have shut up and run the process. Trump can nominate and Congress just shut up and run the process. But don't sit here and try to sell up some steaming pile of cow flop that New Republicans are somehow virtuous. They're scumbags just like all the rest. So McConnell can go **** himself.
 

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
15,532
Reaction score
3,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I believe the expression is, "Strike while the iron is hot."

I have no problem announcing a nominee this week. As BD wishes, they are withholding the announcement while she lies in state. For me, the confirmation hearings could wait til the post-election session. However, there is no reasons to wait for the new Congress.

Precisely!
Maybe these Democratic partisans should have thought about the consequences of their bogus impeachment.
Karma's a bitch.
You're right. Claiming lack of propriety is bogus.
 

Artymoon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
4,114
Reaction score
2,454
Location
U.S.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First, your argument is a non-starter as it is based on an emotional appeal. It assumes that this "granddaughter" was telling the truth instead of creating a "myth." Second, even accepting it as true for the sake of argument, what does it matter what Ruth Bader Ginsburg "wished?" Justices don't decide who sits on the Court. That is up to the President and the Senate. PERIOD!

Meanwhile, there is EVERY reason to push for an appointment while one has the power, authority, and TIME to do so.

Right NOW, the Senate is controlled by the Republicans, and so is the Presidency.

As pointed out by McConnell, this is when successful appointments are pretty much guaranteed. Thus it is the time to do so, not wait because the opposition wants to do so and expects to win the opportunity after a future election.

You know damn well if the roles were reversed, and the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the Presidency, they would not hesitate to appoint a replacement as fast as they could...and IMO they would be right to do so.

Yes, the manufactured outrage is comical. Democrats are sitting back knowing they would relish this opportunity to get a seat filled. Under their breath they are whispering well played sir, well played.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There is no reason to call wanting to wait until after Ruth Bader Ginsburg;s funeral and burial partisan bias. What the Republicans are doing is showing a total lack of respect for her wish to be replaced by the next president, Joe Biden.

Show us where The Constitution says anything about last wishes being a factor in replacing a Supreme Court Justice.
 

Candyman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
3,339
Location
Central NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Show us where The Constitution says anything about last wishes being a factor in replacing a Supreme Court Justice.
It's right next to the part where it says you don't make a nomination in an election year when you don't control the Senate......
 

Patriotic Voter

Smarter than trolls
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
26,463
Reaction score
7,420
Location
Flaw-i-duh
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Show us where The Constitution says anything about last wishes being a factor in replacing a Supreme Court Justice.

Show me proof failing to comply with a highly respected person's death wish only because the Constitution allows it is acceptable. Even Susan Collins, who is likely to lose her seat, thinks it is important to wait until after the election.
 

trixare4kids

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
55,370
Reaction score
46,115
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is no reason to call wanting to wait until after Ruth Bader Ginsburg;s funeral and burial partisan bias. What the Republicans are doing is showing a total lack of respect for her wish to be replaced by the next president, Joe Biden.
RBG's deathbed request has no Constitutional standing.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
25,130
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Show me proof failing to comply with a highly respected person's death wish only because the Constitution allows it is acceptable. Even Susan Collins, who is likely to lose her seat, thinks it is important to wait until after the election.

Expanding on an emotional appeal is no argument, nor is there any need to provide "proof" opposing an opinion based on a fallacious argument.

The burden of proof is on YOU to show that it is both factually unconstitutional and intellectually unreasonable to do what is authorized Constitutionally...simply because someone allegedly had a "dying wish."
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
84,197
Reaction score
75,114
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Moscow McTurtle is a hypocrite among hypocrites. It is fitting that he surrendered his legacy to fetch water for a pathetic carnival barker.
 

trixare4kids

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
55,370
Reaction score
46,115
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Neither does Mitch McConnell's refusal to wait until after November 3.

The senate is not waiting until after Nov. 3rd. They have the votes. We will have a new justice by Nov. 3rd.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
56,770
Reaction score
39,428
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Meh. The Democrats due whine and threaten far too much when they don't get what they want. 🤷
 

Patriotic Voter

Smarter than trolls
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
26,463
Reaction score
7,420
Location
Flaw-i-duh
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The senate is not waiting until after Nov. 3rd. They have the votes. We will have a new justice by Nov. 3rd.

Read my post again. I was very clear. Just the fact they can vote before November 3 DOES NOT MEAN THEY SHOULD.
 

trixare4kids

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
55,370
Reaction score
46,115
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Meh. The Democrats due whine and threaten far too much when they don't get what they want. 🤷

I have no empathy for these scoundrels.
Let them have another temper tantrum. One can only cry wolf so many times.
 
Top Bottom