Watch how the Democrats, the minority of the Senate attempted to block Judge Amy Barrett from the vote of the Senate

[Robertinfremont]

LOL How is the legislature going to "take back" control when their bills will be overturned by the SC?

The statement above is a prediction and nothing more.

 

[dcsports]

I don’t know what you’re talking about but I’ve been talking about - with a couple other posters - the fact that there is no legal, procedural or precedental justification for McConnell to not hold a vote on Garland but to hold one on ACB. Other than exercise in pure political power.

That's because you keep moving around the goalposts.

There is no legal or procedural requirement for him to hold a vote either. You are getting lost in the details. The constitution requires the advice and consent of the senate in order to confirm a nominee. The senate considered both nominees, and consistent with precedent, rejected Garland and will likely confirm Barett.

 

[iguanaman]

On this very board I shared the rule and Democrats promptly forgot the rule.

https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/74919ab6-b407-451c-b429-702e9ae8dcb1.pdf

That link is chock full of rule changes made by Mitch since Trump has been in office. Thanks for proving my case. They are Mitch's rules and when Democrats take control there will be a whole new set of rules too so don't whine about them. The Senate has become a partisan joke under Mitch and soon that will be turned to the Democrats favor and you won't have a thing to complain about. This election will have consequences that will make your hair stand on end.

 

[Nickyjo]

Yes - In my eyes, the tendency of the left to look to the courts to legislate from the bench is a travesty.

On the three topics 'I mention' (really you did), we're not talking about 'rolling back the rules'. That would imply a step backward. At worst, the first two will be put back in the hands of the legislature, where it belongs. The third's been there.

Key words are “in my eyes.” Courts are a legitimate branch of government. People will use whatever tools are available to get what amounts to justice in *their* eyes. Witness all the suits Trump has filed. See Brown v Board of Education. Or Citizens United. Businesses use donations to influence legislators, but also file “SLAP” lawsuits against smaller fry opponents. Both sides are gearing up legally for the election.
Not just a tool of the left.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Ok, so how would you sum up the differing political world views? Undeniable that both sides have sets of positions on issues backed up by defensible justifications. Each sees a judicial nomination as potentially affecting their side in future cases. That’s why, for example, pro-life people are pro this nominee and pro-choice people are opposed.

You comments are essentially accurate, however, I'd characterize the difference as Republicans wanting to nominate justices who are faithful to the constitution and faithful to their role as arbiters of legal disputes and not a quasi legislative branch, while Democrats want justices who will interpret, sometimes fancifully, the constitution in their modern, ideological view of what society should be.

It seems, lately at least, that Democrats don't want "originalist" justices because they don't like the constitution, as written. They favour justices who take the written text and interpret it in their own progressive speak. It's why Republicans are often disappointed in the performance of their nominees, latest example being the Chief Justice, because their nominees frequently side with the Democrat nominees in creative interpretation. I can't think of a single Democrat nominee who has disappointed liberals in their performance - they are robotically faithful to liberal ideology, regardless of the content of the constitution.

 

[dcsports]

LOL How is the legislature going to "take back" control when their bills will be overturned by the SC?

Provided they don't conflict with the constitution, they won't.

 

[vegas giants]

You comments are essentially accurate, however, I'd characterize the difference as Republicans wanting to nominate justices who are faithful to the constitution and faithful to their role as arbiters of legal disputes and not a quasi legislative branch, while Democrats want justices who will interpret, sometimes fancifully, the constitution in their modern, ideological view of what society should be.

It seems, lately at least, that Democrats don't want "originalist" justices because they don't like the constitution, as written. They favour justices who take the written text and interpret it in their own progressive speak. It's why Republicans are often disappointed in the performance of their nominees, latest example being the Chief Justice, because their nominees frequently side with the Democrat nominees in creative interpretation. I can't think of a single Democrat nominee who has disappointed liberals in their performance - they are robotically faithful to liberal ideology, regardless of the content of the constitution.

Every single justice interprets the constitution and none of them take it as it is written

 

[dcsports]

Key words are “in my eyes.” Courts are a legitimate branch of government. People will use whatever tools are available to get what amounts to justice in *their* eyes. Witness all the suits Trump has filed. See Brown v Board of Education. Or Citizens United. Businesses use donations to influence legislators, but also file “SLAP” lawsuits against smaller fry opponents. Both sides are gearing up legally for the election.
Not just a tool of the left.

You asked my opinion, and I gave it.

Yes, both sides use the courts. The left is much more likely to abuse them, and view them as a means to create policy.

 

[OpportunityCost]

In other words McConnell gets to decide, which is what I said.

and what pray tell do you know about what I think about Democrats May or may not have donein the past?

You didn't cry about it when Reid did it. It is a Senate rule but hey, whatever, you want to poutrage over something that has been going on for a very long while and act as though Democrats didn't do the exact same thing, go for it.

 

[Gaius46]

You didn't cry about it when Reid did it. It is a Senate rule but hey, whatever, you want to poutrage over something that has been going on for a very long while and act as though Democrats didn't do the exact same thing, go for it.

You don’t have the faintest idea what I thought about Harry Reid. If that’s all you have you have nothing.
There is no Senate rule. Try again.

 

[Nickyjo]

You comments are essentially accurate, however, I'd characterize the difference as Republicans wanting to nominate justices who are faithful to the constitution and faithful to their role as arbiters of legal disputes and not a quasi legislative branch, while Democrats want justices who will interpret, sometimes fancifully, the constitution in their modern, ideological view of what society should be.

It seems, lately at least, that Democrats don't want "originalist" justices because they don't like the constitution, as written. They favour justices who take the written text and interpret it in their own progressive speak. It's why Republicans are often disappointed in the performance of their nominees, latest example being the Chief Justice, because their nominees frequently side with the Democrat nominees in creative interpretation. I can't think of a single Democrat nominee who has disappointed liberals in their performance - they are robotically faithful to liberal ideology, regardless of the content of the constitution.

Conservatives have been singing this same song since the Brown v Board of Education in 1954, which outlawed school segregation. The John Birch Society had a leaflet attacking the court, “Nine Men Against America.” They got slightly hysterical at the Miranda decision, requiring cops to inform suspects of their rights. (We recovered, and jails have never been fuller.) And conservatives didn’t complain over the Citizens United case, or the one some years ago allowing the Reagan administration to blockade Haiti to prevent refugees from escaping. Those were both pretty fanciful decisions furthering conservative interests.

 

[iguanaman]

Provided they don't conflict with the constitution, they won't.

There is nothing about banning elective abortions in the Constitution and the court has ruled for 50 years that it is a Women's right to choose what she does with her own body.

 

[iguanaman]

You didn't cry about it when Reid did it. It is a Senate rule but hey, whatever, you want to poutrage over something that has been going on for a very long while and act as though Democrats didn't do the exact same thing, go for it.

Reid did not exempt Supreme Court nominations from cloture Mich did. And Reid did not disregard the will of the American people by confirming a SC justice WHILE we are voting for our President. That has NEVER happened in our history. Republicans will regret these transgressions because turn about is fair play. Remember that next year when you are whining about "packing the courts" and we tell you that you started it. In fact I support Biden writing executive orders about just about anything under the sun because no one told him he couldn't do that. If there is no law that specifically prohibits the order he should go for it.

 

[Phys251]

Durbin has nerve. But it failed to work.

Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 4

In the first portion of day 4 of Supreme Court nominee Judge Senate Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Senate, Democrats urged Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) not to move forward with Judge Barrett's confirmation until after the November 3...

www.c-span.org

It's very unlikely to stop the final vote. Quit whining.

 

[Phys251]

Reid did not exempt Supreme Court nominations from cloture Mich did. And Reid did not disregard the will of the American people by confirming a SC justice WHILE we are voting for our President. That has NEVER happened in our history. Republicans will regret these transgressions because turn about is fair play. Remember that next year when you are whining about "packing the courts" and we tell you that you started it.

If we rebalance the court, it will simply be to reinstitute a government that follows the will of the people. The Rethuglicans just want to make a court that legislates from the bench with no way to hold the justices accountable.

 

[lurchadams]

Durbin has nerve. But it failed to work.

Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 4

In the first portion of day 4 of Supreme Court nominee Judge Senate Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Senate, Democrats urged Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) not to move forward with Judge Barrett's confirmation until after the November 3...

www.c-span.org

Fighting this nomination is fighting for the American people. The majority of the American people voted for Clinton. Also, the trumpPublicans claimed you can't appoint a justice in an election year.

I'm hoping this will expose the trumpPublicans for the evil, power-hungry pieces of shit they truly are and that this is reflected in the upcoming polls.

 

[iguanaman]

If we rebalance the court, it will simply be to reinstitute a government that follows the will of the people. The Rethuglicans just want to make a court that legislates from the bench with no way to hold the justices accountable.

Without a balance the Court will lose all credibility. 6 of the last 8 justices will have been appointed by a party that has not won the popular vote in a Presidential election in decades.

 

[chuckiechan]

Durbin has nerve. But it failed to work.

Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 4

In the first portion of day 4 of Supreme Court nominee Judge Senate Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Senate, Democrats urged Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) not to move forward with Judge Barrett's confirmation until after the November 3...

www.c-span.org

These are the same guys that go outa d preach “bi partisanship”. Politicians are shameless.

Hypocrisy abounds. What else is new?

The issue is simple: on side is for greater respect for reproductive rights, labor rights, govt health care, protection of the environment and consumers, etc., because it represents people who favor such things, and the other wants to weaken them, and/or believes that business should decide such things, not government officials, because it represents people who oppose such things.
Quibbling about pre-election judicial appointments or what the other side did or didn’t do just distracts from the important stuff.

Spoken like a true eater.

 

[skeptic llc]

WHAT? Not wanting to vote on a nominee? Who ever heard of such a thing? This is an outrage I tell you!

 

[OpportunityCost]

Reid did not exempt Supreme Court nominations from cloture Mich did. And Reid did not disregard the will of the American people by confirming a SC justice WHILE we are voting for our President. That has NEVER happened in our history. Republicans will regret these transgressions because turn about is fair play. Remember that next year when you are whining about "packing the courts" and we tell you that you started it. In fact I support Biden writing executive orders about just about anything under the sun because no one told him he couldn't do that. If there is no law that specifically prohibits the order he should go for it.

Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Uh-huh, how many things do you need to qualify it with to satisfy your poutrage?

 

[OpportunityCost]

You don’t have the faintest idea what I thought about Harry Reid. If that’s all you have you have nothing.
There is no Senate rule. Try again.

Really, and how many rules are there currently, as of 2013? Lets see if you have one damn clue what you are talking about.

 

[dcsports]

There is nothing about banning elective abortions in the Constitution and the court has ruled for 50 years that it is a Women's right to choose what she does with her own body.

You are correct - there is nothing about abortion in the constitution. That's probably one of the greatest examples of judges making laws from the bench in our country's history.

 

[Gaius46]

Really, and how many rules are there currently, as of 2013? Lets see if you have one damn clue what you are talking about.

Rules about what? I have no idea what you’re asking.

There is no Senate rule that explicitly states that in the last year of a Presidency nominations will not be taken up unless the opposing party controls the Senate. There is unwritten informal practice that says in the Senate will not take up nominations in the last year of a presidency unless that candidate enjoys bipartisan support but that practice is often ignored.

 

[iguanaman]

You are correct - there is nothing about abortion in the constitution. That's probably one of the greatest examples of judges making laws from the bench in our country's history.

The SC exists to protect our rights under the Constitution. The right to control your own body is the most basic of rights. If the founders wished uniquely limit them when it comes to abortion they would have said so. It is the pro-illegal abortionists that want laws made from the bench.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Rules about what? I have no idea what you’re asking.

There is no Senate rule that explicitly states that in the last year of a Presidency nominations will not be taken up unless the opposing party controls the Senate. There is unwritten informal practice that says in the Senate will not take up nominations in the last year of a presidency unless that candidate enjoys bipartisan support but that practice is often ignored.

There is a rule that debate starts with the Majority Leader. I know you have no idea what I am asking because you haven't got a clue about what the Senate rules are you are just throwing a tantrum because you are being told to do so without knowing why.

If you have to quantify the rule you want stated with 4 or 5 conditions you aren't actually wanting to see a rule, you are making sure there won't be one that satisfies the stupid conditions.