Kennedy Announces Plan To Retire July 31

#451
#451
BowlBrother85 said:
The 217 vote difference is mostly summed by the fact that since Ford, the Democrats have had many more members of the Senate voting for Supreme Court nominations and... is also reflective of 3 contentious nominations including two who were confirmed anyway: Bork, Thomas (though confirmed he still had 46 "Nays") and Gorsuch (due to the political climate stemming from Garland's treatment).
Click to expand...

They have had two more and if you back that math out it’s 200 to 80. Next dumb point?

The fact is the senate isn’t supposed to be voting in agreement. Their charge is to insure they have been vetted.
 
#453
#453
BowlBrother85 said:
The 217 vote difference is mostly summed by the fact that since Ford, the Democrats have had many more members of the Senate voting for Supreme Court nominations and... is also reflective of 3 contentious nominations including two who were confirmed anyway: Bork, Thomas (though confirmed he still had 46 "Nays") and Gorsuch (due to the political climate stemming from Garland's treatment).
Click to expand...

But both of W's nominees were fine and like for like replacements yet less than 1/2 of Dems supported them. Notably Obama voted against them both.

There was no good reason for these not to be near unanimous votes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#454
#454
volfanhill said:
They have had two more and if you back that math out it’s 200 to 80. Next dumb point?

The fact is the senate isn’t supposed to be voting in agreement. Their charge is to insure they have been vetted.
Click to expand...

the vetting takes place in committee - once they come out to a full vote then the bias should be towards consent (at least it used to be).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#455
#455
72 of the 114 justices ever were either unanimously selected or voted in by a oral Yes vote. Please tell us again B.B. how great the Dems have been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#456
#456
volfanhill said:
Since Gerald Ford the number of no votes per nomination:

Republican no votes: 80
Democrat no votes: 297

So shove your 11 yes where they belong
Click to expand...

I’m gonna guess BB should set the bar very low for our “we’re super sorry” deal he’s asking for.

I’m willing to buy ONE donut for a butt hurt Dim senator. Hey I’m a giver.
 
#457
#457
volfanhill said:
They have had two more and if you back that math out it’s 200 to 80. Next dumb point?

The fact is the senate isn’t supposed to be voting in agreement. Their charge is to insure they have been vetted.
Click to expand...

$$

Lol whoops hill. Quoted wrong quote. That was for BB’s dumbass comments about the huge amount of nay Dim votes. Sorry
 

Attachments

  • 0242CCE1-D84E-4D44-8726-B4CFD51A5223.jpeg
    0242CCE1-D84E-4D44-8726-B4CFD51A5223.jpeg
    65.4 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#458
#458
So I wonder if ole Mitch is going to actually hold them through August?

I would think he would almost have to make this happen before the midterms if they really want to get this nomination through..
 
#459
#459
volfanhill said:
They have had two more and if you back that math out it’s 200 to 80. Next dumb point?

The fact is the senate isn’t supposed to be voting in agreement. Their charge is to insure they have been vetted.
Click to expand...

You are not showing a strong command of the facts.

Bork received 53 no votes from Democrats
Thomas received 46 no votes from Democrats
Gorsuch received 43 no votes from Democrats

Taken away from your total of 297 (which I did not verify) and you have 155 (297-142). You also have to take into account that more Democrats have been in the Senate during confirmation votes than have Republicans.
 
#460
#460
BowlBrother85 said:
You are not showing a strong command of the facts.

Bork received 53 no votes from Democrats
Thomas received 46 no votes from Democrats
Gorsuch received 43 no votes from Democrats

Taken away from your total of 297 (which I did not verify) and you have 155 (297-142). You also have to take into account that more Democrats have been in the Senate during confirmation votes than have Republicans.
Click to expand...

This nomination, focus.

Who cares about what you're saying right now?
 
#461
#461
BowlBrother85 said:
You are not showing a strong command of the facts.

Bork received 53 no votes from Democrats
Thomas received 46 no votes from Democrats
Gorsuch received 43 no votes from Democrats

Taken away from your total of 297 (which I did not verify) and you have 155 (297-142). You also have to take into account that more Democrats have been in the Senate during confirmation votes than have Republicans.
Click to expand...

You’re making a dumbass straw man argument. You want to parse the Nays. That’s irrelevant and that’s what we’ve been telling you. The committee does the vetting and makes a recommendation. Until you asshats got carried away starting mostly with Thomas the vote was largely procedural. The vetting had been done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#462
#462
NorthDallas40 said:
You’re making a dumbass straw man argument. You want to parse the Nays. That’s irrelevant and that’s what we’ve been telling you. The committee does the vetting and makes a recommendation. Until you asshats got carried away starting mostly with Thomas the vote was largely procedural. The vetting had been done.
Click to expand...

After Bork's vetting, it was clear to all that he could not be confirmed. Reagan even gave up trying to lobby for him. Bork insisted on going through with the vote anyway instead of withdrawing like he should have.
 
#464
#464
BowlBrother85 said:
After Bork's vetting, it was clear to all that he could not be confirmed. Reagan even gave up trying to lobby for him. Bork insisted on going through with the vote anyway instead of withdrawing like he should have.
Click to expand...

Still making the same strawman and it still isn’t flying. Your party started the BS debating after the vetting had been conducted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#469
#469
NorthDallas40 said:
Still making the same strawman and it still isn’t flying. Your party started the BS debating after the vetting had been conducted.
Click to expand...

Bork was already infamous and hated by democrats going back to the Saturday Night Massacre when he came across as being a puppet for Nixon. He aided Nixon in an abuse of power. He never had a chance.
 
#470
#470
BowlBrother85 said:
You are not showing a strong command of the facts.

Bork received 53 no votes from Democrats
Thomas received 46 no votes from Democrats
Gorsuch received 43 no votes from Democrats

Taken away from your total of 297 (which I did not verify) and you have 155 (297-142). You also have to take into account that more Democrats have been in the Senate during confirmation votes than have Republicans.
Click to expand...

So 157-80? A neat 2-1 margin. Keep preaching about your 11 yes votes. I didn’t take the time to check your math vs mine. But hey what a 2-1 vote against margin.

And for the record Garland should have been seated
 
Last edited:
#472
#472
volinbham said:
I've always been of the mind that the POTUS gets to pick his/her(potentially) person. So long as the person is qualified then consent should be granted.

Much as I prefer the outcome of Gorsuch over Garland in principle I believe Obama had the power to appoint and the Senate should have confirmed Garland.

On the last point - my caveat is I believe POTI should replace like for like.

Obama lost some moral authority by voting against both Roberts and Alito as a Senator.
Click to expand...

I've been of the mind Garland would have been a better Kennedy replacement anyway because of his more centrist stance on many items.

I do think he deserved an up or down vote regardless.
 
#474
#474
If the Democrats control the presidency in 2020, along with the Senate and House, what's the Republican argument against Democrats packing the Court? 4 out of 9 justices (and maybe more if RBG doesn't last until then) will have been appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. With respect to social issues, the nation is moving in one direction; the court likely in another (gay rights, reproduction rights, civil rights,in voting rights). The Garland appointment was stolen. The filibuster rule for appointees was eliminated to get Gorsuch through. Republicans have shown no willingness to play by the norms. I don't see any moral ground for them to stand on to argue against it. It would likely require eliminating the filibuster rule for legislation, but at least some Republicans have been wanting to eliminate that for a while.
 
#475
#475
volfanhill said:
So 157-80? A neat 2-1 margin. Keep preaching about your 11 yes votes. I didn’t take the time to check your math vs mine. But hey what a 2-1 vote against margin.

And for the record Garland should have been seated
Click to expand...

VHF is on fire tonight. Thank you for some education about vetting. As a PoliSci grad years ago I did not know, embarrassingly.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top