Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

[1972 Grad]

the problem with your hypothetical is the description "shouldn't be confirmed" is so vague that it's meaningless. Apparently Obama thought Roberts and Alito "shouldn't be confirmed".

There was no reason not to confirm Bork. It was political differences with liberals that sank his nomination. Biden and Kennedy (who has been sober for 11 years, incidentally) basically lynched him. That is, if you consider hanging a white man a lynching. That word may only apply to hanging people like Jussie Smollett.

 

[luthervol]

To give a platform for loudmouth Senators to make asses of themselves, and accuse people of rape......even worse, boofing.

That and the whole checks and balances thing.

 

[1972 Grad]

That and the whole checks and balances thing.

Which is totally out of control, politically. There is no need to kill a nomination just because you don't agree with a nominee's politics. NONE.

 

[volfanhill]

What if a president makes a pick who shouldn't be confirmed?

The right thing is to follow the process. I said that with Garland. The problem with the “we are mad at Mitch” crows is he warned you. Specifically told Reid not to do it. Reid decided to change how the senate operated. Now your side is getting screwed. But don’t forget who wanted to screw first. And I am not saying that’s what’s good for the country. But if I were a Dem I would be super pissed at Harry.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Both Republican and Democrat Presidents have had a majority Senate and not placed as many federal judges . Priorities like I said .
I believe that knocking off all top isis leaders and giving what most considered Iran’s number two guy and their top ranking General a one way ticket to see Allah “ addressing Iran as a threat “ .

And that was because not as many seats were open... you are trying to give Trump credit for what truly was just opportunity and good luck.

Most conservatives I spoke to in 2011, were very reluctant to give Barack Obama any credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden (who was 'hiding in plain sight' in Pakistan for most of George W. Bush's 2nd term in office). That was regarded as strictly being a well-coordinated military operation, that Obama only had to authorize. I have no problem with crediting Donald Trump for killing Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, but that also means that Barack Obama "killed" Osama bin Laden. Let's be consistent.

... and the threat of Iran developing a nuclear arsenal has not been addressed by Donald Trump, and that was obviously what I was talking about.

 

[1972 Grad]

The right thing is to follow the process. I said that with Garland. The problem with the “we are mad at Mitch” crows is he warned you. Specifically told Reid not to do it. Reid decided to change how the senate operated. Now your side is getting screwed. But don’t forget who wanted to screw first.

The Democrats started screwing with picks first , also. Witness...... Robert Bork.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The right thing is to follow the process. I said that with Garland. The problem with the “we are mad at Mitch” crows is he warned you. Specifically told Reid not to do it. Reid decided to change how the senate operated. Now your side is getting screwed. But don’t forget who wanted to screw first. And I am not saying that’s what’s good for the country. But if I were a Dem I would be super pissed at Harry.

You are drawing a false equivalency. That has nothing to do with the unprecedented move by the Senate Republicans to not allow a vote on Merrick Garland. Garland is one of only 4 Supreme Court nominees in history to not receive a Senate vote, when the nominee didn't either withdraw their nomination, have their nomination pulled by the President, or die before the vote could be made. The other 3 were all before the Civil War.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The Democrats started screwing with picks first , also. Witness...... Robert Bork.

I have said this about a thousand times on here... Robert Bork did get a vote, and it wasn't a party line vote either. Bork was a major player in Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" in October of 1973 and there were Republicans who held that against him as well. Apples to oranges... it wasn't a party line vote.

 

[volfanhill]

You are drawing a false equivalency. That has nothing to do with the unprecedented move by the Senate Republicans to not allow a vote on Merrick Garland. Garland is one of only 4 Supreme Court nominees in history to not receive a Senate vote, when the nominee didn't either withdraw their nomination, have their nomination pulled by the President, or die before the vote could be made. The other 3 were all before the Civil War.

It does bc Mitch told you he would go scorched earth if the GOP ever had control again. That’s what they have done. The major mistake by both parties was the assumption in 08 that the Dems would have all three houses of Government for decades. Then the GOP made the same assumption in 2016. It was dumb. And it will be dumb again when the Dems hold three branches again in 2020. They will have it for two years. And then in 2024 it’s all up in the air again. But after this election tons will claim the GOP dead. They won’t be. Just like the Dems and Repubs were wrong before.

 

[BowlBrother85]

As far as placing 3 SCOTUS and 200 federal judges like I specifically stated as facts ? It very easy to see where he places because we have records . I didn’t say I placed him anywhere , I said those facts will place him .

Those don't mean anything other than his good luck. It is absurd that you are counting that as an achievement of his.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I thought the doomsday talk was bad during the Obama years but even someone like me, who absolutely detests Trump and his neophytes, is blown away by how this election has developed a narrative that screams "our lives depend on it."

Agree. Life experiences and historical perspectives go a long way

 

[volfanhill]

The Democrats started screwing with picks first , also. Witness...... Robert Bork.

Oh Bork got hosed and Biden had a huge hand in that

 

[volinbham]

You are drawing a false equivalency. That has nothing to do with the unprecedented move by the Senate Republicans to not allow a vote on Merrick Garland. Garland is one of only 4 Supreme Court nominees in history to not receive a Senate vote, when the nominee didn't either withdraw their nomination, have their nomination pulled by the President, or die before the vote could be made. The other 3 were all before the Civil War.

The false equivalency is that only the MG nomination matters. It's been escalation and mutual destruction for decades. Neither side is clean and pretending that the MG nomination was the one that went too far is just a case of it hurt my team so it's the bad one.

we were told by some Dems here that the Kavanaugh treatment was payback for MG. Guess that will be the excuse for a while.

 

[85SugarVol]

So let’s play it out and avoid the Garland controversy.

McConnell let’s Garland come before a vote and he’s confirmed. Allowing Obama to replace Scalia.

Trump still wins in ‘16.

Ginsberg passes, opening up her seat for Trump to fill.

What is the Democrat response today?

@BowlBrother85

I truly am interested in your response to this. Especially given your 200+ posts today referencing Garland.

 

[Rickyvol77]

The nominee will face scrutiny, but the Democrats will only demonize the obvious hypocrisy of Senate Republicans, and then start to build their own case for why packing the Supreme Court is justified. Schumer was talking about it earlier on MSNBC. Of course, that first means that they need to win the presidency plus the Senate.

Is it not hypocrisy on the Dems also when they supported the same thing in 2016?

 

[1972 Grad]

I have said this about a thousand times on here... Robert Bork did get a vote, and it wasn't a party line vote either. Bork was a major player in Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" in October of 1973 and there were Republicans who held that against him as well. Apples to oranges... it wasn't a party line vote.

He should have been confirmed. It was political payback for being associated with Nixon. 96% of Dems voted against him, and 87% of Reps voted for him. Not that far from party line.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Oh Bork got hosed and Biden had a huge hand in that

No, Bork made himself toxic politically when he did Nixon's bidding during the "Saturday Night Massacre". He hosed himself when he fired Archibald Cox, in exchange for the promise of a Supreme Court seat. Bork admitted to this later. It was common knowledge. There was no way he was going to be seated on the court after that. Once again, that was not a straight party line vote.

 

[volinbham]

He should have been confirmed. It was political payback for being associated with Nixon. 96% of Dems voted against him, and 87% of Reps voted for him. Not that far from party line.

that paragon of virtue Ted Kennedy told us about life in a Bork America...

 

[BowlBrother85]

He should have been confirmed. It was political payback for being associated with Nixon. 96% of Dems voted against him, and 87% of Reps voted for him. Not that far from party line.

Bork would have been confirmed if he had not fired Cox in October of 1973. He should have stayed above the Watergate fray... but he didn't.

 

[1972 Grad]

No, Bork made himself toxic politically when he did Nixon's bidding during the "Saturday Night Massacre". He hosed himself when he fired Archibald Cox, in exchange for the promise of a Supreme Court seat. Bork admitted to this later. It was common knowledge. There was no way he was going to be seated on the court after that. Once again, that was not a straight party line vote.

Yep. 2 Dems broke and voted opposite of the other 52.

 

[1972 Grad]

Bork would have been confirmed if he had not fired Cox in October of 1973. He should have stayed above the Watergate fray... but he didn't.

Nope. The Dem abortion industry killed him off.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Yep. 2 Dems broke and voted opposite of the other 52.

He should not have stepped in and fired Archibald Cox.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Nope. The Dem abortion industry killed him off.

He was killed anyway. There were anti-abortion Justices on the court in 1987. Bork had revealed himself to be a political pawn. That couldn't stand from a Supreme Court Justice, nor should it.

 

[0nelilreb]

And that was because not as many seats were open... you are trying to give Trump credit for what truly was just opportunity and good luck.

Most conservatives I spoke to in 2011, were very reluctant to give Barack Obama any credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden (who was 'hiding in plain sight' in Pakistan for most of George W. Bush's 2nd term in office). That was regarded as strictly being a well-coordinated military operation, that Obama only had to authorize. I have no problem with crediting Donald Trump for killing Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, but that also means that Barack Obama "killed" Osama bin Laden. Let's be consistent.

... and the threat of Iran developing a nuclear arsenal has not been addressed by Donald Trump, and that was obviously what I was talking about.

You sure did add a lot of new details for you to have been so obvious on what you were talking about in that last post . You actually just said he hasn’t addressed Iran’s threat . I just helped correct that with facts that he has .

 

[volfanhill]

Bork would have been confirmed if he had not fired Cox in October of 1973. He should have stayed above the Watergate fray... but he didn't.

That’s true. But he was confirmed to the appellate court well after watergate. So the math on that seems pretty muddled to me.