ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
Really??...ruby59|1485913293|4122645 said:Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.
Dancing Fire|1485913416|4122647 said:Really??...ruby59|1485913293|4122645 said:Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.![]()
ruby59|1485913293|4122645 said:Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.
ruby59|1485913293|4122645 said:Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.
E B|1485920150|4122701 said:As far as I've heard, he's a competent and intelligent judge, but a chart I saw put him past Scalia, even, on an ideological spectrum. Garland was a centrist- a good compromise. Trump went as conservative as possible.
Keep in mind, it isn't "payback" as much as it's lingering anger that this seat was essentially stolen. Obama had *every* right to nominate and have his choice considered, but Rs obstructed because they wanted "the people" to decide. Well, the people HAD decided on Obama TWICE, and Hillary this time around. That said, anyone with a better memory than a goldfish remembers this and sees the whining over "unprecedented Dem obstruction" as about as disingenuous as it gets.
E B|1485920685|4122708 said:Exactly, MariaD.
Don't think for a second Republicans wouldn't do the exact same thing if Hillary were president. More obnoxiously, I'm sure, since there are several Dems already calling to have Gorsuch considered. Merrick Garland was treated pretty appallingly.
lovedogs|1485920496|4122705 said:My biggest problem is that somehow R's think that the Dems HAVE to accept this nomination, but somehow what R's did to Garland was ok. That's total BS, and very hypocritical. So I think that Garland should have been considered, but that doesn't automatically make me hate this nominee.
Maria D|1485920383|4122704 said:ruby59|1485913293|4122645 said:Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.
Whooooaaaaaa wait a minute.
It wasn't that Obama's pick wasn't confirmed.
It was that Republicans refused to even CONSIDER the president's pick. POTUS has the constitutional duty to nominate SC justices, with the job of the Senate to advise and consent. The Republicans REFUSED TO DO THEIR JOB.
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
I am not arguing that the Dems should now pull the same crap the Republicans did, and I don't think they will.
ruby59, it's obviously very important to you to have a biased view of the political climate; carry on.
AnnaH|1485923273|4122724 said:President Obama appointed two justices without filibuster.
His cabinet appointments were approved much quicker than Trump's.
ruby59|1485913293|4122645 said:Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.
AnnaH|1485923273|4122724 said:President Obama appointed two justices without filibuster.
His cabinet appointments were approved much quicker than Trump's.
ruby59|1485917335|4122682 said:"Payback" seems to be a common theme from the dems being interviewed.
AnnaH|1485963076|4122852 said:On Garland, Republicans had the power and the legal right to block Garland, so they did. It was a gamble.
Unlike Obama's previous appointments, Garland isn't seemingly far left. President Obama wanted a last pick and thought Garland would be more acceptable to Republicans. We don't really know what kind of justice Garland would have been. Some Republican picks on the court haven't proved to be such originalists.
Given HRC was highly expected to win, I don't know why Republicans gambled but glad they did.
AnnaH|1485963076|4122852 said:On Garland, Republicans had the power and the legal right to block Garland, so they did. It was a gamble.
Unlike Obama's previous appointments, Garland isn't seemingly far left. President Obama wanted a last pick and thought Garland would be more acceptable to Republicans. We don't really know what kind of justice Garland would have been. Some Republican picks on the court haven't proved to be such originalists.
Given HRC was highly expected to win, I don't know why Republicans gambled but glad they did.
part gypsy|1485966845|4122877 said:The reason that Mitch McConnell gave, is that it was an election year. History and precedent show this is not correct.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/in-election-years-a-history-of-confirming-court-nominees.html?_r=0
AnnaH|1485967112|4122879 said:part gypsy|1485966845|4122877 said:The reason that Mitch McConnell gave, is that it was an election year. History and precedent show this is not correct.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/in-election-years-a-history-of-confirming-court-nominees.html?_r=0
Our posts crossed. I will read yout article.