President Trump nominates supreme court justice

[bunnycat]

How did Republicans break the law in blocking Garland? I don't know, so I'm asking. Both sides push the envelope. It's really disingenuous to pretend that only Republicans do this.
Again, President Obama's first two justice appointments weren't filibustered, and his cabinet picks were much more quickly accepted. Of course, liberals disapprove of the Trump picks, just as Republicans disapproved of Obama picks.
Both sides push their agendas. Both sides resist. Nothing new.

An ambiguous Constitutional loophole allowed the conservatives to not give consent even to a hearing, much less a vote.

Saying "the other side does it too" isn't a logical argument. It is merely deflecting the argument back to the other side rather than a logical commentary on the issue at hand.

 

[AnnaH]

I agree with you, PartG. Even the Reagan appointment was earlier than the Obama appointment, but not much. The difference would be hairsplitting. So it has been done.

I disagree, HC, that what the other side of the aisle did is irrelevant when it's already been introduced by other posters.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Both sides play hard or play dirty, however you want to label it.

Like President Obama famously said, "Elections have consequences."

In two years, the Republicans could lose their advantage, just as Democrats did in 2010. If so, the Democrats will take every advantage.

 

[partgypsy]

It is unfortunate that everything has become so partisan, individual members cannot act on their conscience or there is any reasonable meeting of the minds across the aisles.

 

[t-c]

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.

It's not that Obama's pick was not confirmed. He wasn't even allowed to start the confirmation process! Many senators refused to even consider the Merrick Garland nomination with many not even giving him a meeting. See this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...supreme-court-nominee/?utm_term=.258be5169587 So I find it incredibly ironic that after stonewalling many of Obama's appointments (see https://www.propublica.org/article/under-obama-more-appointments-go-unfilled#filibuster-correx), they're crying foul when Democrats want Trump's nominees fully vetted.

Sometimes the delay isn't even the Democrats: Trump's nominees are billionaires with substantial holdings that need to be unwound, by law and ethics requirements, which takes time. I mean Mnuchin forgot to disclose $100,000,000.00 worth of assets and a possible conflict of interest position in an off-shore fund! I don't care how rich you are, that's a substantial amount and his foreign investments need to be looked at more closely, specially when he's going to be heading the Treasury Department.

 

[t-c]

I agree with you, PartG. Even the Reagan appointment was earlier than the Obama appointment, but not much. The difference would be hairsplitting. So it has been done.

I disagree, HC, that what the other side of the aisle did is irrelevant when it's already been introduced by other posters.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Both sides play hard or play dirty, however you want to label it.

Like President Obama famously said, "Elections have consequences."

In two years, the Republicans could lose their advantage, just as Democrats did in 2010. If so, the Democrats will take every advantage.

Interesting link. Did you notice the following:

1. The first on this list was just Schumer TALKING about blocking a nomination. There wasn't an actual nomination that was blocked.

2. Charles Pickering. His nomination passed through committee and went to the full Senate for a vote where the Democrats filibustered. (Pickering's nomination went a whole lot farther than Merrick Garland's, that's for sure.) Pickering still made it to the 5th Circuit as a W. Bush recess appointment.

3. Carolyn Kuhl. Again, Kuhl had a committee hearing and was passed through the Senate for a vote and Democrats filibustered (again, farther than Judge Garland went). She eventually lost patience and withdrew her nomination. Bush nominated a replacement, Sandra Ikuta, who was easily confirmed.

4. Samuel Alito. Democrats opposed his nomination, but the fact that he is currently sitting on the Supreme Court ought to tell you that they did not block it.

5. Democrats passed a resolution to block possible Eisenhower's recess appointments, but none were actually blocked.

6. Miguel Estrada. He was blocked during the confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. At least he got a hearing, unlike Merrick Garland.

7. Robert Bork. He was also blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this is farther than Merrick Garland who couldn't even talk to most of the Senators.

8. See above. So #8 doesn't even count.

9. Clarence Thomas. Again, the fact that he's sitting mute on the Supreme Court ought to tell you that his nomination wasn't blocked.

10. Priscilla Owen. This is the only nominee who was not allowed to come to a committee vote. (Congratulations! 1/10 of the list is actually valid!). However, a compromise between moderate Dems and Reps were reached and she was eventually confirmed to the 5th Circuit by the full Senate. So still not quite up to the shenanigans Republicans pulled on the Merrick Garland, eh?.

 

[AnnaH]

So Dems weren't always successful? So what?

 

[Maria D]

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.

What does "President Obama wanted a last pick" mean? Did he knock off Scalia? It was his constitutional duty to nominate a candidate and he did that. Republican congressmen refused to do their job. Of course Obama thought Garland would be more acceptable to Republicans. Why wouldn't he with these kind of quotes:

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), D.C. Circuit Confirmation Vote, March 19, 1997: “By all accounts, he is a fine person and an able lawyer. He does have a very good job with the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), D.C. Circuit Confirmation Vote, March 19, 1997: “To my knowledge, no one, absolutely no one disputes the following: Merrick B. Garland is highly qualified to sit on the D.C. circuit. His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned . . . Accordingly, I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I know him personally, I know of his integrity, I know of his legal ability, I know of his honesty, I know of his acumen, and he belongs on the court. I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from [the Clinton] administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the list. . . [.]

There's plenty more at http://www.afj.org/gop-words-of-praise-for-supreme-court-nominee-merrick-garland

Scalia's death was unexpected. The repubs felt cheated because he went before Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So they pulled an unprecedented obstruction BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THEY ARE: dirty hypocritical fighters. You cannot say the same about Obama, leader of the dems at the time. He nominated someone they highly praised and still got sh*t on.

 

[Matata]

This man lacks scruples and self-respect. How can someone display such hypocrisy and have any regard for self?

 

[AnnaH]

Uh, no, President Obama didn't off anyone. Don't see how you came up with that.

It seems that some people are so partisan that they just can't accept/admit (whatever it is) that those who represent their views aren't perfect. There are hypocrites in every party.

Peace

 

[t-c]

So Dems weren't always successful? So what?

That's your take on it? Gaah, if you're okay with what the Republicans did with Merrick Garland, you should be just fine with any delays on the Democrats' side against any of the Republicans' nominees.

 

[Maria D]

Uh, no, President Obama didn't off anyone. Don't see how you came up with that.

It seems that some people are so partisan that they just can't accept/admit (whatever it is) that those who represent their views aren't perfect. There are hypocrites in every party.

Peace

I don't see how you came up with "Obama wanted a last pick." As if he had a choice in the matter.

 

[lovedogs]

This man lacks scruples and self-respect. How can someone display such hypocrisy and have any regard for self?

I was just going to post this! It's just disgusting.


EDIT: and this is what it comes down to for me:

Written by AnnaH » 01 Feb 2017 16:15:
So Dems weren't always successful? So what?

Written by T-C
That's your take on it? Gah, if you're okay with what the Republicans did with Merrick Garland, you should be just fine with any delays on the Democrats' side against any of the Republicans' nominees.

If you think it's ok what Reps did to Garland (e.g. it was their right to do it), then you cannot complain about what may happen in terms of delaying the Rep nominee, period.

 

[AGBF]

So Dems weren't always successful? So what?

That's your take on it? Gaah, if you're okay with what the Republicans did with Merrick Garland, you should be just fine with any delays on the Democrats' side against any of the Republicans' nominees.

Actually she should be fine with Trump's nominee never being sent to the Senate for a vote or even to committee. Trump wants his nominee's pathway to confirmation to be "elegant". That's why he is saying the Republicans should use "the nuclear option". Elegant. Garland's path was a muddy, water-filled trough. Maybe Gorsuch be forced to face the same muddy, shameful path Garland had to tread.