Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

retrofade

In a 180° that absolutely everyone saw coming, McConnell says Republicans would fill 2020 Supreme Court vacancy

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Orange said:

You know, except for the constitution and all that....

Congress doesn’t have to rubber stamp the President’s SCOTUS (or any other) pick for anything.  I do think they should’ve held hearings on Garland but they did nothing illegal or unconstitutional by refusing to do so.  That’s the Senate’s right to do that. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mugtang said:

Congress doesn’t have to rubber stamp the President’s SCOTUS (or any other) pick for anything.  I do think they should’ve held hearings on Garland but they did nothing illegal or unconstitutional by refusing to do so.  That’s the Senate’s right to do that. 

No one said a thing about "rubberstamping."

Holding hearings, however, is "advice and consent."

I absolutely believe what they did was unconstitutional, and I think you would, too, if the partisan shoe was on the other foot.  Whether there is a remedy for the senate failing to even consider a nominee is a flaw in the constitution that may need fixing.  What we know for sure is that McConnell is definitely a party-over-country guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Orange said:

That's not how separation of powers works.  Congress shirked its duty thanks to a hyper-partisan, emotional senate majority leader.

No, that’s exactly how it works. You don’t have to like it but it wasn’t you that the voters of the republic gave the job to.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

No, that’s exactly how it works. You don’t have to like it but it wasn’t you that the voters of the republic gave the job to.

The voters??


The voters didn't give the job to Trump, but he has it.  Again,  you'd NEVER support this behavior if it was a Democrat engaged in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orange said:

No one said a thing about "rubberstamping."

Holding hearings, however, is "advice and consent."

I absolutely believe what they did was unconstitutional, and I think you would, too, if the partisan shoe was on the other foot.  Whether there is a remedy for the senate failing to even consider a nominee is a flaw in the constitution that may need fixing.  What we know for sure is that McConnell is definitely a party-over-country guy.

I actually don’t like McConnell and have expressed those views multiple times on the board, but you’re new here so I’ll give you a pass on that.  But I don’t think what they did was unconstitutional. I expressed at the time and have said numerous times that I believed they should’ve held hearings but it was the Senate Majority leader’s choice not to.  And I’m sure if it was a Dem Senate that held up a GOP nominee in the same fashion you’d be cheering it on too. Cause partisan teams and stuff.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mugtang said:

I actually don’t like McConnell and have expressed those views multiple times on the board, but you’re new here so I’ll give you a pass on that.  But I don’t think what they did was unconstitutional. I expressed at the time and have said numerous times that I believed they should’ve held hearings but it was the Senate Majority leader’s choice not to.  And I’m sure if it was a Dem Senate that held up a GOP nominee in the same fashion you’d be cheering it on too. Cause partisan teams and stuff.

Now I would, sure.  Because McConnell set the precedent.

NOW do you see why his move was unconstitutional?

How long do you believe a Senate can block a nominee?  Forever?  Can the senate singlehandedly block justices until the last one dies?  That's the behavior  you claim is "constitutional" by the U.S. Senate.  The judiciary was meant to be a hallowed, non-partisan branch, and Mitch and Mitch alone made it not so.  To retroactively claim that's constitutional is madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orange said:

The voters??


The voters didn't give the job to Trump, but he has it.  Again,  you'd NEVER support this behavior if it was a Democrat engaged in it.

Uhh yeah they did, unless you’re a full RuSsIaNs HaCkEd ThE bAlLoTs conspiracy theorist. And I didn’t support McConnell doing it at the time. I said right from the beginning if he didn’t want Garland or any other nominee Obama sent up the hill, whip the votes and shoot them down. I thought it was a harmful, unnecessary escalation of partisan trench warfare.

But my disagreement wasn’t about the constitutionality of McConnel’s actions. He rightfully had the power to do what he did. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orange said:

Now I would, sure.  Because McConnell set the precedent.

NOW do you see why his move was unconstitutional?

How long do you believe a Senate can block a nominee?  Forever?  Can the senate singlehandedly block justices until the last one dies?  That's the behavior  you claim is "constitutional" by the U.S. Senate.  The judiciary was meant to be a hallowed, non-partisan branch, and Mitch and Mitch alone made it not so.  To retroactively claim that's constitutional is madness.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says they have to sit a nominee within a certain time frame.  I think it would be a mistake to hold open a seat for that long. And I’m sure you would’ve cheered the move in 2016 if the roles were reversed. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

Uhh yeah they did, unless you’re a full RuSsIaNs HaCkEd ThE bAlLoTs conspiracy theorist. And I didn’t support McConnell doing it at the time. I said right from the beginning if he didn’t want Garland or any other nominee Obama sent up the hill, whip the votes and shoot them down. I thought it was a harmful, unnecessary escalation of partisan trench warfare.

But my disagreement wasn’t about the constitutionality of McConnel’s actions. He rightfully had the power to do what he did. 

No, they didn't, and the popular vote proved that.  Do you really not know this?  I'm merely rejecting your spurious "the voters chose" excuse for backing McConnell's unconstitutional actions.  Again, the problem is that there was no judicial remedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mugtang said:

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says they have to sit a nominee within a certain time frame.  I think it would be a mistake to hold open a seat for that long. And I’m sure you would’ve cheered the move in 2016 if the roles were reversed. 

I don't want to pull the appeal-to-authority fallacy, but such specificity has never been required to interpret that the constitution forbids or demands a certain action, and I'm an attorney.  I've actually studied this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

No, they didn't, and the popular vote proved that.  Do you really not know this?  I'm merely rejecting your spurious "the voters chose" excuse for backing McConnell's unconstitutional actions.  Again, the problem is that there was no judicial remedy.

Do you need to take a freshman civics class again? There were 50 popular votes, Trump won 30 of them. Grow up.

edit: 30 not 35

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

Now I would, sure.  Because McConnell set the precedent.

NOW do you see why his move was unconstitutional?

How long do you believe a Senate can block a nominee?  Forever?  Can the senate singlehandedly block justices until the last one dies?  That's the behavior  you claim is "constitutional" by the U.S. Senate.  The judiciary was meant to be a hallowed, non-partisan branch, and Mitch and Mitch alone made it not so.  To retroactively claim that's constitutional is madness.

It is all constitutional. Just because it was the other team, and not your team, doesn't mean it's "unconstitutional" somehow. It's totally allowed by the Constitution. There's all sorts of dirty tricks that are allowable under the constitution regarding appointments, seating of reps, etc. 
 

I do find it funny that you run around on here accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a right winger or something, yet, you admit on here you're the same partisan shill. Perhaps that's why you're so keen and quick to label others, because you yourself are a partisan shill and think that everyone else is also that way. 

1 minute ago, Orange said:

No, they didn't, and the popular vote proved that.  Do you really not know this?  I'm merely rejecting your spurious "the voters chose" excuse for backing McConnell's unconstitutional actions.  Again, the problem is that there was no judicial remedy.

The popular vote doesn't elect the president in the United States. 

 

Then again I'm just a truck driver in India so I don't know a lot about these issues.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Orange said:

"Consent" means a vote.  It's really that simple.  Denying hearings or a vote is abdicating your constitutional duty as a legislative body.

 

1 minute ago, Orange said:

No one said a thing about "rubberstamping."

Holding hearings, however, is "advice and consent."

I absolutely believe what they did was unconstitutional, and I think you would, too, if the partisan shoe was on the other foot.  Whether there is a remedy for the senate failing to even consider a nominee is a flaw in the constitution that may need fixing.  What we know for sure is that McConnell is definitely a party-over-country guy.

False dichotomy and reduction of what advice and consent means.  Mitch as the Majority party leader has a lot of discretion on the decisions of the Senate.  Mitch can act anyway within the rules that the Constitution allows the Senate to make for itself.  

3 minutes ago, Orange said:

Now I would, sure.  Because McConnell set the precedent.

NOW do you see why his move was unconstitutional?

How long do you believe a Senate can block a nominee?  Forever?  Can the senate singlehandedly block justices until the last one dies?  That's the behavior  you claim is "constitutional" by the U.S. Senate.  The judiciary was meant to be a hallowed, non-partisan branch, and Mitch and Mitch alone made it not so.  To retroactively claim that's constitutional is madness.

You serious?  Ever since Adams (maybe even Washington) Supreme Court picks have been political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mugtang said:

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says they have to sit a nominee within a certain time frame.  I think it would be a mistake to hold open a seat for that long. And I’m sure you would’ve cheered the move in 2016 if the roles were reversed. 

I think a law needs to be made that these kinds of things must be dealt with in a certain time limit, or something.  The vacancy happened in Obama's term and it should have been filled there, as there was more than adequate time to do so.  I would be consistent with that opinion with Trump as well. Although Mitch could have legally did what he did, not sure it's in the spirit of the intent of the ff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Orange said:

I don't want to pull the appeal-to-authority fallacy, but such specificity has never been required to interpret that the constitution forbids or demands a certain action, and I'm an attorney.  I've actually studied this stuff.

You either must (a) not be a very good one, (b) have went to a shitty school, or (c) have slept through Con Law then. 

I still think you're a jizzmopper in Portland though. At this point, not much could convince me otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Orange said:

No one said a thing about "rubberstamping."

Holding hearings, however, is "advice and consent."

I absolutely believe what they did was unconstitutional, and I think you would, too, if the partisan shoe was on the other foot.  Whether there is a remedy for the senate failing to even consider a nominee is a flaw in the constitution that may need fixing.  What we know for sure is that McConnell is definitely a party-over-country guy.

I think it was shitty to do.  I don't think it was unconstitutional.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimbo_Poke said:

 

False dichotomy and reduction of what advice and consent means.  Mitch as the Majority party leader has a lot of discretion on the decisions of the Senate.  Mitch can act anyway within the rules that the Constitution allows the Senate to make for itself.  

You serious?  Ever since Adams (maybe even Washington) Supreme Court picks have been political.

Setting a vote for a qualified pick has never been political.  And Merrick Garland was eminently qualified, and would've been seated 98-2 in any other decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joe from WY said:

You must not be a very good one or must have slept through Con Law then. 

So someone who has never taken con law and probably gets his con law education from the NRA tv channel is telling me I have an inadequate con law education?

 

LMAO!  Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orange said:

Setting a vote for a qualified pick has never been political.  And Merrick Garland was eminently qualified, and would've been seated 98-2 in any other decade.

You must be a very, very, young attorney.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

You either must (a) not be a very good one, (b) have went to a shitty school, or (c) have slept through Con Law then. 

I still think you're a jizzmopper in Portland though. At this point, not much could convince me otherwise. 

Oh I see, you were still editing.

Not sure you improved upon the message, but it's nice to see I mean that much to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...