Expand Court

[BigRed]

Garland is getting a bit more exposure in his role as AG.

All I can say is keeping that piece of **** away from a any bench is a good move.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I see that @Kutnupe14 likes the above post.

It's like this. Playing by marquis of Queensbury rules while your opponent is street fighting guarantees that you lose. The GOP has finally figured this out and I make no apology for it.

I liked the post, because it was ironic, and the poster apparently not even realizing that his words can be equally applied.

 

[Kutnupe14]

[Rolls eyes in Robert Bork]

Seriously, though. You're going to claim that not holding a hearing for Garland was some kind of novel, precedent-setting Senate action? "Advise and consent" includes not giving consent, which is exactly what happened with Merrick Garland.

Consideration was never given to Garland. THE Senate (as a body) never was given the opportunity. They were not advised nor able to give consent. I interpret NOT giving "consent," as a vote declining his promotion.

 

[KLB]

Consideration was never given to Garland. THE Senate (as a body) never was given the opportunity. They were not advised nor able to give consent. I interpret NOT giving "consent," as a vote declining his promotion.

He wasn't the first nominee to not be given a vote.

 

[printcraft]

Consideration was never given to Garland. THE Senate (as a body) never was given the opportunity. They were not advised nor able to give consent. I interpret NOT giving "consent," as a vote declining his promotion.

Look at what he is saying now, the little nazi shouldn’t have even been up in the first place. Is this the hill you want to go down on?

 

[Kutnupe14]

He wasn't the first nominee to not be given a vote.

I'm clear. And I think, unless time is an issue, the denial of voting on those other nominees was petty too. I hold the opinion, that if a president is empowered to nominate a position, then the Senate should be compelled to listen and vote, if there is sufficient time to do so. Simply holding a nomination isn't a good way to go about business.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Look at what he is saying now, the little nazi shouldn’t have even been up in the first place. Is this the hill you want to go down on?

Absolutely. If the Senate doesn't like what he says, deny him the position.

 

[chipbennett]

Consideration was never given to Garland. THE Senate (as a body) never was given the opportunity. They were not advised nor able to give consent. I interpret NOT giving "consent," as a vote declining his promotion.

That Senate body disagreed, and the Constitution gives the Senate, not you, the latitude to set its own rules.

 

[chipbennett]

Absolutely. If the Senate doesn't like what he says, deny him the position.

That's... what the Senate did. So what's your complaint (other than that you disagree with the manner in which they exercised their Constitutional authority to effect that denial)?

 

[Kutnupe14]

That Senate body disagreed, and the Constitution gives the Senate, not you, the latitude to set its own rules.

The Democrat Senators are part of that body, yes? So where were their voices heard, or any of the other Senators? The Senate GOP leadership held the nomination. Yes, it is within the scope of the Senate rules to do so. I've never said otherwise. This is where that "be careful what you wish for" resonates, because the Democrats are prepared to do the same thing within the scope of those "rules."

 

[KG1]

Democrats want to apply the wholesale bulk approach to SC nominations for political gain. This raises the stakes considerably. It's quite different than denying a confirmation hearing on a single nominee. If it's wrong for Republicans to do it then it's three times as wrong for the Democrats.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's... what the Senate did. So what's your complaint (other than that you disagree with the manner in which they exercised their Constitutional authority to effect that denial)?

No, that's it. The manner. I have a fair bet people are going to disagree with the "manner" Democrats go about their political objectives too.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Democrats want to apply the wholesale bulk approach to SC nominations for political gain. This raises the stakes considerably. It's quite different than denying a confirmation hearing on a single nominee.

I'll agree that ultimately, the Democrats are attempting to grab a substantial amount of power above the instance denying Garland... but BOTH are done for political gain, so lets not fools ourselves. The only argument you have is that the Democrats are trying to do more.

 

[KLB]

I'm clear. And I think, unless time is an issue, the denial of voting on those other nominees was petty too. I hold the opinion, that if a president is empowered to nominate a position, then the Senate should be compelled to listen and vote, if there is sufficient time to do so. Simply holding a nomination isn't a good way to go about business.

So you feel that even if the Senate will without a doubt reject the candidate, they should put on the show of having a hearing and voting him down? Sounds like a waste of time and resources to me. Not that they were ever stopped from doing anything solely on those grounds.

 

[chipbennett]

The Democrat Senators are part of that body, yes? So where were their voices heard, or any of the other Senators? The Senate GOP leadership held the nomination. Yes, it is within the scope of the Senate rules to do so. I've never said otherwise. This is where that "be careful what you wish for" resonates, because the Democrats are prepared to do the same thing within the scope of those "rules."

Their voices were heard when the Senate Rules for Proceedings were approved.

And you know full-well that what the Democrats are contemplating with packing the court (and abolishing the filibuster) goes well-beyond the Senate actions with Merrick Garland. I suspect that you don't care, perhaps because you are ideologically aligned with the outcome.

 

[KG1]

I'll agree that ultimately, the Democrats are attempting to grab a substantial amount of power above the instance denying Garland... but BOTH are done for political gain, so lets not fools ourselves. The only argument you have is that the Democrats are trying to do more.

You've already said that you disagree with the tactics for political gain.. Therefore the only argument you have is payback is just fine.

That's not a valid argument in my book for either party.

 

[JTScribe]

Guys, he's not debating. He's trying to push buttons. Put him on ignore.

 

[chipbennett]

I'll agree that ultimately, the Democrats are attempting to grab a substantial amount of power above the instance denying Garland... but BOTH are done for political gain, so lets not fools ourselves. The only argument you have is that the Democrats are trying to do more.

The Republicans merely followed the existing rules.

The Democrats seek to change the rules.

Nope; no difference there at all.

 

[KG1]

Their voices were heard when the Senate Rules for Proceedings were approved.

And you know full-well that what the Democrats are contemplating with packing the court (and abolishing the filibuster) goes well-beyond the Senate actions with Merrick Garland. I suspect that you don't care, perhaps because you are ideologically aligned with the outcome.

He also knows full well right that he would be screaming bloody murder along with his chosen party if the Republicans tried to do anything like this on such a grand scale.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Guys, he's not debating. He's trying to push buttons. Put him on ignore.

People are big boys around here. Many can think for themselves. If conversation is beyond you or you’ve had your feeling hurt in the past, move on. Don’t try to parent other members.