Why rushing to fill RGB's SCOTUS seat may not be in Repubs best interest

"This close to an election" is the time period I'm referring to.

 

I did not realize the Constitution has a make it fair clause. Do you really want me to believe that everyone that thinks this is unfair and should be balanced, would feel the same if things were reversed? Of course not, you would be as giddy as I am right now. Being on the shortend of the stick sucks.

 

not sure how the three would be the majority...but furthermore, judges don’t represent anyone. A judge rules on what is the law. They don’t and are suppose to be representing people

 

The finger wagging from the frightened left is quite comical.

 

The voters did decide.

 

the voters gave the gop a wider majority n the senate...they have a clear mandate to get this done

 

It's "in the best interest" of America to make sure Dems cant fill the seat with a "legislate from the bench" activist Justice.

 

then why didn't McConnell hold hearings for Garland?

He told us why:

"He's a liberal" he said.

If Obama had picked Kavanaugh or Gorsuch, there is no way in hell you can tell me he would not have held a hearing for Gorsuch or Kavanaugh

so let's not pretend what is, or is not going on here.

Even Scalia said to 60 minutes, 'Well, judges do have there 'judicial philosophies'..

I'm sorry, but your premise just isnt' reality.

 

because of the biden rule.

not sure what your comment has to do with my post though. Judges don’t represent people as you suggested

 

When democrats had the majority, a senate confirmation for the SCOTUS required 2/3 majority, that means democrats could not get a judge appointed without consent a several republicans.

at the time, Sen Majority leader Harry Reid did not nuke the filibuster, and the reason he didn't was because democrats believed that an appointment to the supreme court shouldn't be decided by one side, alone, given that their ruling is final and it affects us all, and their appointments are for life. A supreme court nomination should be bipartisan.

We didn't nuke the 2/3 rule because that is what we believed.

That is just. Democrats believe in justice.

Republicans do not give a damn. they are all about their agenda, and they don't give a damn about democrats, they could care less if they choose a supreme court justice and not one democrat votes for him or her.

It is also a fact that the majority of criminal convictions in white house administrations are in republican administrations.

I think that fact is consistent with the fact they don't care about justice. It's their way or the highway, and democracy be damned. It is also the reason why they go out of their way to prevent people from voting, creating roadblocks for minorities. They have even admitted it.



that is why they nuked the filibuster for Gorsuch, and disallowed a hearing and a vote for an honorable, qualified judge, Garland, who, at the very minimum, deserved a hearing, bugt they denied him even that.

Republican do not care about justice. They only care about power.

I said I could live with a one judge majority for republicans. one side has to be the majority, liberal or conservative

But a court where one side hasn't a fat chance in hell is not a matter of not being fair, it's not just.

The word isn't fair' the word is 'justice'.

The law is all about what is just. That is why judges are often called 'justices'. When laws are drafted, the monitoring factor is 'what is just'.

It is why the symbol of the court is the scales of 'justice'

Fairness is a component. It is understood. Just it is understood that constitution can't spell out every right that exists in the world, that there are penumbra rights.

Is a court where 6 of the judges' judicial philosophies happen to have the effect of leaning towards pleasing the minority of the public most of the time and 3 of the judges' judicial philosophes favor the majority, but their vote will never matter because the court is controlled by 6 judges who will, most of the time, vote against them, noting their vote pleases the minority, most of the time..

A 6/3 conservative court will translate in to the will of the people getting squashed, as the majority of the electorate want democrats for congress, the senate, and the presidency.

But republicans do not give a damn about the will of the people. they want to take away the health care of some 20,,000,000 people they want to repeal Roe v Wade, though it is well established precedent. noting that a majority of the electorate want R v W preserved.

 

Judges are picked by presidents according to their judicial philosophies.. Every judge Trump picks was selected by the 'Federalist Society" which is a right wing group. They would never pick someone like Garland, who is as qualified as Gorsuch but more of a centrist. It's not that they 'represent' anyone, it's who one side or the other favors, according to their judicial philosophies. We know what their judicial outlook is based on how they have ruled in the past, based on articles they have published in legal journals, in the past.

Certain judges are favored by republicans, others are favored by democrats.

There is no 'biden rule'.

But, whatever the hell that is, Graham stated this to justify McConnell's not holding hearings for Garland. He took the opposite position with Clinton, and flipped again with Trump.

IN other words, Lindsay's and otehr republicans, position on whether or not a president should pick a supreme court justice in his final term depends on who is president at the time.

There is no law saying this, it's just politics, and power. I wouldn't mind if they were honest bout it, but they are hypocrites. Look at what Lindsay said in Obama's final year of his last term, when he nominated Garland.

"I want you to use my words against me: if there's a republic president in 2016 and a vacancy in the last year of the 1st term, you can say Lindsay Graham says 'you can let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination, AND YOU CAN USE MY WORDS AGAINST ME' and you'd be absolutely right. We're setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year – at least of a lame duck eight-year term ... that you're not gonna fill a vacant seat of the Supreme Court based on what we're doing here today. That's gonna be the new rule,"

---Sen. Lindsay Graham

 

Graham was following the Biden Rule from 92. McConnell did away with it at the request of dems

you implied they represented the majority of the population or minority

of course they are nomined by the philosophy.

Garland and Kavenaugh had agreed over 90 percent of the time...but the left still attacked him and made up false accusations

 

There is no biden rule, no one ever followed it, right or left. Even when he said it, they still gave a hearing and a vote. But not for Garland.

Graham STATED IT WAS A RULE FROM NOW ON.

"From now on" capiche?

Repubs want a 6/3 conservative court, but a majority of the voting population is liberal, this is a left of center nation. this court would not represent the will of the people.
They would kill R v W, but most people want to preserve it. They would kill the ACA, but ACA is popular now.

Ford had no reason to lie. Even McConnell said she was credible.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408789-gop-senator-calls-ford-credible

It wasn't a court of law, it was a job application. I believe her. The allegations were true, every word of it. Kavanaugh attempted to rape her.

this is not a court of law, this is a court of job application, and having an opinion, sizing up your applicant, evidence or none, is how things are done in the real world.

In a court of law, you'd have a point, but that is not what this is.

I thought Kavanaugh wasn't qualified, not for the allegations against him, though I believe her, I felt he was not qualified because his petty partisan tirade before the confirmation hearing.
was way way way beneath the dignity and eloquence I would expect of someone applying for the supreme court as justice. Maybe some traffic court, but not the Supreme Court.

Trump was accused by 25 women, and one of rape. He's a pervert. So republicans have 2 pervs on the court, and one for president.

****ing brilliant, not to mention republicans in the white houses are a runaway criminal enterprise, per historical fact



What's wrong with you people, have you got mad?

 

it never came up before

Graham was overruled by the Leader McConnell

Ford had a lot of reasons to lie...money money by the dems

Her best friend and so called witness said she lied

the president’s been fully investigated like Kavenaugh and exeonerated

 

My civics teacher, 1983, taught me something I've never forgotten, and has been proven true my entire life.

She taught us that partisanship was starting to get silly. Each time the minority party became the majority, they'd put in rules and procedures that helped them, believing they'd never be out of power again. Once they got out of power, the other team ups the ante and does the same.

Now we are at this point. They did it, too!

Someone has to say enough. I personally don't care if Trump gets another pick, but, if they don't follow some semblance of the rules in place like they did to Obama, there will be consequences when the left becomes the majority again. What will they do? Add a bunch of seats to the court and put some loons in there? Could be.

This one-upmanship is getting out of control. The message should be that don't give yourselves power that you don't want the other team to have when they take office. Seems logical to me.

If McConnell does play the hypocrite card and rush this through, bet that team D will be salivating over the chaos they will cause when it's their turn.

Then we'll be hearing about oh-so-hypocritical they are, from the team currently not even caring that they are being hypocritical. They will care at some point.

Rinse/repeat; we'll have these same type of conversations again. The partisans will flip flop their positions entirely, and us, in the middle, will be shaking our heads at the insanity our two party system has brought upon us.

 

It's not the Constitution but the Republicans who initiated this rule in 2016. Looks like the Democrats are doing what Lindsey said, using his words against him. Poor Lindsey. Looks bad for his reelection.

 

If the op OP thinks a bad idea, then it must be a really good idea

 

Perhaps you should read the essay known as federalist #78.
It isn’t the duty of the Supreme Court to represent people or to accommodate voices.
Your article 2 grievances need to be taken up with article 1 not article 3.

 

No, but, for example, the Federalist Society or the Heritage Foundation present a list to Trump to pick certain judges, in the hopes that they will vote their way, based on justices voting record, opinions written, and so forth.

That's what I mean, and that doesn't conflict with #78, I wasn't talking about 'duty'. I was talking about 'judicial philosophy'.

Whatever.

 

Shoving a new justice thru will be in the Repubs best interest.

 

Oh looky, you have the Repubs best interests at heart. Giggles

 

If Trump gets another hard right winger on the court, they are going to kill health care for 20,000,000 people.

they will end Roe V Wade, and make abortion illegal.

That is what this is all about. A 6/3 court is unacceptable. 5/4 we can live with, but republicans are pushing their luck, noting that

1. 77% do not want Roe v Wade repealed.

2. A majority do not want the ACA repealed.

IN other words, what republicans want to do is not what the people want. In fact, far more people want democrats in the senate and house than they do republicans, not to mention the presidency, if we are looking at majorities. This is a center left nation.

How about a court that reflects the population, in terms of 'judicial philosophy'.

 

If you want to have a constitutional amendment, or a complete rewrite, Thomas Jefferson would approve. I, personally, think the tree of liberty has not seen enough blood food recently, so that's what it's going to take. Until then, we're all just naval gazing at what we wish for.

We are not currently in a solidified place to have a constitutional re-write. We could get there, but we need partisans to stop being so, well, partisan.

 

It would allow newly re-elected Democrats the chance to do a Kavanagh job on whom ever is nominates secure in the knowledge the voters memories are short and they will have up to 6 years for the voters to forget.

 

Health care is available to the poor and folks with no insurance, you'll just have to stand in line to get it. I know, I went 7 years with no health insurance. I went to the County Health Center for regular stuff and the County Hospital if I needed anything else. Did I have to wait in line...yep. Did it suck...yep. But, I wasn't in a position for full time employment and company sponsored health care. Am I now...yep. I work hard for a Cadillac Health Plan at the age of 61 with disabilities. If I can still work after being run over by a 28,000 lb Armored Truck on the highway at 55 mph, for those that simply can't there is SSI Disability/Medicare. For those that won't, go wait in line at the County, you'll get care.

https://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/