Congressional Hearings

[BDKJMU]

No they didn't.

Yes, they did. Obama had every right to nominate somebody. Republicans, wrongly, blocked him b/c it was an election year. It's my opinion, but that was wrong.

They were just doing what the donks would do. Biden and Reid said so.

[Ibanez]

Yes, they did. Obama had every right to nominate somebody. Republicans, wrongly, blocked him b/c it was an election year. It's my opinion, but that was wrong.

They were just doing what the donks would do. Biden and Reid said so.

Yeah, that's a mature response.
For fuck sake, BDK.

But, but, Harry Reid did it!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

The Republicans last year did something that had never been done before
And they got their reward today
and now they're doing something else that hasn't been done before
and they will get their reward for this later as well

Desperation has a certain smell to it...

[CAA Flagship]

You got a better option?

If only there was a way people with opposing ideas can come together, act like adults for the greater good and get the job done with civility and integrity.

You don't always get what you want. This "my way or the highway" mentality is futile and will only lead us to ruin.

Agree. The Donks should vote the same way they voted for Gorsuch in 2006.

Our ruling

McConnell said, "Not a single Democrat opposed Neil Gorsuch's confirmation in 2006."

Gorsuch was approved by unanimous consent by the Senate for a court of appeals seat during Bush’s presidency. That means no roll call vote was required, but senators could have raised objections but none did.

The majority of circuit court confirmations under Bush occurred through unanimous consent or by a roll call vote that was unanimous.

We rate this claim True.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... -confirma/

[Chizzang]

Where's Internet Tough Guy Alpha..?
We need some of his magic on this topic

[GannonFan]

But that at least wasn't without precedent. Something like 10 SCOTUS nominations have been ignored or not acted on before

This is crap

We haven't always had hearings for SCOTUS nominees. It's a somewhat recent phenomenon.

Is the chair aware of any instance in the years between the 1949 advent of routine public Supreme Court confirmation hearings and 2016 that a nominee who was not withdrawn did not receive a hearing and vote?

The Presiding Officer: The Secretary of the Senate's office confirms that since 1949, Supreme Court nominees have routinely received public hearings. Harriet Myers, whose nomination was withdrawn, and Merrick Garland did not.

To try to play it off as something similar to Merrick Garland happened 10 times before is just dishonest and bullshit. And, I think you know it.

But the end result was the same. The GOP held the Senate when Garland was nominated. The GOP wasn't going to confirm him. The particulars of how it went about are just details. I've already said they did it wrong and they just should've voted him down. But frankly, that doesn't greatly matter. At the end of the day, Garland was not going to be confirmed because he didn't have 50 votes in the Senate.

And that's again why what happened today doesn't really change what's really been the reality anyway - the filibuster was always a hollow threat because it had never been used before the Dems did today, and removing the filibuster as a tool just brings us back to the reality that has always been for confirming justices for the SCOTUS - 50 votes and the VP or 51 votes. That's all that's ever been needed (adjusting for the size of the Senate) and that's all that's needed now. Everything else is just political grandstanding.

[BDKJMU]

The Republicans last year did something that had never been done before
And they got their reward today
and now they're doing something else that hasn't been done before
and they will get their reward for this later as well

Desperation has a certain smell to it...

In response to the democrats last year wanting something being done that hadn't been done in 84 years (vacancy, nomination & confirmation all occuring in an election year), and the democrats this week doing something that had never been done before (flibuster of a SCOTUS nominee).

[Chizzang]

The Republicans last year did something that had never been done before
And they got their reward today
and now they're doing something else that hasn't been done before
and they will get their reward for this later as well

Desperation has a certain smell to it...

In response to the democrats last year wanting something being done that hadn't been done in 84 years (vacancy, nomination & confirmation all occuring in an election year), and the democrats this week doing something that had never been done before (flibuster of a SCOTUS nominee).

It all comes back around...

[GannonFan]

In response to the democrats last year wanting something being done that hadn't been done in 84 years (vacancy, nomination & confirmation all occuring in an election year), and the democrats this week doing something that had never been done before (flibuster of a SCOTUS nominee).

It all comes back around...

It does and it doesn't. Again, what has really changed? Everytime the Senate has acted upon a nomination in the past, 50 votes with the VP or 51 votes has been the threshold. That's been the case with every single justice approved since they'd had 100 Senators, and the same proportion held for when they had less. Gorsuch just got approved (54-45) by the same standard that has always existed.

[BDKJMU]

It all comes back around...

It does and it doesn't. Again, what has really changed? Everytime the Senate has acted upon a nomination in the past, 50 votes with the VP or 51 votes has been the threshold. That's been the case with every single justice approved since they'd had 100 Senators, and the same proportion held for when they had less. Gorsuch just got approved (54-45) by the same standard that has always existed.

Without hearing it or seeing it yet, without looking it up I'm going to guess the 54 votes were 52 conks + 2 donks (Manchin of WV and Heitcamp of ND)?

[Skjellyfetti]

Nah, a Conk didn't make it into work.

3 Donks voted for him.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Where's Internet Tough Guy Alpha..?
We need some of his magic on this topic

Im buying guns and ammo, now piss off yuppie........the men are busy

[Chizzang]

Im buying guns and ammo, now piss off yuppie........the men are busy

What.. oh
are you in charge of the dishes..?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Dishing out pain and excellence

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Nah, a Conk didn't make it into work.

3 Donks voted for him.

Ok I got 2 of 3. Didn't get Donnelly of IN (forgot that he had announced support earlier). All 3 donks are from very red states, so no surprise..

Conks could have wheeled Isakson of GA (recovering from back surgery) if they needed to.

[houndawg]

The cloture vote that failed was 55-45 (needed 60). For reference, Clarence Thomas was confirmed for the SCOTUS by a 52-48 vote. Again, if you didn't filibuster Thomas, why would you ever filibuster Gorsuch?

In reality, though, while people say this really creates a huge deal in the Senate, just that past example shows why it doesn't change things. Since no party had ever used the filibuster as a tool to block an otherwise confirmable candidate to join the SCOTUS before (for reference, Abe Fortas was already on the Court when the potential of a filibuster stopped his possibility of becoming the Chief Justice), the filibuster wasn't even part of the discussion in past confirmations. It always went to the Senate for confirmation, and as Alito and Thomas saw, there was never a 60 vote threshold needed for confirmation anyway. The Democrats may have changed the game here by invoking a filibuster, but majority rule was always the rule of the day anyway for SCOTUS confirmations. This just formalizes it.

payback of course.

[houndawg]

If only there was a way people with opposing ideas can come together, act like adults for the greater good and get the job done with civility and integrity.

You don't always get what you want. This "my way or the highway" mentality is futile and will only lead us to ruin.

Agree. The Donks should vote the same way they voted for Gorsuch in 2006.

Our ruling

McConnell said, "Not a single Democrat opposed Neil Gorsuch's confirmation in 2006."

Gorsuch was approved by unanimous consent by the Senate for a court of appeals seat during Bush’s presidency. That means no roll call vote was required, but senators could have raised objections but none did.

The majority of circuit court confirmations under Bush occurred through unanimous consent or by a roll call vote that was unanimous.

We rate this claim True.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... -confirma/

We can do better than a judge whose mom was cited for contempt of Congress and was lucky to avoid prison. You know the apple don't fall far from the tree...

[CID1990]

Agree. The Donks should vote the same way they voted for Gorsuch in 2006.



http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... -confirma/

We can do better than a judge whose mom was cited for contempt of Congress and was lucky to avoid prison. You know the apple don't fall far from the tree...

This was a dumb post

even for you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

We can do better than a judge whose mom was cited for contempt of Congress and was lucky to avoid prison. You know the apple don't fall far from the tree...

This was a dumb post

even for you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

Weird question, but with the "Nuclear Option" utilized, what's stopping the President/Senate from appointing any number of Supreme Court justices to tilt a court towards their favor?

There's no law I know of, Constitutional or otherwise, that says the Supreme Court must have 9 justices. In fact, we've had differing amount of Justices throughout the history of the United States.

[Baldy]

Weird question, but with the "Nuclear Option" utilized, what's stopping the President/Senate from appointing any number of Supreme Court justices to tilt a court towards their favor?

There's no law I know of, Constitutional or otherwise, that says the Supreme Court must have 9 justices. In fact, we've had differing amount of Justices throughout the history of the United States.

Why Does the Supreme Court have Nine Justices?

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes a Supreme Court, but it says nothing about the number of judges who should serve on the Court. The current number of nine judges is set not by the Constitution, but by the Judiciary Act of 1869, and there is nothing but precedent and politics to prevent this number from being changed in the future. The relevant text of the Constitution reads simply, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"Court packing" was an old political scheme from FDR. The attempt was thoroughly squashed by both parties in Congress at the time.

[∞∞∞]

Weird question, but with the "Nuclear Option" utilized, what's stopping the President/Senate from appointing any number of Supreme Court justices to tilt a court towards their favor?

There's no law I know of, Constitutional or otherwise, that says the Supreme Court must have 9 justices. In fact, we've had differing amount of Justices throughout the history of the United States.

Why Does the Supreme Court have Nine Justices?

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes a Supreme Court, but it says nothing about the number of judges who should serve on the Court. The current number of nine judges is set not by the Constitution, but by the Judiciary Act of 1869, and there is nothing but precedent and politics to prevent this number from being changed in the future. The relevant text of the Constitution reads simply, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"Court packing" was an old political scheme from FDR. The attempt was thoroughly squashed by both parties in Congress at the time.

Thanks.

[SDHornet]

I agree with Gannon on this, glad McConnell had the balls to go nuclear.

Oh and elections have consequences.

[houndawg]

The FBI is leading a multiagency investigation of Trump and his associates. If one of the other agencies had Wiretapping Trump... they'd know about it.

If an agency was doing it without the FBI's knowledge... especially on orders from Obama... it's a huge story.

Trump has access to the information and can declassify it with no problem. He keeps vaguely saying there will be more information in two weeks (now a week). We'll see if he has anything... But, I really doubt it. If he did - why wait so long and make himself look foolish?

He's got to be hopping for something to distract us....luckily we have the MSM to keep Trump and his problems center stage.

I would find that distracting...

[houndawg]

Now you've gone and hurt my feeling.

Did I trigger you? It was intended as sarcasm. My former law partners Steinmetz and Goldstein understood my warped sense of humor. Schlump is a Methodist.

A metodist is just a baptist that can read