Will John McConnell pull the nuclear trigger? - Page 3

FrancSevin · #21 (**permalink**) 02-01-2017, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedState

You sure are dense. In every single one of those instances, the Democrats allowed the SC nominee to have their hearing and their vote. Opposing the nominee is the job of the other party. They are supposed to be opposition. We don't want unqualified people on the SC. But they are also supposed to give the Presidents nominee a fair hearing and vote. The Democrats did that. The Republicans decided last year because it was Obama, they wanted to politicize the Supreme Court and not even hold hearings.

Get it now?

No. Absolutely NO!

It is not the "JOB" of the opposing party to object to or automatically oppose, any nominee. It is the "JOB" of both parties, actually all parties, in the Senate, to vet the nominee's credentials. Period!

Otherwise, every nominee posted to the court, would be a partisan one. Members of the SCOTUS may have liberal or conservative tendencies. But none should ever have Party affiliations as part of their "credentials."

To the OP's question, I doubt the Senate republicans will need to use the "nuclear" option. It would be best for posterity if they didn't and returned Senate rules to 60 votes for closure. The honorable Neil Gorsuch has an impeccable resume' and besides, many current Democratic Senators approved of him in 2006. Watch as they squeak enough votes out of those Democrats sober and sane enough to do their "job."

Joe Shoe · #22 (**permalink**) 02-01-2017, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedState

You sure are dense. In every single one of those instances, the Democrats allowed the SC nominee to have their hearing and their vote. Opposing the nominee is the job of the other party. They are supposed to be opposition. We don't want unqualified people on the SC. But they are also supposed to give the Presidents nominee a fair hearing and vote. The Democrats did that. The Republicans decided last year because it was Obama, they wanted to politicize the Supreme Court and not even hold hearings.

Get it now?

It only came to a vote because they had no choice in those cases; the point is they called for the very same think you are condemning Republicans for doing.
And obstruction just for the sake of obstruction is bad. It's not their job to merely be belligerent. That's WHY we have things that are called 'bi-partisan'.

saltwn · #23 (**permalink**) 02-01-2017, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjohns

In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid established what has come to be known as "The Limited Nuclear Option": It established a 51-vote threshold (instead of a 60-vote threshold) for nominees to federal courts.

The Supreme Court, however, was exempted.

Question: If Democrats attempt a filibuster of Donald Trump's nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia, will Mitch McConnell (now the Majority Leader) alter that slightly, to become The Full Nuclear Option?

Note: McConnell has indicated some misgivings about that--for entirely institutional reasons--but he has recently indicated that he might be more amenable to the possibility.

John McConnell

you mean mitch?

pjohns · #24 (**permalink**) 02-01-2017, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedState

Because what you said is dumb and misleading. When was the last time a SC seat opened up in an election year where the President refused to nominate someone?

I cannot say.

But in 1968, Abe Fortas--who was nominated in a presidential-election year--was defeated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedState

Of course it wasn't the point, the Republicans obstructed Obama's Scotus pick for no real reason other than partisanship. I'm glad you admit that.

I do not "admit" anything.

And it was not "partisanship," but a fealty to originalism and textualism (rather than to "Living Constitution" Theory) that prompted the Senate's action (or, more precisely, its inaction).

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedState

And this is why the Republicans used unprecedented obstruction, because they wanted to politicize the Supreme Court.

And you have the audacity to accuse the GOP of "obstructionism"?

Perhaps you should remove the log from the Democrats' eye before worrying about the speck in the Republicans' eye...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedState

Duh. Did you just come to this realization?

Actually, I have been aware, for quite awhile now, of the character of many of the Democrats...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
Infidel