7 ms·

But that was a republican senate that had the power to confirm or not. Now you have a republican president and senate so if they want to ram somebody through th

But that was a republican senate that had the power to confirm or not. Now you have a republican president and senate so if they want to ram somebody through they can do that.

tootie 6y ago
McConnel also ended the filibuster on nominees to freeze democrats out of the process completely.
- coredog64 6y ago
  Tit-for-tat. Harry Reid had exercised the “nuclear option” to exclude most Presidential appointments from being filibustered a few years previous. We’re in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma and we’re still in the “last turn sets the new norm” phase. I’m hoping there’s a way out before too long.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - COGlory 6y ago
    The above comment is currently: - Factually correct. Reid did end multiple filibusters. - Unbiased - this is an iterated prisoners dilemma in that each side is forced to assume the other will make a worse action given the opportunity. Why is this being downvoted?
    - 8note 6y ago
      I think it misses the mark in that: 1. The supreme Court is not comparable to any other appointment 2. There's no guarantee that McConnell wouldn't have done this regardless
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - rurp 6y ago
      I upvoted and agree with the GP comment, but some might be mad that he didn't go one more step back and explain that the Republicans had already decided to block nearly all of Obama's appointees for purely political reasons. So Reid was just responding to a prior escalation.
    - tootie 6y ago
      I think the simple distinction is that McConnel upset decades of detente and will reap enormous rewards and pay no price. Compare this to Joe Biden helping confirm Clarence Thomas because he believed it was the Senate's duty to give nominees a fair hearing and that the favor would be returned. That is over now and we're in a game of beggar thy neighbor. The salt in the wound is that Trump is only president due to antiquated rules that are set in law despite being a truly pointless tradition.
ncallaway 6y ago
They can do it. But the very same Senate Majority leader set the precedent to not confirm appointments in an election year. If McConnell violates this precedent that he set, I would strongly advocate for Democrats (whenever they have the Senate) to remove the legislative filibuster and increase the size of the SCOTUS to 17.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  I would not be entirely surprised. There was a time when Democrats seemed to be intimidated by threats over nuclear options and such. Now that they know the truth, maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost, just like their opposition.
  - tines 6y ago
    > maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost Well, this is how you become what you're fighting against.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      Or how we get a long overdue new constitution.
- ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  That's really just the "end of the Supreme Court" argument. If you pack the Supreme Court once, it'll happen every time a new party has the senate and the white house. Especially since you yourself suggest packing it to give an immediate "Democrat" majority, when it's incredibly likely, even without a new nomination, the Supreme Court remains republican for at least 8 years. Personally I think this is what democrats (and people like you) are hoping for. It'd give an excuse to pack the court day one and maybe not immediately lose all public support.
rootusrootus 6y ago
The next logical step is that the Democrats will flatly refuse to confirm any future Republican nominee for SCOTUS, regardless of what year of the President's term it is. Partisan politics is tiring. The US is steadily becoming more and more mediocre while the rest of the industrialized world improves, because we are focused more on winning petty battles than improving our nation.
- ikiris 6y ago
  This is hardly about petty. its about power, and always has been. and the sides are in no way equal.
- tmountain 6y ago
  In this case, it's about the preservation of our democracy (Trump has already indicated he will contest the election), so I don't think "petty" is the appropriate term.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    There's no democracy to preserve. The Supreme Court is inherently anti-democratic. As is the electoral college, the Senate, etc. The US Constitution is explicitly anti-democratic, and it always has been, as the founders intended. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that's what it is.
    - karpierz 6y ago
      Can you explain how the US Constitution is anti-democratic? Or I guess, what you mean by democratic?
      - ReptileMan 6y ago
        Well democracy is ruling by the demos - think three wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner. The moment you say that mutton is off the menu you are limiting the power of the demos to rule. So it is anti democratic.
bscphil 6y ago
I don't think anyone disputing that they can do it, the point is that it's hypocritical. And the Republican Senate didn't "not confirm" Obama's pick, they refused to consider him at all, arguably a dereliction of their duty under Article 2 of the US Constitution.
- erichocean 6y ago
  > it's hypocritical If Obama had a Democratic Senate majority in 2016, Merrick Garland would have been confirmed. That's the precedent.
  - bscphil 6y ago
    That's literally not what the word precedent means. We're not talking about historical counterfactuals, we're talking about the specific defenses and reasoning that's given for a specific decision. When the Supreme Court makes a decision on the basis of precedent, they're saying that the way a previous case was decided should dictate how this case is decided. Likewise, McConnell's claimed "reasoning" in 2016 was that a supposedly controversial president should not be able to elect a new Supreme Court justice in an election year. If that precedent stands, Trump should not be able to in 2020.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      Mitch McConnell has been consistent on this since 2016, and he just made the following statement today regarding RBG's death: > The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life. > Justice Ginsburg overcame one personal challenge and professional barrier after another. She climbed from a modest Brooklyn upbringing to a seat on our nation’s highest court and into the pages of American history. Justice Ginsburg was thoroughly dedicated to the legal profession and to her 27 years of service on the Supreme Court. Her intelligence and determination earned her respect and admiration throughout the legal world, and indeed throughout the entire nation, which now grieves alongside her family, friends, and colleagues. > In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. > By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise. > President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate. It's happening whether we like it or not, and there's no "precedent" we can appeal to in order to stop it.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
However when the democrats win the election (president and senate) this fall then democrats will be able to add 3 more members to the Supreme court in order to counteract the Republicans heavily slanting the SCOTUS with Roe v Wade advocates.
- tigershark 6y ago
  They should nullify all the acts passed by trump and all the appointments made by the senate once the criminal in chief is convicted of treason.
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    Can you name one treasonous act that Trump has done?
    - tigershark 6y ago
      Giving de facto control of US to Putin. Asking for Putin to join the G7 several times before and after it was clear that he put bounties on American soldiers. Calling Americans soldiers losers and suckers. Pardoning war criminals. Telling voters to commit election fraud by voting twice. And, last but not least, killing more than 200k Americans even though he knew perfectly of coronavirus risks.
      - _-david-_ 6y ago
        >Giving de facto control of US to Putin. Didn't happen. >Asking for Putin to join the G7 several times Not treason. >before and after it was clear that he put bounties on American soldiers. There is no proof Russia actually put bounties on soliders. >Calling Americans soldiers losers and suckers. No proof he did this except for McCain. Wouldn't be treason if it were true. >Pardoning war criminals. If this is the same case I know about then he was acquitted of war crimes. I doubt it would be treason though. >Telling voters to commit election fraud by voting twice. Maybe but I think he was trying to call out the risk on mail in voting. Most of media was not talking about the risks like people double voting. After his statement they talked about it. I think that was his point. >And, last but not least, killing more than 200k Americans even though he knew perfectly of coronavirus risks. Not treason and Trump is not really responsible for all deaths. Trump does not have the authority to do what people want him to do. That is on the states. If Trump locked down the states which would have been unconstitutional he would have been called an authoritarian.

But that was a republican senate that had the power to confirm or not. Now you have a republican president and senate so if they want to ram somebody through they can do that.

tootie 6y ago

McConnel also ended the filibuster on nominees to freeze democrats out of the process completely.

coredog64 6y ago
Tit-for-tat. Harry Reid had exercised the “nuclear option” to exclude most Presidential appointments from being filibustered a few years previous. We’re in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma and we’re still in the “last turn sets the new norm” phase. I’m hoping there’s a way out before too long.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- COGlory 6y ago
  The above comment is currently: - Factually correct. Reid did end multiple filibusters. - Unbiased - this is an iterated prisoners dilemma in that each side is forced to assume the other will make a worse action given the opportunity. Why is this being downvoted?
  - 8note 6y ago
    I think it misses the mark in that: 1. The supreme Court is not comparable to any other appointment 2. There's no guarantee that McConnell wouldn't have done this regardless
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - rurp 6y ago
    I upvoted and agree with the GP comment, but some might be mad that he didn't go one more step back and explain that the Republicans had already decided to block nearly all of Obama's appointees for purely political reasons. So Reid was just responding to a prior escalation.
  - tootie 6y ago
    I think the simple distinction is that McConnel upset decades of detente and will reap enormous rewards and pay no price. Compare this to Joe Biden helping confirm Clarence Thomas because he believed it was the Senate's duty to give nominees a fair hearing and that the favor would be returned. That is over now and we're in a game of beggar thy neighbor. The salt in the wound is that Trump is only president due to antiquated rules that are set in law despite being a truly pointless tradition.

ncallaway 6y ago

They can do it. But the very same Senate Majority leader set the precedent to not confirm appointments in an election year. If McConnell violates this precedent that he set, I would strongly advocate for Democrats (whenever they have the Senate) to remove the legislative filibuster and increase the size of the SCOTUS to 17.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 6y ago
I would not be entirely surprised. There was a time when Democrats seemed to be intimidated by threats over nuclear options and such. Now that they know the truth, maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost, just like their opposition.
- tines 6y ago
  > maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost Well, this is how you become what you're fighting against.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Or how we get a long overdue new constitution.
ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
That's really just the "end of the Supreme Court" argument. If you pack the Supreme Court once, it'll happen every time a new party has the senate and the white house. Especially since you yourself suggest packing it to give an immediate "Democrat" majority, when it's incredibly likely, even without a new nomination, the Supreme Court remains republican for at least 8 years. Personally I think this is what democrats (and people like you) are hoping for. It'd give an excuse to pack the court day one and maybe not immediately lose all public support.

rootusrootus 6y ago

The next logical step is that the Democrats will flatly refuse to confirm any future Republican nominee for SCOTUS, regardless of what year of the President's term it is. Partisan politics is tiring. The US is steadily becoming more and more mediocre while the rest of the industrialized world improves, because we are focused more on winning petty battles than improving our nation.

ikiris 6y ago
This is hardly about petty. its about power, and always has been. and the sides are in no way equal.
tmountain 6y ago
In this case, it's about the preservation of our democracy (Trump has already indicated he will contest the election), so I don't think "petty" is the appropriate term.
- _qulr 6y ago
  There's no democracy to preserve. The Supreme Court is inherently anti-democratic. As is the electoral college, the Senate, etc. The US Constitution is explicitly anti-democratic, and it always has been, as the founders intended. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that's what it is.
  - karpierz 6y ago
    Can you explain how the US Constitution is anti-democratic? Or I guess, what you mean by democratic?
    - ReptileMan 6y ago
      Well democracy is ruling by the demos - think three wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner. The moment you say that mutton is off the menu you are limiting the power of the demos to rule. So it is anti democratic.

bscphil 6y ago

I don't think anyone disputing that they can do it, the point is that it's hypocritical. And the Republican Senate didn't "not confirm" Obama's pick, they refused to consider him at all, arguably a dereliction of their duty under Article 2 of the US Constitution.

erichocean 6y ago
> it's hypocritical If Obama had a Democratic Senate majority in 2016, Merrick Garland would have been confirmed. That's the precedent.
- bscphil 6y ago
  That's literally not what the word precedent means. We're not talking about historical counterfactuals, we're talking about the specific defenses and reasoning that's given for a specific decision. When the Supreme Court makes a decision on the basis of precedent, they're saying that the way a previous case was decided should dictate how this case is decided. Likewise, McConnell's claimed "reasoning" in 2016 was that a supposedly controversial president should not be able to elect a new Supreme Court justice in an election year. If that precedent stands, Trump should not be able to in 2020.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Mitch McConnell has been consistent on this since 2016, and he just made the following statement today regarding RBG's death: > The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life. > Justice Ginsburg overcame one personal challenge and professional barrier after another. She climbed from a modest Brooklyn upbringing to a seat on our nation’s highest court and into the pages of American history. Justice Ginsburg was thoroughly dedicated to the legal profession and to her 27 years of service on the Supreme Court. Her intelligence and determination earned her respect and admiration throughout the legal world, and indeed throughout the entire nation, which now grieves alongside her family, friends, and colleagues. > In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. > By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise. > President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate. It's happening whether we like it or not, and there's no "precedent" we can appeal to in order to stop it.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

However when the democrats win the election (president and senate) this fall then democrats will be able to add 3 more members to the Supreme court in order to counteract the Republicans heavily slanting the SCOTUS with Roe v Wade advocates.

tigershark 6y ago
They should nullify all the acts passed by trump and all the appointments made by the senate once the criminal in chief is convicted of treason.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  Can you name one treasonous act that Trump has done?
  - tigershark 6y ago
    Giving de facto control of US to Putin. Asking for Putin to join the G7 several times before and after it was clear that he put bounties on American soldiers. Calling Americans soldiers losers and suckers. Pardoning war criminals. Telling voters to commit election fraud by voting twice. And, last but not least, killing more than 200k Americans even though he knew perfectly of coronavirus risks.
    - _-david-_ 6y ago
      >Giving de facto control of US to Putin. Didn't happen. >Asking for Putin to join the G7 several times Not treason. >before and after it was clear that he put bounties on American soldiers. There is no proof Russia actually put bounties on soliders. >Calling Americans soldiers losers and suckers. No proof he did this except for McCain. Wouldn't be treason if it were true. >Pardoning war criminals. If this is the same case I know about then he was acquitted of war crimes. I doubt it would be treason though. >Telling voters to commit election fraud by voting twice. Maybe but I think he was trying to call out the risk on mail in voting. Most of media was not talking about the risks like people double voting. After his statement they talked about it. I think that was his point. >And, last but not least, killing more than 200k Americans even though he knew perfectly of coronavirus risks. Not treason and Trump is not really responsible for all deaths. Trump does not have the authority to do what people want him to do. That is on the states. If Trump locked down the states which would have been unconstitutional he would have been called an authoritarian.