It's an obvious goal, based upon his 2 prior nominations.
The latter is speculative mischief.....possible, but not demonstrable.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Republican senators speak out against Supreme Court nominations during an election year
- Thread starter Quetzal
- Start date
The latter is speculative mischief.....possible, but not demonstrable.
Trump is in for a fight.
Sleepy Joe could easily beat him, if his campaign staff is just a bit slicker than Godzillary.
So why do you think The Donald would nominate a conservative, rather than someone who would protect Trump's personal interests?
Has he ever shown any signs of appointing someone who might be "disloyal"?
Tom
The Garland nomination was more than a year out from a new Senate. We are today less than four months out. If Mitch McConnell wanted to establish a principle, he should stick with it, rather than rule by whim. That's in everyone's interest. Not just liberals.
Gorsuch & Kavanaugh come to mind (Trump v Vance).
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The Democrats would do the same exact thing had it been reversed.I am happy to see that a party that prides itself on integrity and consistency will have no issue waiting until after the election to vote.
“2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
A bunch of adoo about nothing.
I know one thing for sure. I'm going to toss another $100 toward electing Democratic Senators. Then with an all Democratic government, no filibuster and 11 SCOTUS members things can really start rocking & rolling including hauling Donald up in front of juries for various crimes.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Here's another 'strawman' for the pile.
Senate Democrats In Political Quagmire Over Supreme Court Nomination
Hypocrisy oftentimes comes with a short memory.
Done - another $100 for a Democratic Senate.
Just the other side of the coin... some people tend to forget there are two sides to every coin.
And what does the Constitution say?
Politics is politics. I'm sure that the Democrats will try to do the same thing.
True on the Garland issue... I just recognize that politics is politics. If the issue was on the opposite shoes, it would still play out the same. Politics is politics.
You don't know that, I don't know that.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If past history is any indicator.
Source?
Has that ever happened?
Maybe so, but I don't know about it. Feel free to enlighten us.
What I do know is that Obama nominated someone that the Republicans put forward as a good SCOTUS judge. Garland. What happened after that, do you recall?
I do.
Tom
Well, I meant that in that 'opposition party picks' I wasn't really thinking in terms of the actual nominee. There are plenty of RINOs and DINOs that even the same party doesn't like.
They both do the partisianship and always will, so it's literally no argument. Republicans proceeding with their nominee doesn't reflect anything in this sense any more than if the Dems held the President's seat and the Senate and did the same. Both parties are playing for keeps and I don't expect them to do anything else, because I'm not a fool.
Actually lots of Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed by overwhelming bipartisan votes.
U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Exactly. Well said.
It’s not symmetric because Republicans got their way last time - a Supreme Court justice was not confirmed. If Republicans get their way again this time and one is confirmed ... that is hypocrisy. If not, that would merely be consistency.
We can dream.