• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Republicans have had plenty of opportunities to overturn Roe. They recognize that it's more valuable to leave Roe standing to turn out voters than to save millions of babies.

it's like their new thing of always teasing some bombshell report. The Horowitz Report, Durham Report, Burisma Report.
 

I long for the days when justices were nominated and not approved strictly along party lines. Ginsburg, in 1993, was approved with over 90 votes. If someone has risen to a circuit court position in this nation they are at a level that defies rational party line opposition. But that's what we've devolved into. Pathetic.
 
It makes no political sense for the Republicans not to nominate and confirm a justice to replace RBG. Why leave the spot vacant and give hope to the Democras that if they can beat Trump and win back the Senate, then they will be able to fill the seat? Not filling RBG's former spot on the SC before the election would simply be political stupidity.
 
I long for the days when justices were nominated and not approved strictly along party lines. Ginsburg, in 1993, was approved with over 90 votes. If someone has risen to a circuit court position in this nation they are at a level that defies rational party line opposition. But that's what we've devolved into. Pathetic.

I blame the Democrats for daring to have an issue when the Republicans nominated the guy who was responsible for the Saturday Night Massacre in the (previously) most corrupt administration of all-time.
 
It makes no political sense for the Republicans not to nominate and confirm a justice to replace RBG. Why leave the spot vacant and give hope to the Democras that if they can beat Trump and win back the Senate, then they will be able to fill the seat? Not filling RBG's former spot on the SC before the election would simply be political stupidity.

Should Merrick Garland have had a hearing in the Senate?
 
Sailor, you mean other than the outright hypocrisy of how they handled Garland? That civility and keeping your word doesn't mean anything to the GOP? You favor that?
 
What party has held control of the Court since 1969? Republicans. What party blocked Garland's nomination in 2016? Republicans. What party used the excuse to block Garland's nomination that it was an election year and the voters should decide the issue? Republicans. What party has now done a 180 on that stance and is going to ram through a nominee, perhaps even before the election? Republicans. What party will have appointed a majority of the Supreme Court despite losing the national popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections (and likely 7 out of 8 after November)? Republicans. What party over the past four years has rushed through a near-record number of federal judges in a single term - some of them simply unqualified far-right ideologues - to the federal bench? Republicans.

And what party will scream bloody murder and cry "you're destroying the Constitution!" if the Democrats get control of the Senate and WH and expand the size of the court and make other reforms? Republicans.
 
I don't think this is the right question

I think the question is what do you think the Democrats should do/have done if the tables were turned?

If Romney were president and Schumer was the Majority leader, Democrats would have had a hearing and would have likely confirmed the nominee when Scalia died. If it was this close to the election, I could see the dems stalling in the senate until after the election.
 
What party has held control of the Court since 1969? Republicans. What party blocked Garland's nomination in 2016? Republicans. What party used the excuse to block Garland's nomination that it was an election year and the voters should decide the issue? Republicans. What party has now done a 180 on that stance and is going to ram through a nominee, perhaps even before the election? Republicans. What party will have appointed a majority of the Supreme Court despite losing the national popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections (and likely 7 out of 8 after November)? Republicans. What party over the past four years has rushed through a near-record number of federal judges in a single term - some of them simply unqualified far-right ideologues - to the federal bench? Republicans.

And what party will scream bloody murder and cry "you're destroying the Constitution!" if the Democrats get control of the Senate and WH and expand the size of the court and make other reforms? Republicans.


Yep.

HISTORY baby.
 
Should Merrick Garland have had a hearing in the Senate?

The political logic of the Republicans was to try to delay the nomination because that might give them a chance to nominate and confirm their own replacement for Scalia. It worked.

If your question is whether or not Garland was qualified to serve on the SC, then yes, as far as I am aware, he was. Garland's confirmation was blocked for political reasons. Just as the Democrats will try to prevent whomever Trump nominates, even if they are qualified, from being confirmed as a justice of the SC for political reasons. Other qualified nominees have been denied for political reasons in the past and will probably be in the future.
 
The political logic of the Republicans was to try to delay the nomination because that might give them a chance to nominate and confirm their own replacement for Scalia. It worked.

If your question is whether or not Garland was qualified to serve on the SC, then yes, as far as I am aware, he was. Garland's confirmation was blocked for political reasons. Just as the Democrats will try to prevent whomever Trump nominates, even if they are qualified, from being confirmed as a justice of the SC for political reasons. Other qualified nominees have been denied for political reasons in the past and will probably be in the future.

have there ever been instances of qualified nominees not even getting confirmation hearings? Bork got that.

do you think that Merrick Garland should have gotten a hearing in the Republican-controlled Senate because a Democrat president nominated him? politics aside, did the Republicans do the wrong thing in even preventing a hearing?
 
have there ever been instances of qualified nominees not even getting confirmation hearings? Bork got that.

do you think that Merrick Garland should have gotten a hearing in the Republican-controlled Senate because a Democrat president nominated him? politics aside, did the Republicans do the wrong thing in even preventing a hearing?

first question, don't know

would I have given him a hearing? sure, but I can see where some Republican Senators running for re-election might not have been enthusiastic about a hearing

it would be difficult to talk about the US Senate "politics aside"; what the Republicans in the Senate did with the Garland nomination is a political question, and so ultimately the voters will have to decide, so far they have not held it against the Republicans; indeed, in 2018 they even increased the previous GOP majority
 
Apologies if this has already been raised, but 2004 (yes, 2004) Wake Forest grad (Duke Law School), Allison Jones Rushing (Allison Jones at WF) is reportedly among those on Trump's short list for the SCOTUS. She is only 38, and has only sat on the 4th Circuit since March 2019. https://apnews.com/83027e5351a1e40d6ee3ff58c8ba4427

Allison-Jones-Rushing.jpg
 
Republicans have had plenty of opportunities to overturn Roe. They recognize that it's more valuable to leave Roe standing to turn out voters than to save millions of babies.

They deserve to get what they claim to want. Kind of hope it happens.
 
Damn; can I get you any cheese with that whine?

All Dems have to do is go win the WH and win the Senate. Stop talking about it and get it done. 2020 is your chance.
If Dems put as much energy into getting out the vote rather than crying how they have been taken advantage of by Pubs, they would be a hell of a lot more successful.

What party has held control of the Court since 1969? Republicans. What party blocked Garland's nomination in 2016? Republicans. What party used the excuse to block Garland's nomination that it was an election year and the voters should decide the issue? Republicans. What party has now done a 180 on that stance and is going to ram through a nominee, perhaps even before the election? Republicans. What party will have appointed a majority of the Supreme Court despite losing the national popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections (and likely 7 out of 8 after November)? Republicans. What party over the past four years has rushed through a near-record number of federal judges in a single term - some of them simply unqualified far-right ideologues - to the federal bench? Republicans.

And what party will scream bloody murder and cry "you're destroying the Constitution!" if the Democrats get control of the Senate and WH and expand the size of the court and make other reforms? Republicans.
 
Damn; can I get you any cheese with that whine?

All Dems have to do is go win the WH and win the Senate. Stop talking about it and get it done. 2020 is your chance.
If Dems put as much energy into getting out the vote rather than crying how they have been taken advantage of by Pubs, they would be a hell of a lot more successful.

you still haven't answered. are you voting in the SC senate race this year and if so who are you voting for?
 
Back
Top