DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court Vacancy

"establish consistent precedent" is Dem speak for "We lost the election".

Follow the guidance of the Constitution.

J\C
The constitution allows the Pres. to nominate a person to fill a supreme ct. vacancy, and the senate can approve or disapprove the nomination so what does precedence have to do with any thing but if the shoe was one the other foot the fair minded libs would have have a puppet political hack supreme legislating from the bench lefty judge in there yesterday ....IMO

Correction...

The Constitution Demands the President fill any vacancy,

The Constitution calls it HIS DUTY.

I am unclear here. Are you referring to me as a democrat? Because I am not one. For the record, I even stated I preferred originalist/constructionist judges, so what I am saying here actually goes against what my personal desires for the type of judge that I appoint. But, much like Scalia in the flag-burning case, I prefer consistency and the rule of law over my personal desires.

You keep repeating "Follow the guidance of the Constitution," but my question to you - honest question - is what is the guidance of the Constitution when it comes to the timeline of Senate confirmation. The Constitution does state that the President "shall nominate" which happened in 2016 and will happen again in 2020 from the looks of things. I don't know of any Constitutional guidance on the timeline.

No, referring the statement in question is all.

I don't doubt that the Democrats would break with precedent in that hypothetical, just how the Republicans are, but that is a hypothetical in this case.

Of course the Senate has to approve or disapprove, but they did neither in 2016. They basically said, we need to wait until after the election, and now the same majority leader is saying, we absolutely will vote now.

It's fine if you are happy with the judge who would be appointed, like I probably will be, but let's call it what it is...hypocrisy.

In 2016 Obama was at the end of his Presidency, Trump is just beginning his second term.

No hypocrisy at all.

Noted

You're doing it wrong 40... when you troll you're supposed to add ridiculous emoticons...



I expect better of you.

That's an awfully big leap, IMO. Both were/are ending a term. It is also not concrete that Trump is beginning a second term.

In 2016, McConnell said "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

So, the rationale was based on the fact the President who was elected by the people should have a say in the next SC Justice. That same rationale applies to the current year and election.

I didn't take what he said as trolling. I actually responded to his point, and enjoy the discussion. I'm not here to hit people over the head and try to change their beliefs. I do like to challenge people, admittedly, as much as I like to challenge myself.

"Just beginning his second term" has no meaning - politically, legally, philosophically...

That was McConnell's position (opinion) then and the latter is his position (opinion) now.

The Constitution demands the Senate Advice and Consent, nothing about having an opinion.

So yesterday Trump refused to say there would be a peaceful transfer of power... but today he says he will accept the ruling of the SCOTUS on the election results... after he stacks the court with Trumpian votes that is... smh

Trump says he would accept Supreme Court election ruling after declining to commit to peaceful transfer

President Trump on Thursday said he would accept a hypothetical Supreme Court ruling declaring Democratic nominee Joe Biden the winner in November's election, a small concession as Republicans rebuked his refusal a day earlier to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

Trump appeared on Brian Kilmeade's Fox News Radio show, where the host sought to smooth over the president's comments late Wednesday, which caused an uproar.

"Oh that I would agree with," Trump said when Kilmeade suggested that Trump would accept a Supreme Court ruling declaring the outcome of a contested election. But the president immediately began casting doubt on the result.

"I think we have a long way before we get there. These ballots are a horror show," he added.

The president has for months claimed that the widespread use of mail ballots due to the coronavirus pandemic will result in a "rigged" and "fraudulent" election. He has taken particular issue with some states sending ballots directly to voters to expand access, though experts have highlighted that there is little historical evidence of meaningful fraud associated with voting by mail.

Experts have noted that any election disputes would have to go through lower courts and may not even reach the Supreme Court. But Trump has in recent days argued his forthcoming nominee for the court should be confirmed quickly so they can help decide a contested election.

Trump's repeated attacks on the integrity of the election have raised alarms among lawmakers and watchdogs. He escalated his rhetoric late Wednesday when asked if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

“We’re going to have to see what happens, you know, but I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. The ballots are a disaster,” Trump told reporters at a White House briefing.

Several Republicans on Thursday morning rejected Trump's comments, though they did not name the president in any of their criticism.

The president complained to Kilmeade that he was the victim of a double standard. He noted that Hillary Clinton, his opponent in 2016, has cautioned Biden not to concede on election night, suggesting that was similar to his refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

"If I say, 'Well I want the ballots to be fair,' they make a big deal out of it," Trump said. "It’s not right. It’s just the same old double standard."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...on-ruling-after

If you had been paying attention last night instead of threatening people, you would have seen the Supreme Court is not a political entity, it is a Judicial entity based on the Constitution and the rule of law.

Justices have found for the Liberal side as well as the Conservative side of issues, regardless of their political beliefs.

Trumps appointments have ruled against his wishes on numerous occasions as has the Conservative Roberts.

I agree with your first sentence, but the sentence itself, combined with the state of affairs, directly correlates with the definition of hypocrisy.

I also agree with your second sentence, but the whole issue is the timing of said Advice and Consent. The Senate majority originally stated the "Advice and Consent" portion should take place after the election. Now they are doing an about-face.

Disagree, changing ones opinion over the years is not hypocrisy, it is growth.

Also, the Senate did advise President Obama to NOT make a nomination and when he did anyway, they did not consent.

I actually agree with 40 on this one. If anything, I think it is good that Trump has at least stated he would concede to the Supreme Court's decision. I think that is at least a step in the right direction.

I understand that you are inferring the issue that Trump will try to appoint someone who will find in his favor in that case, but what obligation would a SC judge have to do that once they are already appointed?

Didn't you say it was his duty though?

They should remain consistent rather than try to pull a fast one. If it was wrong to appoint a justice in 2016 because it was an election year, it's wrong now.

I know you understand this and couldn't possibly actually stand behind it.

I edited this to ask you something.

Did they do the wrong thing in 2016 and are doing the right thing now? Because Obama's term was four years as well. Or did they do the right thing in 2016 and are doing the wrong thing now?

Or is your actual question did they do the wrong thing to take advantage of the situation then and are doing the right thing o take advantage of the situation now?

The Presidents Constitutional Duty to nominate, yes.

Not only that, they would label him a liberal because he would tell them things like, "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

He would be called out for promoting wealth distribution, free health care giving to anyone less fortunate than yourself.

Yes, Jesus is a liberal.

Unless his name was Obama. then the senate said to hell with the constitution. You applauded it then.

No, the Senate simply did not consent to his nominee.

They may not consent to Trump's nominee once you guys are done calling her everything but a white woman.

You act like we should accept minority rule via the courts and just trust a conservative judge to save us from conservative BS. riiiiiiiight... get a clue.

Boy you are in here with a heavy coat of 'whitewash'... If there is one thing I have learned it's to never trust a republican politician. The same goes for anyone Trump appoints.

Growth has nothing to do with a double standard to take advantage of the same situation.



Consent is based on a vote after conducting hearings. That never happened and you know it.

What is there really to discuss here or challenge? McConnell, Graham and others made in plain in 2016 that it was wrong to for them to hold hearings on a SCOTUS appointee during an election year in 2016 when a Democrat was president. They claimed the voters should have a say.

Now, four years later they advocate doing the exact opposite because a Republican is president. The only thing to discuss here is which SCOTUS appointee are they stealing. Did they steal the one from Obama in 2016 or are they stealing one now?

It can't be both.

None. They are supposed to go by the constitution, not party nor idealology.

They can say what they want. They should follow the law as written.

So where does the aw say they are forced to hold hearings on a certain timeline? Or are you trying to say they didn't follow the law as written in 2016?

Where does the law say that in 2016 you can use the rationale that the voters should have a say and not hold hearings on a nominee and then in 2020 say the opposite?

I, of course, agree with your rationale. I just feel, especially in light of today's environment, that continued discourse is more advantageous than line-drawing, even in scenarios where you may feel that the other side is being overly stubborn or obtuse.

It doesn't. Hearings for SC candidates is really fluff for the media. It gives most senators a chance to grandstand. Not a single SC appointee has ever given an example of how'd they rule on a future case.

They did follow the law. Delaying a confirmation vote is not consenting.

Last question, 1st amendment. If they can convince a president not to put forth a nominee, that's perfectly legal. They can say what they want. Honestly, name a politician that hasn't changed his position when it's convenient for him.

Actually what I posted had nothing to do with feelings. Those are the facts.

You support a double standard by this senate based purely on political motives to stack the SCOTUS. And actually I think you're proud of that.

Jc

For the life of me, I can’t not comprehend how people can defend no knock raids and civil forfeiture laws.

They are both inherently unconstitutional, violating Americans 4th amendment rights.

We have far too many people in this country not taking their rights seriously, and that BS transcends political ideology.

We got people who claim to hate big government arguing in favor of big government laws that allows law enforcement to bust down doors in the middle of the night unannounced.

That’s freaking stupid. Stop telling people you love the constitution when you support policies that pisses all over it.

I didn't say what you said had anything to do with feelings. I was providing rationale behind why I was facilitating a discussion.

I don't disagree with anything you just said. The Fourth Amendment protections have been eroding over and over again.

Back when I still practiced, I won a Motion to Suppress and damn near every other defense attorney I socialized with in that county acted as though I had solved cold fusion. That's not a promotion of my advocacy, but just an evaluation of where judges these days seem to be inclined.

Shouldn't be that way.

Will you eventually find a rationalization that matters?