DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court Vacancy

Amen!

Then give me an example where Democrats have used a double standard in their "stated policy" to make a lifetime appointment that controls the law of our nation.

I mean talking a good rant may work for you. But what you can't do is actually show where this has been done before. Ever, by either party. Until now....

I'd argue Sotamayor's appointment to the court followed by Democrat's whining about 'judicial activism' (among other things, obviously) during the Kavanaugh nomination.

This is doubly hilarious, because Kavanaugh has (and still does) ruled at odds with his religious beliefs.

That argument falls pretty short compared to this example.

Both parties want justices appointed that will rule in their favor. It doesn't always work out that way, but that's the goal. As in, Trump said he wouldn't nominate anyone who isn't anti abortion. That's been sort of the status quo for a while now.

I agree that the hypocrisy doesn't quite rise to the same level as what's going on now, but it's still hypocrisy. They made an argument against a nominee that applies more to their own nominee.

Interesting post.

I would counter your point regarding standing, since it is the foundation of our country to hold politicians accountable to us. I also do not meet any of the explicit or implicit parameters that you mention. I don't think I have ever - at least seriously - referred to any of you as deplorable. Quite the opposite actually.

I also have made clear that I am no fan of either of the political parties in control.

Agree on the fact that Harry Reid made a mess. He was a disaster.

I also agree that Democrats cannot claim a moral high ground.

Lastly, I also agree that Democrat behavior - especially those of career politicians like Pelosi - are partly responsible for the fervor that got Trump elected. However, I think that notion also applies to Republicans. The 2016 Republican primary where he basically broke the system of getting the conventional candidate elected I believe is the same reflection of the impact of that anti-establishment fervor on the Right.

The double standard I was referring to is in their behavior and how they view people.

As for this being a first.. so what? It doesn't mean its not allowed. Since the ratification of the Constitution our government has constantly experienced "firsts". Granted sometimes that 'first' leaves a bad taste inn our mouths and exposes something that needs correction. But the thing liberals often forget is that the Constitution has a built in remedy and process.

If you wanted to have a discussion about how the Legislative Branch has too much discretion in how business is conducted, I think that would be an outstanding premise. On the face of it I wouldn't be opposed to Constitutionally defined time constraints for Presidential appointments.

Is that process long and difficult? Yup. But that just means everyone has to as you say "man up". (I'll change it to "all-gender-inclusive-up"... we may not agree on stuff but I wouldn't want the cancel culture to come after you for being a misogynist or transphobe .!)

But the solution isn't to admonish and berate people who you've shown an unabashed disdain for and expect them to clean up your mess.

The solution isn't to threaten to pack the court with ideologues when/if you regain power.

I absolutely agree with this. I always viewed the 2016 campaign/election as being more of an anti-establishment movement than an ideological one. On the Right at that time Ted Cruz was positioned pretty well outside the establishment and I think he would have ended up with the nomination. However when Trump got in, he was soooo far outside the establishment, Cruz ended up like everyone else.

On the Left, I don't think the support that Bernie was able to get should be overlooked either. I couldn't say how many of those supporters wanted to go full blown Commie, but the fact that he had some serious attention showed me that people on the left were looking for something outside the establishment as well.


If you notice, the key players in just about all the... crap... are establishment players: Pelosi, Schumer, Cocaine Mitch.... These are all people desperately clinging to power as it slips away. I think people on all sides want more civility and sanity. I believe the Dems miscalculated and thought that meant people wanted to return to the establishment and that's how they got the Biden/Harris ticket.

As for the other side... Trump is not the GOP. A lot of support for Trump is not necessarily support for the GOP. People voted for Trump because they were tired of all the above undeserved nastiness and the GOP letting it happen. Trump is their Thunderdome combatant and they've adopted an attitude of "I'm your Huckleberry" and see who's left standing.

Has this been healthy for the Nation as a whole? Hell no. But there's been no alternative. The left has only doubled and tripled down on the behaviors that got Trump elected.

If this mess wasn't about the D.C. establishment trying to cling to power, someone like Tulsi would have been given a fair shot and nominated. So, so many people I've talked to that voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again have said they would have voted for her instead.

Going forward I do believe that the country would be best served if after this cycle that someone like Dan Crenshaw and Tulsi Gabbard were made Speaker and Minority Leader (based on who controls the House and who doesn't of course). There is a tone and pragmatism that they both have that I think can go a long way in re-establishing some sense of order.

Hey, some people are so accomplished that they can't fit all of the good things on their resume

The next argument upon confirmation is that she ought to recuse herself from any such cases. Depending on the case and argument to be made, she may very well ought to. Here again however we'll likely see a double standard in action. Justice Kagan didn't recuse herself from the Obamacare case even though prior to becoming a Supreme Court Justice she argued the law on behalf of the Administration at the lower Courts.


I don't understand why you guys are freaking out so much. Conservatives have gotten burned many times by Justices appointed who had a reputation of being conservative but end up siding with the libs half the time. When's the last time a Dem appointed Justice did the reverse?

Relax, you guys will be fine. I promise.

Over turning Roe I don't think is as simple as everyone on both sides thinks it would be. Too much has changed and too much is known, too much had changed. For example, advancements in medicine have changed the whole idea of "viable"... with laws on the books, its one thing to say a woman can abort all the way up until the day of because its "just a clump of cells" but if someone comes along and punches that same woman in the stomach which terminates the pregnancy, they can be charged with the Murder of the same "clump of cells".

And given the arguments from both sides, I don't think relegating it to a State's Rights would be appropriate either.

It doesn't stop at Roe.

I will only make two comments concerning your reply. First, the fact that nobody ever thought the senate would abuse the process doesn't mean it isn't wrong. You can say "it's allowed" if you like. Nobody can seriously say that refusing to hold hearings one on presidents SCOTUS nomination for eight months while pushing the next presidents nomination through in less than two months is "right".

Secondly, claiming that voters simply wanted an outsider I find to be a false narrative. Trump was the angriest most attacking and nasty individual to ever run for the office other than George Wallace I've ever seen. This was more about promoting that than anything else. It wasn't about who he was but rather how he was. Name calling, pro white and nasty. They hated Obama and their vote was more in protest of him than anything.

All anyone has to do is listen.

Wasn't her stance already pretty much known prior to this little tidbit of info?

I mean, Trump has made no secret of his desire to repeal RvW as well as killing Obamacare. So when he picked her, wouldn't it be a given she opposed both?

Yes - except that judges (on both sides) like to make this big show during nomination hearings about how they have no prior opinions.

It's amazing the lengths the top legal minds in our nation will go to -- in order to pretend that they've "never really thought about Roe v. Wade all that much"

I can't disagree with anything you just said. I have mixed feelings about this election. On one hand, I cannot stand Trump and most of what he stands for, along with his behavior, obviously. I think he is the sign of a populace who is angry, and politicians who take office because of anger and resentment have historically been disastrous more often than not.

One the other hand, I am also disappointed with the prospect of a Biden presidency because I think it will further a validation of establishment politicians that continuing Washington's "business as usual" is okay, because it clearly is not. I shudder to think of people like Pelosi or McConnell can stay comfortable with how they have conducted themselves and their affairs.

Depending on whether you want to be convinced that this is ok -- I am happy to write a much longer post.

Do you mean that "we can't have a return to normalacy when our country is so divided?"

or:

"Biden is an old establishment politician, and we need new energy?"

I don't want to answer for Devil, but in my mind, it wasn't simply looking for an "outsider." I don't think it was looking for a healthy alternative. I think it was a lot of anger and ugliness manifesting itself in a candidate who was willing to stoke those notions, because it would give him a return on his need for validation through "winning."

I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler, but when Hitler was elected, it wasn't because his platform was "I'm xenophobic and I plan on going to war and killing a bunch of people mercilessly" but it was "You have been pushed aside by the world, ignored by these politicians in power, and I am here to change all of that and restore your pride and get back at those who put you down."

Trump's message to the right was that all the Republicans were involved in bad trade deals, endless wars, and helped transform DC into a swamp. In that aspect, he was right. He also dressed down just about every establishment politician on the right for doing that in the primaries, and quite frankly, he emasculated them. I can't believe Ted Cruz became such a toadie after what Trump said about his wife.

Anyhow, I think people who voted for Trump in 2016 took the fact that he was an "outsider" and combined that with his fervor to "drain the swamp" and make their lives better because of his business acumen (as misleading as that was) as the leading reasons to rally behind him.

Sure, there were groups that voted for him directly for the wrong reasons, but I think most of the supporters had their skepticism overcome by the fervor he created, and turned a blind eye to some of the bigger concerns.

Neither, really, but also both. I do think our country will have trouble returning to normalcy and I do think Biden is an old establishment politician.

I think Biden signifies a return to what was already going wrong in the pre-Trump era. I don't think "new energy" per se will solve the problem, because new energy can just toe each respective line.

I just think that we've gone from a fundamental establishment problem (of which Biden was a part of) to a "holy hell what have we gotten ourselves into" problem.

So, while I want to get out of the "holy hell problem," I wouldn't look forward to a return of the "establishment problem."

I don't really disagree with you about each having their own baggage and associations. Biden certainly wasn't my first, nor my second choice among the potential democratic candidates running for the nomination.

As of right now, I'm just looking for some sense of normalcy and decorum. A sense of someone at least attempting to bring some sense of unity rather than purposefully spreading hate and division.

It's the lesser of two evils choice we're all faced with right now.

Telling voters that the other side is unAmerican, telling them politicians who aren't white should be deported, mocking a disabled person, just the hate filled rhetoric spread by Trump is not what America should be. It's bad enough we have every day Americans spread such BS, much less having our president do it.

That's just where I'm at right now.

I can't disagree with you there, Pit. I think what I am doing is taking it a step further and saying that, if we do return back to what we considered "normal," then it's not enough to say "whew, we're back to normal."

We desperately need to come together and find a sustainable solution to our politics. The hardest part about that is establishment politicians don't want that to happen, because they control us through fear, division and anger.

They bit off more than they could chew when all of that resulted in Trump, but I don't think that will stop them from trying to perpetuate that tactic.

I would love to see a downfall of our bipartisanship, but that seems like such a distant dream to me.

Biden was also not my first choice.

But, I think a Biden presidency gives America a lot of room to figure out what it wants to be next.

He is old -- he's not some force-of-character type person (e.g., a Reagan or Bill Clinton). He's committed to working across the aisle, but also unlikely to be able to force bipartisanship that isn't there.

I think he will probably not run for a second term, given his age, and the fact that he appeared very hesitant to run in the first place. I think he truly believes (for better or worse) that he is a singular figure who can heal wounds of the Trump presidency.

I think the rule of law is important, and having a president who respects that is critical -- and guarantees my vote for Biden.

dawglover's last few posts were absolutely brilliant, imo. Clear and succinct description of one of the things that happened in 2016. I agree that that is a big part of what went into the result of 2016.

It's also why I'm so worried about a Biden presidency. If the DNC is apparently going to ignore what happened in 2016, and just continue on without learning a single thing from that failure... how can say that 2016 isn't just going to happen again? That same anger and frustration is still there; and if anything, it will have grown from being ignored still.

I agree totally. In order I promoted Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar.

Pete certainly isn't a Washington insider. But with him being gay it would have been tough to get him elected. Amy certainly isn't an outsider but compared to what remained of the rest of the field she would have been my choice.

I'm not a fan of the two party system. But the way they have the rules set up, it's all about favoring it remains that way.

I can understand that completely.

What I think some are ignoring is the Hillary factor. Sadly, the Democrats have this perceived hierarchy of what I call, "It's your turn now". The Republican party understands this. As such, they spent years attacking and trying to pin something on Hillary. While they never could make anything stick, it didn't stop them from making her a very questionable political figure. She really didn't do herself any favors by the fact she isn't a very likeable person.

I think the difference in this election will boil down to what was sold to some voters verses what they've seen. A lot of them believed Trump when he said he could act presidential. It became a popular theme that he was in "campaign mode".

Rather than drain the swamp, he actually built a new and improved swamp with even more alligators. And of course the entrance fee increased as well. His White house has had more turnover than a fast food drive thru.

It's not going to change the minds of Republicans. I don't think anything will at this point. But it's going to change the minds of a lot of people who feel conned and disillusioned. I think many of them are considering the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for" right about now.

Thanks for the kind words, oober. I really appreciate that.

I agree that the Dems are out of touch with their own constituents and they seem more bent on honing in on Trump's problems than actually listening to what their own base has to say, or attempting to solve issues that shouldn't even be political.

So let me guess. Democrats don't put judges in that agree with their positions, right? Rgb, kagan, and sotomayor were strict constitutionalists that rule on the law and not their personal opinions?

I don’t know - I feel like the major lesson of 2016 was “Don’t nominate very unpopular people”.

I personally think Hilary would have been a great president. But she was a very weak candidate, and a lot of people strongly dislike her.

Now the Democrats are running Biden, who is not extremely unpopular — Trump still is very unpopular — and shockingly that seems to help in the polls.

Both sides do it. The point that was being made was concerning disclosure.

Nowhere does it say they have to hold hearings. Advise and consent. They did not consent.

To hell with the Dems, If they want to delay the hearings, just go straight to the confirmation vote.


Here We Go: Democrats Demand SCOTUS Hearings Be Delayed Due to Positive Virus Tests

Katie Pavlich

|
@KatiePavlich
|
Posted: Oct 02, 2020




Top Senate Democrats are demanding the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett be delayed after Republican Senator Mike Lee tested positive for Wuhan coronavirus.

NEW: Schumer and Feinstein says Senate Judiciary should delay Barrett hearings.

"The unfortunate news about the infection of our colleague Senator Mike Lee makes even more clear that health and safety must guide the schedule for all Senate activities, including hearings."
— Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) October 2, 2020

The seeds of this idea were planted last night by the media when news broke that President Trump had also tested positive.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has been traveling on and off with Trump all week.

Meadows huddled with McConnell on Call Hill Wednesday, and has been assisting SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett in her meetings with senators on the Hill. pic.twitter.com/dqAhqMEC4E
— Scott Wong (@scottwongDC) October 2, 2020

Barrett was tested for the disease and was found negative.

In a statement released by Senator Lee about his diagnosis, he said he plans to move forward with the confirmation of Barrett.

"Like so many other Utahns, I will now spend part of 2020 working from home. I have spoken with Leader McConnell and Chairman Graham, and colleagues in advancing the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the Committee and then to the full Senate," Lee said.

Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has no plans to delay Barrett's hearing. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham has indicated the same.

Just finished a great phone call with @POTUS. He’s in good spirits and we talked business — especially how impressed Senators are with the qualifications of Judge Barrett. Full steam ahead with the fair, thorough, timely process that the nominee, the Court, & the country deserve.
— Leader McConnell (@senatemajldr) October 2, 2020

Talked to Senator Lee earlier today and wished him a speedy recovery.

Look forward to welcoming him back to the @senjudiciary to proceed with the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barret on October 12. https://t.co/OVm0OQbnQF
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 2, 2020

Earlier this week the Senate held a hearing with fired FBI Director James Comey, who testified remotely.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli...avirus-n2577369

Explain which one of these things is a lie....

#1 It's an election year. There are eight months until the election. We think it's only fair to wait until after the election so the voters have say.

#2 It's less than two months before the election and we don't care. We won't allow the voters to have a say. We'll just push it through anyway.

Your double standards and BS mean nothing.

And they all said the opposite in 2016. So they were lying then or they're lying now. Choose which time they lied and why you endorse their lie.

I hope the Dems pack the courts

Neither is a lie. The did what they wanted because they controlled the senate. Your beloved democrats would have done the exact same thing.

Thank you Miss Cleo. Excuses and unfounded predictions seem far more popular than accountability. So much for the party of personal responsibility.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-seeks-curtail-senate-not-172704377.html

GOP seeks to call off Senate work, but not Barrett hearings

Mitch McConnell: Amy Coney Barrett Will Be Confirmed ‘No Later than Monday’


Joshua Caplan

23 Oct 2020


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) vowed Friday that the full Senate will vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court “no mater than Monday.”

McConnell’s remark came as Democrats protested Barrett’s imminent confirmation by forcing the Senate into rare closed session that lasted for roughly 15 minutes.

“I believe the Senate majority is on the precipice of making a colossal and historic mistake by rushing this nomination through the Senate only eight days before a national election,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) lamented. “Before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face-to-face about what this might mean for the country.”

“The Republican majority is steering the Senate, the Supreme Court and the country in a very dangerous direction,” he added. “The damage to Americans’ faith in these institutions could be lasting. So before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face to face about what this might mean for the country.”

As Roll Call reports:

The stage is set for a Sunday afternoon Senate vote to limit debate on President Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed a cloture motion on the nomination Friday. That sets up a simple-majority vote to wind down the debate one hour after the Senate convenes on Sunday. Under regular order, that vote is expected to kick off at 1 p.m. Eastern time.

With a 53-47 Republican majority, and just two GOP senators opposed, Trump’s nominee is on a glide path to confirmation that will seal a conservative hold on the court for years to come.

McConnell said Monday that Barrett demonstrated over several days of public hearings the “sheer intellectual horsepower that the American people deserve to have on the Supreme Court.”

Without the votes to stop Barrett’s ascent, Democrats have few options left. They are searching for two more GOP senators to break ranks and halt confirmation, but that seems unlikely. Never before as a court nominee been voted on so close to a presidential election.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/...er-than-monday/

So "because they could" is the answer and gets 3 likes.

Cool. If the democrats win the WH and senate and pack the court and give statehood time Puerto Rico "because they can" there won't be any crying then . . .

They'd be stupid if they didn't. You know damn well Erik is right and the dems would have done the exact same thing.



Wah wah. Sour grapes anyone? It's politics. Both sides suck.