Schumer Demands Congress Wait Until After Midterm Elections to Confirm Kennedy Replacement

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Gothmog
The Biden rule is not a rule. It is an imposed Nazi-style takeover attempt of the judicial system of the highest court in the land.
And , Schumer demands ? Schumer can demand a lot. Then he must tuck tail between legs and move on. As usual.

Yeah, that's why the GOP refused to even hold confirmation hearings on a candidate for almost a year.

Did you read ?
Did I say I was against Dem or Repub holding back on nominations ? Yes
I stated facts on the start of the Biden Rule (get it , Biden) and how I felt about the Biden rule.
Did I bring partisanship into it ? -No.

I was agreeing with you?

a reply to: Enderdog

If you want to, go for it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

Someone who doesn't just re-write the constitution from the bench.

Justice Gorsuch, Trump's appointment, wants to rewrite the 4th Amendment!

Gorsuch says he’ll repeal and replace the Fourth Amendment with something terrific thinkprogress.org...

Wow, what a misleading, click-baity headline. Number one, neither Gorsuch nor anyone else says/said anything remotely like what the headline claims. And number two: newsflash! Judges--even SC judges--don't repeal constitutional amendments. Jeez, what a partisan fearmongering piece of writing the linked article is.

True, Gorsuch dissented in the recent digital privacy case. And don't get me wrong--I personally think police SHOULD have to get a warrant to access location data. However, if you strip away all the "rah-rah-freak-out-cuz-conservatives-want-to-rewrite-the-constitution" bull# in this article and look at what the article says the reasoning behind his dissent was, it looks to me like the man was doing his job. That is, to look at the question in the light of cold logic, from all angles, without emotion, and decide if it's in line with the constitution or not.

And let's face it--topics like this are tough. It may sound cut-and-dried, but when you strip away any personal investment in the answer and look at it dispassionately, it's not. As is mentioned in the article, one of the questions is: Who does the data belong to? Does it belong to you, because you own the phone that's pinging the cell towers? Or does it belong to the cell company who owns the towers being pinged? How do you decide? One question leads to another and it's a much more complex question than "should the cops be able to read your diary without a warrant" or something.

Do I agree with Gorsuch's final opinion? Nope. But I do see how he got there. And it's not even remotely in line with wanting to "repeal the 4th amendment."

a reply to: riiver


It's true that the topic of the 4th Amendment in modern times is complicated. Probably deserves its own thread.

But, I was replying to a poster who, in my opinion, was rhetorically complaining about activists judges who "legislate from the bench". Gorsuch has demonstrated alarming mental gymnastic prowess and one could assert that he is a candidate for that category, even if he is a conservative.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I believe this is going to be a fight, unlike any other and one that we have not seen in years. And they are going to pull out all of the stops and make it difficult, and rough. Sides after looking at the setting, it is more like one or 2, and all that would be required, would be for all of the Democrats and 2 republican senators not be present, and the Senate can not vote on anything as it would not have a full quorum to do such with, leaving it in short, shut down during that time frame.

Then McConnell would have to order the sergeant at arms to go and arrest/round them up, and if the Democrats play this right, could pretty much delay this until after the election to the point where he has no choice, but to wait until the seating of the new congress.

a reply to: DanDanDat

It all depends on which party has control over the congress. If it is say the Republicans then yes that would happen, but what if the Democrats get elected in the majority, then Trump would have to nominate a more moderate judge to the bench, one who would be more like the outgoing Kennedy.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

then Trump would have to nominate a more moderate judge to the bench, one who would be more like the outgoing Kennedy.

or neither would give an inch and the court would end up being handicapped till the unmovable moved.
the republicans would be griping about how the court seat wasn't being filled leaving it with an even number of members which sometimes leaves it with no decisions. although the republican saw no problem with that when it was them refusing to fill a seat.. I''m sure they would see it as a problem now.
actually, I just see it as a problem. I just believe that every one who puts in the amount of time and money to make it to the supreme court should at least be able to have their case heard and decided on, not end up is a tied vote, let's revert back to the lower court decision.
the republicans saw no problem with leaving it unfilled for around a year, so I refuse to see a problem with it being empty till after the new congress is sworn in. but then they really need to get to work and get it filled, even it it means that both them and trump have to give a little to fill it.
the supreme court wasn't intended to be a political tool..

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: shooterbrody

I believe this is going to be a fight, unlike any other and one that we have not seen in years. And they are going to pull out all of the stops and make it difficult, and rough. Sides after looking at the setting, it is more like one or 2, and all that would be required, would be for all of the Democrats and 2 republican senators not be present, and the Senate can not vote on anything as it would not have a full quorum to do such with, leaving it in short, shut down during that time frame.

Then McConnell would have to order the sergeant at arms to go and arrest/round them up, and if the Democrats play this right, could pretty much delay this until after the election to the point where he has no choice, but to wait until the seating of the new congress.

Pretty sure any Republicans that acted like that know their dismal chances of re-election. Most would expect that exact behavior from the Democrats.

a reply to: Lab4Us

But this has happened before, where the Senators wanted to stop and not deal with this, and thus refused to attend and set, and they had to send people to bring them back, dragging them in if need be to have the required number for them.

a reply to: dawnstar

I agree it should never have been made a political tool, however, McConnell changed that and made it very political. He exploited the rules, some set up by the Democrats, and thus caused this mess that we now are looking at.

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Potus election is different than midterms
If you think 3 GOP will break with GOP potus before midterms I have some land you may be interested in
This is nba allstar slam dunk
Easiest SCOTUS confirmation ever

It'll be just like Gorsuch...it'll be the Dems that can't keep everyone in line. There are a number of red state senate Dems up for re-election that can't afford to vote against the nominee, especially given that GOP voters will turn out when a SC seat is on the line.

Funny how the talking heads on TV fail to mention this
Elections have consequences
GOP voters showed up
Dems stayed home

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: shooterbrody

I believe this is going to be a fight, unlike any other and one that we have not seen in years. And they are going to pull out all of the stops and make it difficult, and rough. Sides after looking at the setting, it is more like one or 2, and all that would be required, would be for all of the Democrats and 2 republican senators not be present, and the Senate can not vote on anything as it would not have a full quorum to do such with, leaving it in short, shut down during that time frame.

Then McConnell would have to order the sergeant at arms to go and arrest/round them up, and if the Democrats play this right, could pretty much delay this until after the election to the point where he has no choice, but to wait until the seating of the new congress.

Yeah no path to 270 and all right?
GOP has the numbers
Game over man
Game over

originally posted by: TheRedneck
OK, fair is fair. I don't have a problem with them waiting until after the midterm.

TheRedneck

TBH, that would be a good tactic for Trump to really get out the vote in a Mid Term. He won't wait with this one. Maybe next one?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: xuenchen


What would the mid=term elections have to do with it anyway? Why wait. It is not like were going to have a new President, unless Shumer is trying to tell us something.

That was the first thing that came to my mind. Translated: "Wait until Trump is Impeached" and let the new president pick one...

Yeah I'm sure Pence would pick a more liberal Judge....

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
I don't understand why any true patriot would want our highest court to be stacked with people from one political party.


All that power in the hands of the few is very un-american in my view.

I'm sure you would feel the same way if it were Clinton stocking the court right?

You have the Dems to blame for this with Harry Reid. Now I'm glad he didn't lose to that Tea Party person.

a reply to: xuenchen

The Dems got Rid of the Filibuster , Tough Titties Chuck..................''



Losers Only get to Sit Back and Watch Now....

This whole thing is just parliamentary procedure.

A member of the senate makes a motion to "lay the matter on the table" or "take up the matter of the President's Supreme Court nomination."

If many of the senators think something is a good idea, they'll second it and get the votes to move it.

The previous senate laid Obama's nominee confirmation "on the table" and were completely within their right to do so. IF this session decides to pick up Trump's nominee next week, they will have also been within their rights. Same if they leave it for the next congress to tackle.

The fact is, the majority ALWAYS gets to decide the timing of bills and the business to which the Congress attends.

"The minority may have its say, but the Majority shall have it's way." -Henry M. Robert, Robert's Rules of Order

a reply to: pavil

I'm sure you would feel the same way if it were Clinton stocking the court right?

Absolutely.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

The Dems got Rid of the Filibuster , Tough Titties Chuck

Not as applied to the appointment of Justices. McConnell did that.

Bad idea. In both cases.

Let the wolves decide what's on the menu.

It seems very unlikely that President Trump will be impeached at this point. I used to be on that bandwagon, I'll be the first to admit and I was wrong.

2018 will likely bring a change in the Congress ... either the House or the Senate will change hands. I say this based on trends and the cyclic nature of American politics in the last 40 or so years.

Personally, the greatest threat to us all is that Trump is successful in stacking an arch-political SCOTUS majority. I know that many here are applying a "nyah-nyah, we won, if you don't like it go home" attitude, and while that is understandable, folks have to realize that we are not homogenous in our political beliefs in this country... and while everyone thinks they are in the majority, the fact is that fully implementing any political extreme is going to alienate a large group of moderates.