30 May 19
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-2020/index.html
When asked what would happen if next year a Supreme Court seat opens up, he said , in a duh tone, "We'd fill it", to the james bond villain laughter in the background. This dukes of hazard villain decided it's to much work to hide he is blatantly abusing power and is smugly laughing to your face.
What topic should we re-discuss? How insane it is to appoint supreme court judges for life? How insane it is to have the president appoint supreme court judges (breaking the principle of separation of powers)? How insane it is for Mitch to basically control the senate and stop issues from even being put up for vote?
But i am not concerned, any day now Schumer and Pelosi will call him on this and do everything in their power to stop him.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
I think it's obvious: McConnell's exercise of the "nuclear option" has proven to be fatal to the credibility of the Supreme Court.
We can now add to Philip Roth's observation: The demise of our republic has not only appeared in the guise of a "boastful buffoon" but an additional "chinless owl".
(Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know...Harry Reid did it first. But, his elimination of the 2/3 majority vote requirement for lower court judges, was warranted and far less consequential. After all, he was forced to do something. The rednecks of the republican party were proud to display their defiant ignorance, as they abused the filibuster, all just in order to thwart Barack Obama.)
30 May 19
@wolfe63 saidYou do realize that you completely impeached your own argument in your own post; don't you? What you consider "forced" by "rednecks" would be counter-argued every bit as vociferously as the argument that you're making by people who disagree with your viewpoint.
I think it's obvious: McConnell's exercise of the "nuclear option" has proven to be fatal to the credibility of the Supreme Court.
We can now add to Philip Roth's observation: The demise of our republic has not only appeared in the guise of a "boastful buffoon" but an additional "chinless owl".
(Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know...Harry Reid did it first. But, his elimination o ...[text shortened]... y their defiant ignorance, as they abused the filibuster, all just in order to thwart Barack Obama.)
Either the filibuster is a good idea or it is not (hint: it's not). To say "it's a good idea when we need it because the other side is crazy" is an argument that will never convince anyone outside of your echo chamber.
Is Mitch a hypocrite? Of course he is. But that's only because he bothered with his transparent lie about Garland. The fact is that Garland was turned away because the Dems lost the Senate in the 2014 election. As Barack Obama once said, elections have consequences. You don't like the consequences of losing? Don't lose.
Anyone who thinks there's any chance that any Republican or Democrat would now fail to put through a SCOTUS justice of the same party because of the Garland precedent is quite literally insane.
The "nuclear option" was never necessary because Justices used to get confirmed easily as long as they were qualified (see: Scalia, Ginsburg, etc.); not because of any change in the credibility of the Supreme Court.
30 May 19
@sh76 saidWhat makes a Supreme Court justice "qualified"?
You do realize that you completely impeached your own argument in your own post; don't you? What you consider "forced" by "rednecks" would be counter-argued every bit as vociferously as the argument that you're making by people who disagree with your viewpoint.
Either the filibuster is a good idea or it is not (hint: it's not). To say "it's a good idea when we need it because ...[text shortened]... ed (see: Scalia, Ginsburg, etc.); not because of any change in the credibility of the Supreme Court.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
30 May 19
@sh76 saidWhat part of "far less consequential" escaped your notice?
You do realize that you completely impeached your own argument in your own post; don't you? What you consider "forced" by "rednecks" would be counter-argued every bit as vociferously as the argument that you're making by people who disagree with your viewpoint.
Either the filibuster is a good idea or it is not (hint: it's not). To say "it's a good idea when we need it because ...[text shortened]... ed (see: Scalia, Ginsburg, etc.); not because of any change in the credibility of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is the last stop for all Constitutional judgements. And a court packed with justices whom overtly side with either political extreme is not good for the country.
Just ask the ghost of Dred Scott.
30 May 19
@sh76 saidMitch is the one who created that unfortunate precedent; Senates with different party majorities routinely confirmed SCOTUS nominees including GW's.
You do realize that you completely impeached your own argument in your own post; don't you? What you consider "forced" by "rednecks" would be counter-argued every bit as vociferously as the argument that you're making by people who disagree with your viewpoint.
Either the filibuster is a good idea or it is not (hint: it's not). To say "it's a good idea when we need it because ...[text shortened]... ed (see: Scalia, Ginsburg, etc.); not because of any change in the credibility of the Supreme Court.
30 May 19
@kazetnagorra saidThe ABA's rating is a solid starting point.
What makes a Supreme Court justice "qualified"?
30 May 19
@kazetnagorra saidAccording to what you said in another thread, they win their election.
What makes a Supreme Court justice "qualified"?
30 May 19
3 edits
@wolfe63 saidThen amend the Constitution to require a supermajority to confirm a SCOTUS justice. To rely on an aconstitutional flimsy parliamentary maneuver to protect the "credibility" of the Supreme Court has no chance of long-term sustainability. When Reid started to cut at its edges he must have known it would come toppling down as soon as politically expedient. I'm not "blaming" Reid or McConnel; the device itself simply was never sustainable at these stakes.
What part of "far less consequential" escaped your notice?
The Supreme Court is the last stop for all Constitutional judgements. And a court packed with justices whom overtly side with either political extreme is not good for the country.
Just ask the ghost of Dred Scott.
30 May 19
@no1marauder saidGW's SCOTUS nominees were both passed by GOP-controlled Senates. Alito would never have gotten through committee if the Dems controlled the Senate; all 8 Dems in committee voted to kill the nomination before bringing it to the Senate floor.
Mitch is the one who created that unfortunate precedent; Senates with different party majorities routinely confirmed SCOTUS nominees including GW's.
30 May 19
@sh76 saidThere were enough "no" votes to filibuster Alito but the Democrats declined to use it. That was before McConnell decided to use the filibuster on every piece of legislation imposing a supermajority requirement that had never existed before.
Then amend the Constitution to require a supermajority to confirm a SCOTUS justice. To rely on an aconstitutional flimsy parliamentary maneuver to protect the "credibility" of the Supreme Court has no chance of long-term sustainability. When Reid started to cut at its edges he must have known it would come toppling down as soon as politically expedient. I'm not "blaming" Reid or McConnel; the device itself simply was never sustainable at these stakes.
30 May 19
1 edit
@sh76 saidAlito got 58 votes; committee recommendations can be overridden by floor votes.
GW's SCOTUS nominees were both passed by GOP-controlled Senates. Alito would never have gotten through committee if the Dems controlled the Senate; all 8 Dems in committee voted to kill the nomination before bringing it to the Senate floor.
Democrats had enough seats to filibuster both. Roberts got 22 Democratic votes.
30 May 19
@sh76 saidKavanaugh's rating shows that is clearly not the case.
The ABA's rating is a solid starting point.
30 May 19
@no1marauder saidThe declined to use it because McConnell would certainly have blown it up had they tried. They had no real power to stop Alito.
There were enough "no" votes to filibuster Alito but the Democrats declined to use it. That was before McConnell decided to use the filibuster on every piece of legislation imposing a supermajority requirement that had never existed before.
30 May 19
1 edit
@sh76 saidThat's complete after the fact guesswork. It's far from clear McConnell even could have under Senate rules at the time.
The declined to use it because McConnell would certainly have blown it up had they tried. They had no real power to stop Alito.