Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[imported_tajmahal]

In one word. No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

"In the Judiciary Act of 1869 Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices."

Maybe you can get the USSC to give a ruling on it dumbass.

 

[Josephus312]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

As I said, no. Congress gets to decide if an expansion is needed and if things go as they're bound to go when Dem's wins House, Presidency and Congress that can be changed.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

As I said, no. Congress gets to decide if an expansion is needed and if things go as they're bound to go when Dem's wins House, Presidency and Congress that can be changed.

Republicans should go ahead and do it first by your reasoning. I mean we already have the House, Senate and Presidency no matter what happens in the elections until Jan. of 2019. We'll continue to have the Presidency until 2020 and the Senate until 2022 in all likelihood, but except for those things, great plan.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans should go ahead and do it first by your reasoning. I mean we already have the House, Senate and Presidency no matter what happens in the elections until Jan. of 2019. We'll continue to have the Presidency until 2020 and the Senate until 2022 in all likelihood, but except for those things, great plan.

Thanks for the advice.

Dumb idea, conservatives already control the court so they wouldn’t gain much by doing it. Liberals on the other hand have a lot to gain by increasing the size of the court.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Dumb idea, conservatives already control the court so they wouldn’t gain much by doing it. Liberals on the other hand have a lot to gain by increasing the size of the court.

It would prevent the Democrats from doing it in the future, so yeah, good plan.

 

[Josephus312]

Republicans should go ahead and do it first by your reasoning. I mean we already have the House, Senate and Presidency no matter what happens in the elections until Jan. of 2019. We'll continue to have the Presidency until 2020 and the Senate until 2022 in all likelihood, but except for those things, great plan.

Thanks for the advice.

I think that your main problem is that you can't think properly.

There is no upside for you lot to do it, is there? You've already stacked the courts with the help of the likes of Schumer.

OTOH, Dems would benefit from it and considering the refusal to nominate Garland you fucking have it coming.

 

[Jhhnn]

Republicans should go ahead and do it first by your reasoning. I mean we already have the House, Senate and Presidency no matter what happens in the elections until Jan. of 2019. We'll continue to have the Presidency until 2020 and the Senate until 2022 in all likelihood, but except for those things, great plan.

Thanks for the advice.

The GOP is already getting the effect they want in stacking the 9 member court after changing the rules. They're salivating over the retirement of Ginsberg or Breyer.

 

[Josephus312]

It would prevent the Democrats from doing it in the future, so yeah, good plan.

No, it wouldn't. You just can't think.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that your main problem is that you can't think properly.

There is no upside for you lot to do it, is there? You've already stacked the courts with the help of the likes of Schumer.

OTOH, Dems would benefit from it and considering the refusal to nominate Garland you fucking have it coming.

Don't blame Shumer. Confirmation of those nominees was inevitable. All he could do was slow them down & prevent his own guys from campaigning at the same time. He made the best of a bad situation.

 

[cytg111]

It would prevent the Democrats from doing it in the future, so yeah, good plan.

Hahahaha .. man you crack me up. You started this shitshow, too bad you're too dumb to finish it... Thats the real TDS.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I think that your main problem is that you can't think properly.

There is no upside for you lot to do it, is there? You've already stacked the courts with the help of the likes of Schumer.

OTOH, Dems would benefit from it and considering the refusal to nominate Garland you fucking have it coming.

Just think how much better the Court would be with an additional 6 or 8 conservative and originalist members? It would make a good Court a great Court. It's not as if President Trump doesn't have the names already picked out to nominate.

 

[Jaskalas]

He's not very bright.

Also, he said in the email that Roe vs. Wade is "not settled law"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kavanaugh-roe-wade-email-leak_us_5b913519e4b0162f472ab5dc

No wonder the repubs wanted to sit on that.

1: I read Huffpo's hit piece first, and...
2: It's a lie. Those words are CLEARLY in reference to other Judges.

Don't buy into and/or spread their lies just because you identify with the publisher.

 

[Jhhnn]

1: I read Huffpo's hit piece first, and...
2: It's a lie. Those words are CLEARLY in reference to other Judges.

Don't buy into and/or spread their lies just because you identify with the publisher.

I think Kavanaugh is an obvious & extreme pro-lifer, given that he repeated the claim that ordinary birth control pills cause abortions. I figure he & Gorsuch will make that 5 instead of the 3 he mentioned on the court...

 

[esquared]

1: I read Huffpo's hit piece first, and...
2: It's a lie. Those words are CLEARLY in reference to other Judges.

Don't buy into and/or spread their lies just because you identify with the publisher.

Excessive ha ha's needed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So, uhh, changing the rules to install semi-stealth right wing ideologues on the Court is somehow good for America & our future, or what?

We all know that Kavanaugh is exactly that guy.

You’re asking the wrong question. If the Democrats controlled the Senate, I would fully support blocking any nomination from Trump pending the outcome of the Mueller investigation.

The quesrion you should be asking yourself is why the GOP is in the position they are in.

 

[cytg111]

Just think how much better the Court would be with an additional 6 or 8 conservative and originalist members? It would make a good Court a great Court. It's not as if President Trump doesn't have the names already picked out to nominate.

How about we clone you eight times and create a Special Supreme Court .. just think how much you and your buddies would get along and get to decide, doesnt that sound nice little fella? .

 

[Jhhnn]

You’re asking the wrong question. If the Democrats controlled the Senate, I would fully support blocking any nomination from Trump pending the outcome of the Mueller investigation.

The quesrion you should be asking yourself is why the GOP is in the position they are in.

Which dodges the point of why there has been a 60-66 vote threshold for confirmation for the last 100 years. It was to protect the American people from exactly what McConnell is doing today, stuffing the court with ideologues on the slimmest majority.

 

[ivwshane]

Which dodges the point of why there has been a 60-66 vote threshold for confirmation for the last 100 years. It was to protect the American people from exactly what McConnell is doing today, stuffing the court with ideologues on the slimmest majority.

Apparently he thinks not holding hearings for Obama's SC appointees and slow walking lower court nominees beyond precedent is ok but damn those Democrats for loosening restrictions for lower court nominations. I guess a functional government is ok only when a single party controls all of it.

He wants to look back at the cause of dysfunction in Congress but only as far back as when the cause points to being the Democrats fault.

Why was garland not given a hearing? Its the Democrats fault of course, and the long standing Biden rule non rule.

Why do nominations only require a majority now? Its the Democrats fault of course, and their removal of the filibuster. It has nothing to do with the unprecedented amount Republican obstruction prior to that.

What started all this politicizing of the supreme court nominations? It was the Democrats fault of course, for not giving Regan consent to his nomination of Bork. Ignoring the fact that multiple supreme court picks were voted down previously in the two decades prior to Bork. Prior to that, SC nominations had a 74 year history of being confirmed with only one rejection. That changed when Republicans and southern Democrats didn't like the decision of some of the most important rulings in our history. From the 60's on the supreme court has been a battle of ideology.

But those are facts and mr both sides doesn't do facts or context.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Which dodges the point of why there has been a 60-66 vote threshold for confirmation for the last 100 years. It was to protect the American people from exactly what McConnell is doing today, stuffing the court with ideologues on the slimmest majority.

Take it up with Harry Reid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8da3f4-7ba7-11e8-93cc-6d3beccdd7a3_story.html

Pandora’s boxes

 

[UberNeuman]

Hugh Hewitt. lol.

Swamp Dweller, extraordinaire...

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/09/media/hugh-hewitt-msnbc-verbal-warning-scott-pruitt/index.html

 

[fskimospy]

It would prevent the Democrats from doing it in the future, so yeah, good plan.

No it wouldn’t, haha.

 

[fskimospy]

Take it up with Harry Reid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8da3f4-7ba7-11e8-93cc-6d3beccdd7a3_story.html

Pandora’s boxes

Are you really naive enough to think Republicans would not have done away with the appointments filibuster as soon as it was convenient? This is republicans attempting to rewrite history.

Also, the person we have to thank for Reid nuking the appointments filibuster is Mitch McConnell. McConnell said Republicans would block all Obama nominees to the DC circuit regardless of their qualifications because they didn’t want to see conservatives lose control of it. When the minority party has declared that they will no longer allow the Senate to perform its constitutional functions the appropriate remedy is to remove their power to do so.

 

[Jhhnn]

Take it up with Harry Reid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8da3f4-7ba7-11e8-93cc-6d3beccdd7a3_story.html

Pandora’s boxes

McConnell found several excuses for an unprecedented power grab in the SCOTUS & you're defending it via obfuscation & blame shifting. I mean, you know, in case you hadn't noticed.

And who gets the power? The beleaguered little people? Or the perpetrators of trickle down fraud?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Are you really naive enough to think Republicans would not have done away with the appointments filibuster as soon as it was convenient? This is republicans attempting to rewrite history.

Also, the person we have to thank for Reid nuking the appointments filibuster is Mitch McConnell. McConnell said Republicans would block all Obama nominees to the DC circuit regardless of their qualifications because they didn’t want to see conservatives lose control of it. When the minority party has declared that they will no longer allow the Senate to perform its constitutional functions the appropriate remedy is to remove their power to do so.

Not naive at all. I know they would have, the Democrats just beat them to it.

And how did that work out for them? A big part of that decision was the arrogance in believing that the inpenetrable blue wall would make the filibuster irrelevant. Mitch McConnell broke the Senate, but he wasn’t the one that paved the road.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Apparently he thinks not holding hearings for Obama's SC appointees and slow walking lower court nominees beyond precedent is ok but damn those Democrats for loosening restrictions for lower court nominations. I guess a functional government is ok only when a single party controls all of it.

He wants to look back at the cause of dysfunction in Congress but only as far back as when the cause points to being the Democrats fault.

Why was garland not given a hearing? Its the Democrats fault of course, and the long standing Biden rule non rule.

Why do nominations only require a majority now? Its the Democrats fault of course, and their removal of the filibuster. It has nothing to do with the unprecedented amount Republican obstruction prior to that.

What started all this politicizing of the supreme court nominations? It was the Democrats fault of course, for not giving Regan consent to his nomination of Bork. Ignoring the fact that multiple supreme court picks were voted down previously in the two decades prior to Bork. Prior to that, SC nominations had a 74 year history of being confirmed with only one rejection. That changed when Republicans and southern Democrats didn't like the decision of some of the most important rulings in our history. From the 60's on the supreme court has been a battle of ideology.

But those are facts and mr both sides doesn't do facts or context.

The Democrats started the nasty state of affairs in regard to the Supreme Court with Bork, they then continued it with the high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas

"And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

It so disgusted some of the more reasonable members of the old Democratic Party that he was confirmed, even after the filthy attack. So stop the fcking bullshit about how the Democrats are on the high road in the Supreme Court fight, you assholes suck.