The state of California and the state of Wyoming have exactly the same representation in the senate. Population doesn't enter the equation.To afford Californians the same representation in the Senate that Wyomingians enjoy, California would need to be broken into 68 states.
Not at all. I just see no reason for the Republicans not to put up a nominee. No reason at all.Your line of reasoning is that one party must perish?
Not at all. I just see no reason for the Republicans not to put up a nominee. No reason at all.
Population should play a role though. The current system is stupid.The state of California and the state of Wyoming have exactly the same representation in the senate. Population doesn't enter the equation.
It's odd to me that some of you fellows don't understand this. It was 8th grade civics way back in the dark ages when I went to school. Do they not teach the fundamentals of our constitutional republic anymore? I understand the reasons for wanting a pure democracy, it's the logic that escapes me. I don't believe a sum can be increased by adding zeros.
Population should play a role though. The current system is stupid.
Only because you feel the democrats would do a better job and want them to run the nation. That may or may not be correct, but it doesn't matter because that isn't the system we have. I don't think it's stupid, I actually think it works fairly well. The only form of government that can work extremely well is a dictatorship. The reason it never does is because no one has ever found a good dictator, and no one ever will (except for me of course, but I haven't been offered the job).Population should play a role though. The current system is stupid.
Only because you feel the democrats would do a better job and want them to run the nation. That may or may not be correct, but it doesn't matter because that isn't the system we have. I don't think it's stupid, I actually think it works fairly well. The only form of government that can work extremely well is a dictatorship. The reason it never does is because no one has ever found a good dictator, and no one ever will (except for me of course, but I haven't been offered the job).
Right, and again, the GOP changed the "rule," declaring it a new rule, and that there is no partisanship involved (despite hilariously obvious partisanship). That's how the Senate has always worked. Now, they want to flip back, as if they never made a new rule...because again, it only interests them.
...and again, because no partisanship. If you don't understand how hypocrisy works, this is it. GOP are the ones that are changing rules at a whim, only to suit them. What the Democrats said in 2016 doesn't matter worth a shit, compared to today, because their comments are effectively the status quo in 2016, and now in 2020, as teh GOP is trying to change the rules, temporarily, and quite obviously temporarily. Do you understand that? Consider, again, that bedwetting bitches like Lindsay Graham essentially defended the decision in 2016, that when presented with the potential situation in 2020, that he would hold to the new status quo. You want hypocrisy? watch him.
Rules and common mores change all the time like this. Only the GOP has decided that there are no ethics and no morality to govern how they decide to govern when it only ever suits them. To argue otherwise is to not be paying attention.
Except... You know.... We didn't have a popular vote.Population should play a role though. The current system is stupid.
There was no official rule. And to be clear, Republicans clarified that it was specifically as it relates to a lame duck president.
Not saying I'm in favor of what they did in 2016 but they are remaining consistent in that regard. They are no more hypocritical than Democrats, and no - Republicans didn't magically set some kind of new unwritten precedence lol
This also simply wasn't the first time this happened that a Senate didn't hear a nomination.... But for some reason you guys want to make it out as if it was because you don't care to lookup history?
By all means, educate us on previous examples of the senate not holding a hearing on a president’s SC nominee.
By all means, educate us on previous examples of the senate not holding a hearing on a president’s SC nominee.
Don't hold your breath. And do wait for the DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH bullshit to come flowing out from his ass.
All a matter of prospective. You chose to see nothing but the worst, you accept every rumor as fact, you hate Trump and the republican's and want them destroyed. I have a different prospective because I don't hate anyone. I don't want anyone punished for their beliefs, I don't want any group silenced, I don't want to force people a thousand miles away to live the way I think they should.If you think it's working well then you are blind as a bat. You have 40% of the country pretty much worshiping a pathologically lying demagogue, and one of the two major parties created by this system mostly kowtowing to him, and hanging onto his every word of bullshit. Yeah, working out wonderfully. What a country.
You can choose to look away from the nastiness and complacency of humanity adoring a documented divisive hate spreading liar and be naive, that's what's given us the most horrible regimes in history. Not that long ago actually.All a matter of prospective. You chose to see nothing but the worst, you accept every rumor as fact, you hate Trump and the republican's and want them destroyed. I have a different prospective because I don't hate anyone. I don't want anyone punished for their beliefs, I don't want any group silenced, I don't want to force people a thousand miles away to live the way I think they should.
From your link,OHHHHH BECAH GWOOGLE SOOOO HAWWWWD!!!!!
1853On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. The Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on this nomination made during the last year of Obama's presidency, with the Republican majority insisting that the next elected president should fill the vacancy. Senate Republicans' unprecedented refusal to consider the nomination was considered highly controversial. Garland's nomination lasted 293 days and expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress. The seat Garland was nominated for was eventually filled by Neil Gorsuch, appointed by President Donald Trump.
1852On February 14, 1853 President Millard Fillmore, a Whig, nominated Micou to fill the United States Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice John McKinley. Fillmore had attempted to fill the vacancy twice before, but was unsuccessful; the Senate tabled the August 1852 nomination of Edward A. Bradford, and the January 1853 nomination George Edmund Badger was postponed.[5] Fillmore next offered to nominate Judah Benjamin, who had been elected to the Senate for a term beginning on March 4, 1853, but he declined the position and recommended Micou.
1845In 1852, Bradford was nominated by President Millard Fillmore to replace the recently deceased Justice John McKinley. The Senate declined to act on the nomination before the session ended and Bradford was not re-nominated.
In 1845, President John Tyler nominated him to the Supreme Court of the United States; but, his earlier stance against the expansion of slavery into the territories caused the southern Democratic Senators to oppose his nomination and it was withdrawn.
What every Republican senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death leaves a vacancy on the Supreme Court just before the presidential election, as Justice Antonin Scalia's did in 2016, when Barack Obama was president. Here’s what Senate Republicans said in 2016, and what they’ve said publicly now.www.pbs.org
Long list. Shocking revelations inside.
Just Kidding. 100% hypocrisy inside. Ok 98% if Collins and Murkowski dont hypocrite yet again.
OHHHHH BECAH GWOOGLE SOOOO HAWWWWD!!!!!
Yea, but Trump was not the known scumbag he is now plus RBG was a lot more important than Hillary.Gotta hope so, but didn't work in Nov. 2016. At least, not enough.
Nice compilation vid by the Washington Post of all the excuses from the senators who endorse
crapping on RBG's legacy,
*Photo of prevaricator GOP senators*
I still say they are on really shaky ground here, RBG had mad respect from woman on both sides the "fuck you" revenge vote can come into play. Pretty easy to lie to hubby and say you voted GOP all the way.
If Hillary was elected we wouldn't be facing this horrid situation with scumbag trying to pack the court with douches.Yea, but Trump was not the known scumbag he is now plus RBG was a lot more important than Hillary.
You do understand. Willful ignorance is showing again or am I being generous with "willful"?
Stolen seat...Merrick Garland...follow the bouncing ball. So I guess if Mitch held up Hillary's picks for 4 years as he said he would do that would have been legal as well?
I think there is a disconnect about norms and the law. Republicans have routinely shitcanned the norms and are pointing at the law which indeed gives them the ability to confirm a justice rapidly if they so chose. This is 100% accurate that they have the legal ability.
The filibuster is a norm too since it exists in no law only the rules of the Senate which are changeable. Ultimately all the Democratic retaliatory options discussed in this threat are 100% legal even if they break norms. It is legal to add states. It is legal to expand the courts. It is legal to change apportionment and the US House seat cap to favor dense urban metros. The only thing that has prevented this is mutual adherence to a general set of political norms that aren't broken too often and that is going by the wayside.
What did he do that rivals Mitch refusing to put a dem presidents SC nominations to the vote? Mitch went full authoritarian there. Fuck your constitution and fuck your democracy all in name of absolute power and absolute power over the judges and courts. Lets not forget that geek voted Trump BECAUSE of the judges...Like what Harry Reid did with the nuclear option?
You are very incorrect in the assumption that every Trump Supporter feels that way.
Like what Harry Reid did with the nuclear option?