Gorsuch is a right wing ideologue. An educated one but one nonetheless.Because its true. The opinion sections of just about every major newspaper are going into full hysterics.
If you look at the names floating around, many of the candidates have a connection to Kennedy, and none seem like far right ideologues.
The Democrats will find it hard to sway public opinion against Kavanaugh, Barrett or Kethledge.
Now if Trump goes full Trump and nominates say Giuliani, then there is something to get hysterical about.
I actually agree with you. Dems will retake the house, lose a couple of seats in the Senate and probably RBG resigns in year 3 or 4 of Trump's presidency and we do this fight all over again except then it won't matter.Makes a great point not to wait till the elections. Not that it matters since Republicans will probably pick up 3 to 5 seats in November.
Makes a great point not to wait till the elections. Not that it matters since Republicans will probably pick up 3 to 5 seats in November.
No no he’s right. They’ve got 2018 in the bag.Dream on, Taj.
Lots of blame to go around for this cluster.
Not least the ossified state of the D party with same old career cynical politicians. If that were not the case, the vile one would not be in WH today.
Not least the ossified state of the D party with same old career cynical politicians. If that were not the case, the vile one would not be in WH today.
This is a better line of reasoning. Sotomayor received her confirmation before a midterm election, so Republicans could argue that because the President nonimates candidates, that shouldn’t happen in an election year. You can thank Harry Reid for giving them the procedural mechanism to pull it off.As long as there is an ongoing investigation (Mueller),
There can be no nomination!
This is a better line of reasoning. Sotomayor received her confirmation before a midterm election, so Republicans could argue that because the President nonimates candidates, that shouldn’t happen in an election year. You can thank Harry Reid for giving them the procedural mechanism to pull it off.
Even if Democrats want to try to make it an apples to oranges thing, they won’t succeed because they currently lack the leverage to stop it.
The Democrats could make an argument that a President under investigation for collusion with a foreign power should lose the executive privilege to nominate a justice until the investigation is complete. That is a stronger and more compelling argument.
Maximum 4 out of 10 vote in mid terms. I think it’s more percentage of Rs. But let’s be generous and say it’s 2 each. Out of that 2 on D side, at best 0.75 would know anything about Supreme Court. That is a very generous assessment. So the issue of SC matters to 0.75 out of 10 Americans, if that.
People like us who are politics junkies vastly overestimate ourselves.
This is a better line of reasoning. Sotomayor received her confirmation before a midterm election, so Republicans could argue that because the President nonimates candidates, that shouldn’t happen in an election year. You can thank Harry Reid for giving them the procedural mechanism to pull it off.
Even if Democrats want to try to make it an apples to oranges thing, they won’t succeed because they currently lack the leverage to stop it.
The Democrats could make an argument that a President under investigation for collusion with a foreign power should lose the executive privilege to nominate a justice until the investigation is complete. That is a stronger and more compelling argument.
Well what does our illustrious president say about it.Here's a yeah, but....
If that could be done to the President, then his hands would be tied, therefore, not being able to be President or govern. That's a huge reach, assuming guilt, until proven guilty. I get it that some people would like to see him hanging from the highest tree, but there is also a process. If you want to make that argument, it could also be said that Clinton should not have been allowed to run, while she was under investigation. None of us know what the end of this investigation looks like. It could be something or may not be anything, at the end of the road. If the Mueller investigation ends and does not result in any finding that Trump colluded with the Russians, or did anything unlawful with them, then what will you have to say? Would you demand another investigation, because that one wasn't good enough?
“El Presidente” said:If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks - (followed by some 2nd amendment suggestions I won’t repeat)
Republicans bottled up Obama's appointments with cloture and blue slips creating a massive number of vacancies that the Republicans hoped to fill. Eliminating the filibuster for appointments was the only logical thing to do in the face of such a breach of Senate norms.
The only thing that not eliminating it would have done is meant 20 some fewer Obama appointments getting confirmed.
. If we made the "active status" term for SCOTUS be 18 years it would mean every 2 years the POTUS would nominate one and it would take a lot of the unnecessary drama out of things.
This is symptomatic with a deficiency in our Constitution about the Senate "advise and consent" clause. As you point out if abused it can lead to results like this. Preferrably we'd adjust it so that nominations not decided upon within x days were automatically considered confirmed unless a supermajority of some kind voted to extend the time for consideration with a future vote scheduled for a date certain. Heck, in an ideal world appointments for SCOTUS and senior federal judges would be "term limited" as well where they served on active status for a number of years then went on reserve status and used in cases where one of the active status judges needed to recuse, etc. If we made the "active status" term for SCOTUS be 18 years it would mean every 2 years the POTUS would nominate one and it would take a lot of the unnecessary drama out of things.
In a sane world this would be a very powerful argument, especially considering it is fairly likely that before this is all over SCOTUS will have to make some sort of ruling that could lead to the president’s impeachment (or worse). Should someone be appointing their own future judge?
Realistically if SCOTUS has to make a ruling that would greatly affect a Trump impeachment proceeding the judges that he nominated should recuse themselves as they have an inherent bias.
They should. I’m sure some democrat in the senate will ask this question of the next nominee and I’m sure the nominee will say sure.
Then when it happens will they?
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1012467963486752785This is a better line of reasoning. Sotomayor received her confirmation before a midterm election, so Republicans could argue that because the President nonimates candidates, that shouldn’t happen in an election year. You can thank Harry Reid for giving them the procedural mechanism to pull it off.
Even if Democrats want to try to make it an apples to oranges thing, they won’t succeed because they currently lack the leverage to stop it.
The Democrats could make an argument that a President under investigation for collusion with a foreign power should lose the executive privilege to nominate a justice until the investigation is complete. That is a stronger and more compelling argument.
I think it's a bit too late for that. He's already nominated and selected a justice (gorsuch).This is a better line of reasoning. Sotomayor received her confirmation before a midterm election, so Republicans could argue that because the President nonimates candidates, that shouldn’t happen in an election year. You can thank Harry Reid for giving them the procedural mechanism to pull it off.
Even if Democrats want to try to make it an apples to oranges thing, they won’t succeed because they currently lack the leverage to stop it.
The Democrats could make an argument that a President under investigation for collusion with a foreign power should lose the executive privilege to nominate a justice until the investigation is complete. That is a stronger and more compelling argument.