Liberal obstructionism?

T

towersniper

100+ Posts
"This might explain why Democrats now say the Supreme Court should remain divided in the same way—four justices appointed by Democratic presidents, four by Republicans—for the rest of Trump’s term. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that President Trump puts up,” said Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. “I promise you.”

Liberal commentators agree. “It would be completely decent, honorable and in keeping with the Senate’s constitutional duty to vote against essentially every judicial nominee Trump names,’’ said the Americans for a Progressive Judiciary, a liberal think tank. “If you truly believe that a particular nominee would wreak havoc on America, why not do everything you can to stop him?”"
 
As if leftists liberal commentators know the meaning of the word honorable
I hope we see the nuke option the Dems were so proud to set upm
 
Do I think the Dems would be decent and honorable to block every nominee as suggested in the comments?
Is that what you are asking ?
 
Horn6721 said:
Do I think the Dems would be decent and honorable to block every nominee as suggested in the comments?
Is that what you are asking ?
Click to expand...
Essentially, yes. I know that you disagree with those making the comments about what would constitute "wreaking havoc" , but what do you think about the ethics of opposing any nominee, 1) because of disagreement with philosophy, or 2) to preserve the ideological balance of the court?
 
Horn6721 said:
Shouldn't following our Constitution be more important than political ideology?
Click to expand...
Yes it should. But I don't think you really believe that.

"I’m sure these words of principle enrage conservatives. I’m sure they believe that the Democrats' allowing the high court to continue in its current hobbled state throughout Trump’s term is un-American and destructive to our country. In fact, these statements have already been roundly condemned on Fox News, with numerous pundits ripping at the Democratic Party (or Democrat Party) for allowing its thirst for partisan advantage to blind it to our constitutional principles. And if you’re a conservative, I hope you seethe at those statements.

Why? Because it exposes your grotesque hypocrisy."
 
"You see, I lied. Feinstein never said anything about the Democrats refusing to confirm any Trump nominee for the next four years—that was actually Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, in statements he made when most of the political world believed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was going to be president. As for the comment from the Americans for a Progressive Judiciary? I made up the name; as far as I can tell, no such organization exists. Instead, I was quoting the conservative publication The Federalist, which, once again, was writing at a time when almost no one believed Trump would win, to justify engaging in a blanket refusal to ever confirm any Clinton nominee."

"Now if you’re a conservative who was angered by those statements when you thought they came from Democrats—and now that you know they were uttered by your partisan brethren, you’re scrambling to justify them—face facts: You are lying and self-deluded."http://www.newsweek.com/why-neil-gorsuch-must-not-be-confirmed-supreme-court-eichenwald-551429
 
Horn6721 said:
Do I think the Dems would be decent and honorable to block every nominee as suggested in the comments?
Is that what you are asking ?
Click to expand...
What has the GOP been doing for the last 6 years? How did they treat the Supreme nomination bu Obama? I don't think you are in any position to start slinging mud.
 
A good article on why blind obstruction isn't a smart strategy even if the GOP benefited from doing the same to Obama. (I actually don't think that helped them, but that's beside the point.). Link.
 
Good data in that article. I agree that the author's premise that obstructionism in and of itself benefitted Republicans is incorrect.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html

Surprisingly, the NYT actually produced a pretty useful graphic for the timeline of previous SCOTUS nominations whether confirmed or denied. The last SCOTUS confirmed in an election year was Kennedy but that was only because of the Bork ordeal. The seat was vacated in the prior year so I would not count it as an applicable precedent in this case. The last SCOTUS nomination for a seat vacated in the year of an election was for Hoover where a Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Benjamin Cardozo.
 
UTChE96 said:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html

Surprisingly, the NYT actually produced a pretty useful graphic for the timeline of previous SCOTUS nominations whether confirmed or denied. The last SCOTUS confirmed in an election year was Kennedy but that was only because of the Bork ordeal. The seat was vacated in the prior year so I would not count it as an applicable precedent in this case. The last SCOTUS nomination for a seat vacated in the year of an election was for Hoover where a Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Benjamin Cardozo.
Click to expand...

It's the longest vacancy since at least Abraham Lincoln's 2nd term and 8 justices have been voted in within the last year of the POTUS term. Though I don't think the Democrats should challenge/filibuster Gorsuch, we all should fully understand if they felt the need to test the theory that the SCOTUS can operate fine with 8 justices which is what the R's advocated last year. It's understandable that many elements of the Dem party feel the nomination was "stolen" from them. Still, fighting Gorsuch at this point is a fruitless battle.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It's the longest vacancy since at least Abraham Lincoln's 2nd term and 8 justices have been voted in within the last year of the POTUS term.
Click to expand...
When placed in the proper context, there has not been an election year vacancy that was filled in a very long time and certainly not in the modern era of hyper-partisan politics. Does anyone really believe that a Democrat Senate would not have done the same thing in the same situation to a Republican POTUS? Only the truest of believers would be that naïve.

I would actually be fine with amending the Constitution to allow SCOTUS vacancies to only be filled after a Presidential election. That would allow voters to know how exactly how many SCOTUS seats will be filled by the next POTUS.
 
Last edited:
"There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That's a debate that we are going to have,"
 
"Cruz’s remarks put him at odds with several colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including its chairman, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). “If that new president happens to be Hillary, we can’t just simply stonewall,” Grassley told reporters last week."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top