News said they believe the new judge will be

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
News said they believe the new judge will be

In the 230 hstory of the Republic, there has never been a Supreme Court Justice nominated, much less confirmed, in the months of September and October preceeding a Presidential Election!

The names of the 5 Supreme Court Justices that were nominated in June and the 1 in September, had their names withdrawn, or postponed, presumably because the Senate was not prepared to further "politicize" such an appointment during the middle of a presidential campaign because it was too controversial and divisive!
 
Upvote 0

Redwingfan9

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2019
2,629
1,532
Midwest
✟70,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
News said they believe the new judge will be

In the 230 hstory of the Republic, there has never been a Supreme Court Justice nominated, much less confirmed, in the months of September and October preceeding a Presidential Election!

The names of the 5 Supreme Court Justices that were nominated in June and the 1 in September, had their names withdrawn, or postponed, presumably because the Senate was not prepared to further "politicize" such an appointment during the middle of a presidential campaign because it was too controversial and divisive!
We elect Presidents for four years and they should discharge those duties for all four years. Nominating people to the Courts is one of those duties. What the Senate does with the matter is their business.
 
Upvote 0

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
176868.png

We elect Presidents for four years and they should discharge those duties for all four years. Nominating people to the Courts is one of those duties. What the Senate does with the matter is their business.
Then why was President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, not even granted a hearing - that was based on the Republican argument at the time that an opening on the Supreme Court should be postponed until the next President, thereby allowing the pwople to make a choice!

Fast forward 4 tears with the Republicans refusing to play by their own rule, and given that they have no respect for the practises of past Presidents when it comes to avoiding appointing justices after their political conventions, conservatibes have set the stage for Democrats to break a few precedents of their own!

Should Democrats regain contol of the White House and the Senate in 2020, as the current polls would suggest, they are well aware that the Constitution doesn't set a limit on the number of sitting Supreme Court Justices!

The Democrats could counter the Republican attempts to stack the courts by invoking the "what the Senate does with the matter is their business" rule of yjeir own and increase the size of the Court!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Redwingfan9

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2019
2,629
1,532
Midwest
✟70,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
176868.png


Then why was President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, not even granted a hearing - that was based on the Republican argument at the time that an opening on the Supreme Court should be postponed until the next President, thereby allowing the electorate to make a choice!

Just as the Republicans aren't prepared to play by the same rules that they established 4 years ago and because they have no respect for the practises of past Presidents when it comes to avoiding appointing justices after their political conventions, conservatibes have set the stage for Democrats to break a few precedents of their own!

Should they regain contol of the White House and the Senate in 2020 as the current polls would suggest, given that the Constitution doesn't set a limit on the number of sitting Supreme Court Justices, the Democrats could counter the Republican attempts to stack the courts by invoking the "what the Senate does with the matter is their business" rule and increase the size of the Court!
Like I said, what the Senate does with a nominee is their business.
 
Upvote 0

Nevada Smith

Active Member
Sep 20, 2020
285
190
75
Paxton
✟14,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When Pres Trump appoints qualified people, the left resorts to personal attacks rather than discussing their qualifications.
Amy Coney Barrett is 'white colonizer' for adopting two black children from Haiti, professor says | Daily Mail Online

I found this list of white celebrities that have adopted black children. Many of their child came from overseas. Have they been attacked and accused of being 'white colonizer' who are using their children as 'props'?
White Celebrities Who Have Adopted Black Children
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
176868.png


Then why was President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, not even granted a hearing - that was based on the Republican argument at the time that an opening on the Supreme Court should be postponed until the next President, thereby allowing the pwople to make a choice!

Fast forward 4 tears with the Republicans refusing to play by their own rule, and given that they have no respect for the practises of past Presidents when it comes to avoiding appointing justices after their political conventions, conservatibes have set the stage for Democrats to break a few precedents of their own!

Should Democrats regain contol of the White House and the Senate in 2020, as the current polls would suggest, they are well aware that the Constitution doesn't set a limit on the number of sitting Supreme Court Justices!

The Democrats could counter the Republican attempts to stack the courts by invoking the "what the Senate does with the matter is their business" rule of yjeir own and increase the size of the Court!

The Republicans are not attempting to stack the Court they are attempting to fill a vacancy. Not the same thing at all. When RBG was nominated the Democrats were not attempting to stack the court they were attempting to fill a vacancy. Whenever vacancies occur it is the duty of the President to nominate a successor not to stall until after an election. The Senate then has the duty to approve or reject that nominee. That the President and the Senate choose someone that reflects their judicial philosophy rather than someone that contradicts their philosophy is not stacking the court. Adding justices just so as to assure that your philosophy can dominate the Court is stacking the Court. The Senate was derelict in their duty in not voting on Garland. Insisting that they shirk their responsibility now would be insisting that two wrongs make a right.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nevada Smith

Active Member
Sep 20, 2020
285
190
75
Paxton
✟14,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Republicans are not attempting to stack the Court they are attempting to fill a vacancy. Not the same thing at all. When RBG was nominated the Democrats were not attempting to stack the court they were attempting to fill a vacancy. Whenever vacancies occur it is the duty of the President to nominate a successor not to stall until after an election. The Senate then has the duty to approve or reject that nominee. That the President and the Senate choose someone that reflects their judicial philosophy rather than someone that contradicts their philosophy is not stacking the court. Adding justices just so as to assure that your philosophy can dominate the Court is stacking the Court. The Senate was derelict in their duty in not voting on Garland. Insisting that they shirk their responsibility now would be insisting that two wrongs make a right.
Careful, you are confusing liberals with facts.
 
Upvote 0