- May 30, 2020
- 9,420
- 4,301
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Amy Coney BarrettAmy Barrett, my spelling for her name.
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.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The names of the 5 Supreme Court Justices that were nominated in June and the 1 in September, had their names withdrawn, or postponed, presumably because the Senate was not prepared to further "politicize" such an appointment during the middle of a presidential campaign because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!
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!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.
Like I said, what the Senate does with a nominee 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 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!
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!
Careful, you are confusing liberals with facts.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.