Justice Clarence Thomas to swear in Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court tonight

[Aryeh Jay]

Indeed, as for told in the book of ‘Merica chapter five.

AMEN! Preach that True Godspell!!

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Indeed, as for told in the book of ‘Merica chapter five.

You’re mistaken. It’s in Hypocrisies 20:20.

 

[MIDutch]

can you explain how it is a travesty of justice to follow the Constitution and fulfill the responsibilities of your office? Explain the corruption if you can.

Odd that you didn't use this argument when Obama was trying to fulfill his Constitutional responsibility and fill a Supreme Court seat back in 2016.

Was that a travesty of justice back then?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

You’re mistaken. It’s in Hypocrisies 20:20.

They are both synoptic in their message of Truth.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Odd that you didn't use this argument when Obama was trying to fulfill his Constitutional responsibility and fill a Supreme Court seat back in 2016.

Was that a travesty of justice back then?

Apart from Obama being a non-elected foreign born Muslim?

 

[MIDutch]

Republicans have never blocked democrats supreme court picks just because they are democratic picks. not ever.

Obviously, you have never heard of the names Barrack Obama and Merritt Garland.

Wait. Is this sarcasm?

 

[durangodawood]

Cool.

I know the libs are upset another conservative is on the court, but their threats in packing the court in the future show they are more than willing to play the same political game they are screaming on opposition against. They threatened the same thing after Kavanaugh was confirmed. Childish, all the time.

I think the D's have been really dumb in playing by the understood rules. The R's just do whatever they can get away with. Thats smart, and the D's need to play this game too asap.

Packing the court is exactly a proper response when a presidents constitutional role in nominating justices has been denied. Or, as long as the constitution is optional, why not go further and bypass senate confirmation altogether and just seat justices? That might be too far too soon. But at least its consistent with the new rule: whatever you can get away with.

 

[SimplyMe]

It is interesting to note, Republicans have won the popular vote in just 1 of the last 7 elections but picked 6 of the 9 members of the Supreme Court. Please spare me the "we don't elect President's by popular vote" spiel -- just is an interesting fact. It is also one that makes me wonder if it won't wake voters up, when this conservative Supreme Court starts making rulings most people disagree with.

 

[cow451]

And that is why He is going to give Trump more opportunity to finish his work making America Great again. You should be happy, you are a Christian, you benefit the most from this Glorious plan of God.

The Lord works in really, really, hugely mysterious ways, sometimes.

 

[cow451]

Rammed through? Nominated on September 26th and sitting on the bench a month later, sounds more like God’s hand fulfilling Prophecy.

A poster appears to have two chastisements on record.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Oh give me a break, the idea that they'd have confirmed an extremely liberal candidate just because Hillary had won an election is laughable.

Obama deliberately picked an extremely middle of the road moderate justice because he knew there was zero chance of the GOP confirming anyone remotely liberal. All McConnell proved was that they wouldn't accept anything other than a hard right candidate.

What on earth makes you think they wouldn't? Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor for goodness sakes...

Trump was a referendum on typical republican positions, however... that's what your not getting, his nomination itself was a judgment against republican elites and the representation they'd been giving to us all...

Republican Senators knowing whether or not he'd win the election was actually more important than people seem to realize... it represented a sea change from the direction we'd been going, not just another president.

 

[SimplyMe]

What on earth makes you think they wouldn't? Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor for goodness sakes...

Trump was a referendum on typical republican positions, however... that's what your not getting, his nomination itself was a judgment against republican elites and the representation they'd been giving to us all...

Republican Senators knowing whether or not he'd win the election was actually more important than people seem to realize... it represented a sea change from the direction we'd been going, not just another president.

You mean the Lindsey Graham that claimed he wouldn't vote for a Supreme Court nominee in Trump's last year? Yes, I think we know what he would have done -- follow the party line, as he did with the Barrett nomination, despite his previous clear statements saying he wouldn't.

 

[Kentonio]

What on earth makes you think they wouldn't? Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor for goodness sakes...

Graham voted for Sotomayor while he was still hero worshiping John McCain, typically for Lindsey he has now abandoned every principle he ever held and jumped fully aboard the Trump train. Of course once Trump is gone he'll spin in a totally new direction as he always does based on whoever is dominant at the time. This is a guy who just four years ago said he wouldn't do exactly the thing he just did.

Trump was a referendum on typical republican positions, however... that's what your not getting, his nomination itself was a judgment against republican elites and the representation they'd been giving to us all...

Republican Senators knowing whether or not he'd win the election was actually more important than people seem to realize... it represented a sea change from the direction we'd been going, not just another president.

Oh please, none of them thought he had a chance of winning, and by all reports even he didn't expect to. The idea that the Republican senate were all sitting with baited breathe realistically expecting a Trump win is a joke quite frankly.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What on earth makes you think they wouldn't? Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor for goodness sakes...

One of only 9 Republican senators (of 40) to do so - hardly an "overwhelming majority." They couldn't have done anything to stop her appointment even if they wanted to, since the Democrats (and Independents who caucused with them) made up a supermajority at the time. While Kennedy wasn't present for the vote due to his health issues, he probably would have made an appearance had the Republicans threatened to filibuster.

Overall, I wouldn't consider Graham's actions to be a bellwether for the Republican party. He's a purely political animal and will do whatever it takes to earn himself power and influence. He's hitched himself to the Democrats when it was politically expedient to do so, and now he's firmly on Team Trump because that's where the power is today. I have no doubt that he'll be back to the Democrats begging for forgiveness if Biden wins (and assuming Graham doesn't lose his own race - it's getting pretty tight).

 

[wing2000]

So now we’re guaranteed some balance if Trump loses. I’d trade years of right mindedness for a 4 year presidential term if necessary.

The USSC, as currently comprised, is not balanced. McConnell made it clear when he withheld Jude Garland's nomination that he could care less about USSC balance - a principle that until now, every modern day President and Senate valued.

 

[iluvatar5150]

There is a difference between it being a presidents second term, and it being a first, and the Senate and the Presidental administration being of two different parties, and being the same party.

Obama was on his way out, period. He wasn't running again.

No, there isn't a difference. That's entirely a post hoc justification that falls apart under even the most basic scrutiny.

The president is elected for a full term. Period. Obama had the right to have his nomination considered just as Trump did. There is no difference.

Trump is losing in the polls, so it's quite likely that he's on his way out, too. In that case, both are something of a lame duck. If Trump wins, then there was no need to rush the appointment.

The Senate didn't agree with his pick, so they could have wasted everyone's time and the government's money and held hearings and then all voted against... and because they held majority the nominee wouldn't get through the process...

It would have been a waste of time and money all the way around.

That would have been a better approach, because at least it would've been honest. Instead we got the disingenuous arguments that you've repeated here.

From what I've read in the past, McConnell wasn't sure he'd be able to hold the line on a confirmation vote in the full senate, so he blocked the initial hearings.

Republicans have never blocked democrats supreme court picks just because they are democratic picks. not ever.

That's exactly what they did with Garland.

In 2010, when Garland was being considered for the spot that went to Elena Kagan, Orrin Hatch described Garland as a "consensus candidate." Fast forward to 2016, when McConnell said that they'd block any appointment of Obama's.

Merrick Garland - Wikipedia

They usually overwhelmingly support the picks of any democrat in office, much to the chagrin of their constituency at times.

I'm not sure how you're defining "usually" since we've only had one Democratic president in the last 20 years, who only had two justices confirmed, neither of which were "overwhelmingly" supported by Republicans.
U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)

Obviously, you have never heard of the names Barrack Obama and Merritt Garland.

Wait. Is this sarcasm?

I've never heard the name Merritt Garland.

 

[wing2000]

The Senate didn't agree with his pick, so they could have wasted everyone's time and the government's money and held hearings and then all voted against... and because they held majority the nominee wouldn't get through the process...

Correction: The Senate (Judiciary Committee) never had the opportunity to consider Judge Garland's nomination. Sen McConnel refused to take any action....

 

[driewerf]

...
The Senate didn't agree with his pick, so they could have wasted everyone's time and the government's money and held hearings and then all voted against... and because they held majority the nominee wouldn't get through the process...

It would have been a waste of time and money all the way around.

(...)

Was it wrong? In some ways I think they should have held hearings and just voted against - they obviously didn't want that nominee in... but in other ways it would have been a waste of time and money so why bother...

So now we’re guaranteed some balance if Trump loses. I’d trade years of right mindedness for a 4 year presidential term if necessary.

These two posts show very clearly that the talent, experience or quality of the nominee doesn't matter, but the ideology. No matter how hard Amy Coney Barett tried to pretend that her job is to apply the law, these comments here are a vivid denial of tat.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think the D's have been really dumb in playing by the understood rules. The R's just do whatever they can get away with. Thats smart, and the D's need to play this game too asap.

Packing the court is exactly a proper response when a presidents constitutional role in nominating justices has been denied. Or, as long as the constitution is optional, why not go further and bypass senate confirmation altogether and just seat justices? That might be too far too soon. But at least its consistent with the new rule: whatever you can get away with.

Interesting idea to test what "advice and consent" really means. But save it until after the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho are turned - very legally - back into non-voting territories.

 

[durangodawood]

Interesting idea to test what "advice and consent" really means. But save it until after the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho are turned - very legally - back into non-voting territories.

Really? How would that be accomplished?