Will the Rep pull the nuclear option on the SC pick?

[mirage62 0]

I didn't like the nuclear option when Harry Reed did it, I won't like if when the Rep change the rules for the S.C. but they WILL get this guy through.

It very well make every 3'rd Democrats head explode.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[normiss 620]

Some reports are claiming if Sessions gets in as Attorney General, he can't vote for DeVos, so she would lose 50-49 in that case.
I'm close to being in support of the racism over the damage to our schools.
I haven't been able to verify this is accurate though, and it's beer thirty.

[TriGirl 268]

I hope they won't have to. I hope the Dems can be the bigger professionals and attend the hearings. If the man is qualified, there should be no reason not to confirm. I don't know whether he is, or what his views are coming in (I've heard both "very conservative" and "centrist," so I'd be interested in how the hearings play out).

On the Sessions vote, however -- they have more questions, so they don't want a vote before they get stuff straightened out. Why are the Rs making such a big deal out of it, when they're the ones who refused even to listen to Merrick Garland?

Incidentally, I would be interested to hear whether any Rs now regret not at least holding hearings on Garland. Aside from the current nominee, the action would have been good political ammo for their issues with Dems right now.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[billvon 2,380]

> Aside from the current nominee, the action would have been good political
>ammo for their issues with Dems right now.

Yep. They were pretty clear about how cooperative they would be. From Oct 2017:
==========
McCain promised that Republicans would be "united against any Supreme Court nominee" put forth by Clinton.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you."
========

[quade 3]

The answer is . . . of course they will.

They'll roll over and do it in a heartbeat and say it was the "only" option they had so the Senate could go about its business of filling the seat for which they have a sacred duty to fill as quickly as possible with the President's choice.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 383]

There will be no need for the nuclear option, Senators Obama, Schumer, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Feinstein, Reed, Carper, Cantwell et al, have all voted for him before, it would be hypocritical for them to do otherwise now.

[quade 3]

brenthutch

There will be no need for the nuclear option, Senators Obama, Schumer, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Feinstein, Reed, Carper, Cantwell et al, have all voted for him before, it would be hypocritical for them to do otherwise now.

You do realize it's possible to think a person is qualified for one job, but unqualified for one with more responsibilities; yes?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 383]

So a "dangerous radical ideologue who will set our country back" is fine for the appellate court, but not for the SC?

[quade 3]

brenthutch

So a "dangerous radical ideologue who will set our country back" is fine for the appellate court, but not for the SC?

A "radical ideologue" in a lower court can't actually change the fundamental rights of hundred's of millions of people.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GeorgiaDon 340]

brenthutch

So a "dangerous radical ideologue who will set our country back" is fine for the appellate court, but not for the SC?

His decisions and opinions written as a judge on the appellate court are what is now being used to evaluate how he would apply his legal philosophy on the supreme court. Surely even you can see how, when considering someone for promotion, you would look at how they have performed in their most recent position. It would be crazy (in a normal world, maybe not in Trumps) to disregard that. Does someone get promoted to general based on their performance as a sergeant, ignoring any evaluation of how they performed subsequently while moving through the officer's ranks?
Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[nolhtairt 0]

TriGirl

I hope they won't have to. I hope the Dems can be the bigger professionals and attend the hearings. If the man is qualified, there should be no reason not to confirm. I don't know whether he is, or what his views are coming in (I've heard both "very conservative" and "centrist," so I'd be interested in how the hearings play out).

On the Sessions vote, however -- they have more questions, so they don't want a vote before they get stuff straightened out. Why are the Rs making such a big deal out of it, when they're the ones who refused even to listen to Merrick Garland?

Incidentally, I would be interested to hear whether any Rs now regret not at least holding hearings on Garland. Aside from the current nominee, the action would have been good political ammo for their issues with Dems right now.

I'm probably going out on a limb here but since Obama already pushed through two liberal justices (Sotomayor and Kagan), the Republicans did not want another liberal on the SCOTUS.

[nolhtairt 0]

normiss

Some reports are claiming if Sessions gets in as Attorney General, he can't vote for DeVos, so she would lose 50-49 in that case.
I'm close to being in support of the racism over the damage to our schools.
I haven't been able to verify this is accurate though, and it's beer thirty.

50-49? IIRC there are 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats in the Senate, so the Republicans would still have a majority, unless I've missed other senators leaving their posts for a place in Trump's cabinet/administration

[Phil1111 908]

GeorgiaDon

***So a "dangerous radical ideologue who will set our country back" is fine for the appellate court, but not for the SC?

His decisions and opinions written as a judge on the appellate court are what is now being used to evaluate how he would apply his legal philosophy on the supreme court. Surely even you can see how, when considering someone for promotion, you would look at how they have performed in their most recent position. It would be crazy (in a normal world, maybe not in Trumps) to disregard that. Does someone get promoted to general based on their performance as a sergeant, ignoring any evaluation of how they performed subsequently while moving through the officer's ranks?
Don

Of all trumps appointment and decisions this is the least contentious. But has the most implications. As once he is on the bench he answers to no one. Especially to trump.

Mr. Tillerson, General Mattis and all the rest of trumps appointments mean NOTHING as they don't speak for trump and/or don't speak for the trumb-bannon ideology.

If it wasn't obvious to ALL world leaders prior to the trump Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's phone call. It is now. Only trump and only his statements and decisions mean anything. Secretary of State Mr. Tillerson and anything he says means nothing. He does not speak for the US, does not speak for President trump. Only trump speaks for trump.

It was amusing to hear the trump spin machine reference President Reagan's argument with Britain's Margaret Thatcher over the 1983 Grenada invasion. When Reagan invaded without notifying Mrs. Thatcher. The conversation between the two became quite heated as both had strong personalities.

What the trump apologists never said was that trump is no Reagan. That President Reagan phoned Prime Minister Thatcher the nest day and profusely apologized. trump never apologizes. He doubles down when he's wrong. Because he is so smart.

IMO its a tempest in a teapot to delay trump's appointments. Every single one of them can form opinions until trump overrules them. Until they get tired of acting as independent actors in trumps reality show. Or until the republican party tires of the trump gong show and votes to not supporting a trump bill.

[normiss 620]

A difference I noticed this morning on NPR was the repeated use of "the Trump administration" where I used to hear "The United States" in comments from the admin.

[mirage62 0]

A poll that I saw this morning was something like 47% (or so) people supporting Trumps temporary boarder closing. It also went on to talk about how many Americans have already tuned out all the hysteria and are watching Trumps moves.

You can hate what he does....but another point was that he was DOING something....which isn't normal up in Washington

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Phil1111 908]

mirage62

A poll that I saw this morning was something like 47% (or so) people supporting Trumps temporary boarder closing. It also went on to talk about how many Americans have already tuned out all the hysteria and are watching Trumps moves.

You can hate what he does....but another point was that he was DOING something....which isn't normal up in Washington

True. For most people government and politics is nothing more than static on the radio until it affects them directly.

[quade 3]

mirage62

You can hate what he does....but another point was that he was DOING something....

You do realize that in a lot of situations the rush to "do something" is just the flat out wrong choice; right?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,380]

>You can hate what he does....but another point was that he was DOING
>something....which isn't normal up in Washington

Hmm. When Obama implemented the biggest change in healthcare in decades, right wingers here claimed that the massive change was business as usual in Washington.

[jakee 1,254]

mirage62

You can hate what he does....but another point was that he was DOING something....which isn't normal up in Washington

I thought the right wing wet dream was a paralysed government that doesn't do anything. Small government, less regulation, no more ruling via executive order like Obama did...

Did I just imagine all that or what?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[TriGirl 268]

nolhtairt

***I hope they won't have to. I hope the Dems can be the bigger professionals and attend the hearings. If the man is qualified, there should be no reason not to confirm. I don't know whether he is, or what his views are coming in (I've heard both "very conservative" and "centrist," so I'd be interested in how the hearings play out).

On the Sessions vote, however -- they have more questions, so they don't want a vote before they get stuff straightened out. Why are the Rs making such a big deal out of it, when they're the ones who refused even to listen to Merrick Garland?

Incidentally, I would be interested to hear whether any Rs now regret not at least holding hearings on Garland. Aside from the current nominee, the action would have been good political ammo for their issues with Dems right now.

I'm probably going out on a limb here but since Obama already pushed through two liberal justices (Sotomayor and Kagan), the Republicans did not want another liberal on the SCOTUS.
Except Garland wasn't considered "liberal." Republican senators were quoted as saying that President Obama could nominate someone everyone could agree on, like Merrick Garland, but he wouldn't do that. Then Obama nominated Merrick Garland. That was one of the biggest issues that highlighted that the Rs were just playing political games.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[mirage62 0]

Quake and do you realize that doing nothing can be and often is worse than doing nothing?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[quade 3]

mirage62

Quake and do you realize that doing nothing can be and often is worse than doing nothing?

Did you realize there are actually shades in between?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 383]

What everyone is fighting over is NOT a particular nominee but the balance of the court. Replacing Scalia, a conservative, with Garland, a left-leaning moderate, would have shifted the balance. That is why I disagree with the Dems' tactics. Trading a conservative for another conservative changes nothing. There is no way they are going to get a Republican president and a Republican Senate to nominate a liberal justice. They could be reasonable and collegial and approve a conservative to replace Scalia. The next go around, when it comes time to replace a liberal justice, they could justifiably claim the moral high ground and have some leverage. The problem is that their base will punish them. The axiom that comes to mind is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[quade 3]

brenthutch

What everyone is fighting over is NOT a particular nominee but the balance of the court.

Yes and no. There are, in fact, some things to be concerned about about Neil Gorsuch when it comes to certain issues; women's contraception, religious "freedom", energy issues, a defendant's right to council, use of police force, the concept of "walk and talk".

Don't be so certain this is just about SCOTUS "balance." My guess is these would be large enough issues that even if the court was currently held with 8 liberal judges, questions would still come up about Gorsuch.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 383]

Are you suggesting Scalia was fine on all of those issues?