Reply to Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So much sanctimonious b-s about the senate doing its duty, etc.

I am a liberal and if someone like a Ginsburg were to retire or die, I'd want a Democratic senate to use every available means to block the nomination if the president were Republican - and if the vacancy occurred in an election year.

It is just politics and both sides indulge in this sort of thing. It is the reason why Schumer essentially talked about blocking nominations under GWB after Roberts and Alito were appointed and turned out to be even more conservative than was anticipated.[/quote]

OK, here's a hypothetical for you and everyone else: Let's say (1) Trump gets elected president, (2) the Democrats take back the Senate, and (3) Ginsburg dies on his first day in office.  Would the Democrats in the Senate be acting appropriately and fulfilling their duty if they say, "[i]Nope, we consider Trump an ideologue and a charlatan, so we're not going to consider any Supreme Court nominee he offers.  We'll just wait until the next President arrives in 2020 to replace Ginsburg.[/i]"  Justifiable in your worldview?

FWIW, you could easily flip that hypothetical too: Would a Republican Senate in 2017 be justified in refusing to consider any Hillary Clinton nominations for her entire four-year term?

I know the current line Republicans are drawing is just the third year of a President's term, but there's not reason it cannot be extended: Second half of a President's term?  Entire President's term?  What's the difference?[/quote]

To respond to your question, if Trump or Cruz were elected and wanted to replace a Ginsberg with a hardline conservative, I'd hope that the Democrats would use every available means to prevent the nomination going through. But I'd want them to confirm a more middle of the road candidate even if the individual were less liberal than Ginsberg.

If Hillary were elected, I'd expect the Republicans to also try and prevent a very liberal judge but would expect them to be receptive to a middle of the road candidate.

The reality is that the Senate has an "advise and consent" role and how that term is interpreted is in the eye of the beholder - which means that politics does come into play.

In many ways, I wish appointments to the Supreme court were not as polarized to a point where one has a liberal bloc and a conservative bloc. It would be great if those on the court were judges whose vote would not be taken for granted based on their judicial philosophy. More justices similar to Kennedy who vote on both sides of issues - especially on social issues would be more preferable than what we have today.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics