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]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]
I posed the hypothetical.  I agree with your wish that both R and D would work together to fill the Court with moderate judges, and not ideologues.  But unfortunately that's not where we are, and it's not where we've been for a long, long time.  Republicans are refusing to consider anyone at all in Obama's third year.  [b]My question for anyone who thinks that's acceptable is: "Where do you draw the line? Would it be acceptable for the Senate to refuse all nominees for a President's entire four-year term?"[/quote][/b]

The Senate can block a nomination for as long as they wish: if it acts in a reckless way the price to be paid would be at the next election where those blocking the confirmation of ANY candidate might have to pay a price - assuming the electorate is disgusted with the behavior.

Blocking any nomination endlessly is indefensible but the price to be exacted would be by the voters.

With regard to the Garland nomination, that is the risk the Republicans face with senate seats that are potentially in play - and they are aware of it.[/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