Amy Coney Barrett confirmed

Post Reply New Topic

We shall see, politics has been more volatile than normal since 2016 as Chairman Mao once wished upon the US "May you live in interesting times" it would appear the Chinese curse finally kicked in....

No, neither of us know why.

One of us is projecting what they would do were they one of the people involved, while I, on the other hand, have not speculated on the respective motivations or future actions of either, not having any relevent facts to support a conclusion at this time.

I totally agree with that. They see a lot of presidents and other politicians come and go.

Can you "clarify" why you cant read, AND why you also cant hear McConnell's own words? We both know that you know full well what the problem is.

The GOP refused to have hearings to nominate Obamas pick in the last year of Obama's term for the very reason that...it WAS the sitting presidents last year in office and thus an election year. Ergo the GOP set the precendent: from now on a POTUS cant fill a SCOTUS seat during an election year. Thats gonna be the rule from now on.

And right now is an election year, and right now a vacancy came up in the SCOTUS, and what does the GOP do? Not only have hearings, and fast track their party's presidents nominee to fill the vacancy. Blatantly violating the rule that the GOP set up.

That's the b***h about the Republicans having a majority in the Senate. That is the only thing that enabled them to confirm Amy Coney Barrett.

Let's hope she becomes like some previous "conservative" judges----and rules with judicial temper, rather than political temper.

I'm not holding my breath, though LOL But it's not all a lost cause. Many "conservative" judges chosen by conservative Presidents have veered towards the center. Some have even become "liberals"---like John Paul Stevens, picked by Nixon.

Actually, JPS was appointed by Ford. David Souter is another example, appointed by Bush Sr.

Ooops....sorry about that! JPS was, of course, chosen by Ford, who was a moderately conservative Republican.

Yes that's the other aspect of the process of Trump getting his way. Did he also use the senate majority to get Kavanaugh appointed as well? Brett Kavanaugh is one of the few people I can think of who is even more crazy than the POTUS (not mentioning his skeletons in the closet).

The "senate majority" was the THING that got both of these people in the Supreme Court.

Given that of the previous 6 times that a Justice was appointed in an election year:
One time there was a "divided government" where the Executive and Senate were under different parties. On that occasion, the Justice nominated and confirmed (Anthony Kennedy, 1988) was of the same "party selection" as the Justice they were replacing, and so would not have affected the "balance" of the court.

Of the other 5 times,when both the Executive and Senate were under the same party, using nominating party as an indication of "lean":
1 - Republican nomination replaced "Republican" nominated judge - (Mahlon Pitney, 1912, 23 days nomination-confirmation)
2 - Democratic nomination replaced "Republican" nominated judge - (Louis Brandeis, 1916, 125 days nomination-confirmation)
3 - Democratic nomination replaced "Republican" nominated judge - (John Hessin Clarke, 1916, 10 days nomination-confirmation)
4 - Republican nomination replaced "Republican" nominated judge - (Benjamin N. Cardozo, 1932, 9 days nomination-confirmation)
5 - Democratic nomination replaced "Republican" nominated judge - (Frank Murphy, 1940, 14 days nomination-confirmation)

From this, you can see that while the Democrats have benefitted from the practice being complained about with Ms Barrett's nomination (altering the "balance" of the court) on 3 occasions in an election year, the Republicans had not done so. It is therefore hypocritical to complain about the first time in the past century where they have had the opportunity to follow Democratic party set precedence.

Similarly, of those nominated in similar circumstances (Executive and Senate under same party), 3 have been confirmed in a shorter time (2 of these were nominees likely to alter "balance" of the court), one exceeded Ms Barret by 2 days, and one by over 100, demonstrating that the timeframe involved was also not unusual.

All I know.....is that I hope she is more judicial than political.

The fact the cases you raise happened 100 years ago makes their application or historical precedence to current times invalid.

The revenge of Trump.

Trump Avengers

In what way are they "invalid"? They may be "inconvenient" (or detrimental) to what you want to happen, but the age of a precedent has no bearing on its application or validity. Given the circumstances (Same Party in power in Executive and controlling the Senate, nomination in election year) are the same, these precedents are suitable in the current circumstances.

Given that this is related to the article you previously linked (and deceitfully tried to frame a quote out of context in order to make it appear to be supporting something it was not), demonstrates its relevence, particularly as the person you quoted had included these occurrences as part of what was being discussed in the article, albeit without providing the specific details in the article which I have provided here.