New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The era of Justice* Gorsuch begins

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bugsy McGurk

President
The real, actual Senate majority consists of all Republicans. The two current independents are leftists.

So while you screech about what can be, those of us who live in the real world will deal with what actually is.

Reality: how's that for nuance?

What's the difference? Dems, indies, GOP....the winger view here is that only Mitch McConnell gets to decide on presidential nominations. The other senators have no say. They can't even vote on the question. That's what the Constitution says, no?

;-)
 

trapdoor

Governor
He acted as the voice of the majority of senators which is the role of the Senate MAJORITY leader.

Nuance. A "majority of Senators" is not the same as The Majority Party. He leads the Majority Party; he does not lead "the majority of Senators"...because that majority can include members of the other party depending upon the circumstance.
There is no nuance. The Senate only contains 100 senators, and the majority of them are Republicans. When McConnell speaks as the majority leader, he speaks for the majority of the senate.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
There is no nuance. The Senate only contains 100 senators, and the majority of them are Republicans. When McConnell speaks as the majority leader, he speaks for the majority of the senate.
He "speaks" for The Majority Party. I have no issue with that and I explained why the wording "the majority of senators" is a different phrase. that might include other party members. In addition, even though the GOP is The Majority, they may not have the majority of votes on any issue. This is why no hearing was held on Garland, as he would have been seated...as opposed to the majority of Senators being opposed.

There is definitely nuance.
 

trapdoor

Governor
He "speaks" for The Majority Party. I have no issue with that and I explained why the wording "the majority of senators" is a different phrase. that might include other party members. In addition, even though the GOP is The Majority, they may not have the majority of votes on any issue. This is why no hearing was held on Garland, as he would have been seated...as opposed to the majority of Senators being opposed.

There is definitely nuance.
The majority party contains the majoriyt of senators.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
The majority party contains the majoriyt of senators.
Yes, but the majority of Senators can include members of the other party.

Say, a bill passes the Senate by a vote of 66-34. A majority of Senators voted for the bill.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
He "speaks" for The Majority Party. I have no issue with that and I explained why the wording "the majority of senators" is a different phrase. that might include other party members. In addition, even though the GOP is The Majority, they may not have the majority of votes on any issue. This is why no hearing was held on Garland, as he would have been seated...as opposed to the majority of Senators being opposed.

There is definitely nuance.
You must read the Constitution again. It apparently says that one senator makes advise and consent decisions. Even the decision not to advise and consent at all.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Yes, but the majority of Senators can include members of the other party.

Say, a bill passes the Senate by a vote of 66-34. A majority of Senators voted for the bill.
The oddest part of this is that even a fair number of GOP senators did not support McConnell's unilateral decision to prevent the Senate from carrying out its constitutional advise and consent duties.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
The oddest part of this is that even a fair number of GOP senators did not support McConnell's unilateral decision to prevent the Senate from carrying out its constitutional advise and consent duties.
Gorsuch is a SCOTUS jurist

You are not and never shall be just like your Pig In Pant Suits will NEVER be President☻
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
The oddest part of this is that even a fair number of GOP senators did not support McConnell's unilateral decision to prevent the Senate from carrying out its constitutional advise and consent duties.
That's why the tiresome support for McConnell gets so frustrating. He did not speak for the majority of senators...he assumed the mantle. He truly is a horrible human being; one of the absolute most despicable politicians of my lifetime.

In addition, Grassley and Hatch had supported Garland previously, so the blanket statement that the majority didn't support him was never able to be proven.

The thing about the SCOTUS justices is that they can surprise after seated. Different law, different judgments sometimes result. Scalia found flag burning to be protected speech, for example...
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
That's why the tiresome support for McConnell gets so frustrating. He did not speak for the majority of senators...he assumed the mantle. He truly is a horrible human being; one of the absolute most despicable politicians of my lifetime.

In addition, Grassley and Hatch had supported Garland previously, so the blanket statement that the majority didn't support him was never able to be proven.

The thing about the SCOTUS justices is that they can surprise after seated. Different law, different judgments sometimes result. Scalia found flag burning to be protected speech, for example...
The guy is a swine, no doubt. But the ultimate fault lay with the GOP cultists who support the GOP's pissing on the Constitution, as with their disgraceful refusal to even consider any Obama nominees.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Yes, but the majority of Senators can include members of the other party.

Say, a bill passes the Senate by a vote of 66-34. A majority of Senators voted for the bill.
Nonetheless, as there were no GOP senators opposed to ignoring the Garland nomination, when he spoke for the GOP senators and only the GOP senators, he spoke for the majority of senators (which is what I said he did).
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Nonetheless, as there were no GOP senators opposed to ignoring the Garland nomination, when he spoke for the GOP senators and only the GOP senators, he spoke for the majority of senators (which is what I said he did).
Uh...umm...uh...well...you know...

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) is breaking with Republican leadership, saying President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court should get a hearing.

"I think we have the responsibility to have a hearing, to have the conversation and to make a determination on the merit," Moran told constituents in Kansas this week, according to the Dodge City Daily Globe...

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/274242-gop-senator-give-scotus-nominee-hearing
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Uh...umm...uh...well...you know...

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) is breaking with Republican leadership, saying President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court should get a hearing.

"I think we have the responsibility to have a hearing, to have the conversation and to make a determination on the merit," Moran told constituents in Kansas this week, according to the Dodge City Daily Globe...

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/274242-gop-senator-give-scotus-nominee-hearing
More...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/powerpost/wp/2016/04/05/gop-senator-more-convinced-than-ever-that-garland-should-get-hearing/

The bottom line is that McConnell unilaterally decreed that the Senate would not be permitted to carry out its advise and consent duties. He issued that unilateral decree the very day Scalia died. No votes, no nothing. McConnell had spoken.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
More...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/powerpost/wp/2016/04/05/gop-senator-more-convinced-than-ever-that-garland-should-get-hearing/

The bottom line is that McConnell unilaterally decreed that the Senate would not be permitted to carry out its advise and consent duties. He issued that unilateral decree the very day Scalia died. No votes, no nothing. McConnell had spoken.
Really...within minutes of Scalia's death, McConnell announced his edict.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Really...within minutes of Scalia's death, McConnell announced his edict.
Yep. The body hadn't even cooled to room temperature.

And yet we have GOP sycophants claiming that McConnell was simply carrying out the will of GOP senators, even though he issued his decree unilaterally and GOP senators thereafter said they wanted Garland to be considered, as called for by that pesky document - the Constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top