1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Filibuster Court Nominee

Discussion in 'Op Ed' started by Supposn, Feb 4, 2017.

  1. Supposn

    Supposn Council Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    3
    Filibuster Republican Supreme Court Nominee:

    The Republican Party’s Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and their judiciary committee members deliberately prevented the U.S. Senate from discussing and voting upon the Democratic president’s nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court while a Democratic president was in office. If this was in the best interests of our nation, then surely Democratic Senators should behave no less patriotically. Until at least the year 2021, Democrats should filibuster any discussion or vote for a seat upon the U.S. Supreme Court.

    If Republicans behaved contrary to our nation’s best interests, their behavior should not be rewarded to encourage similar or worse occurrences in future senate sessions.

    At very least the Democrats should insist that Senator McConnell on behalf of the Republican Party lead the passage of a vote for his own censure and publicly apologize for their undermining the reputation of the U.S. Senate; I do not believe the Democrats should insist upon McConnell’s resignation (if he wishes to remain in the U.S. Senate).

    Until such a public Republican apology, or 2021, it’s Democrats patriotic duty to attempt filibustering any discussion or vote for a seat upon the U.S. Supreme Court while a Republican President is in office.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
    • Disagree x 1
  2. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    15,692
    Likes Received:
    3,233
    Here's your REPUBLICAN apology
    16299132_10211349350596889_6539021119058607156_n.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Jen

    Jen Proud Deplorable

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    34,680
    Likes Received:
    9,251
    1. When a SCOTUS position becomes open at the very end of someone's term as president it is traditional and certainly a "right thing to do" to wait until the following term to fill the position so that if there is a different president he/she can do it.

    2. The SCOTUS is and should not be stacked but should represent Right and Left equally. When one Justice vacates, his/her position should be filled with someone of similar mindset.

    Keeping those two things in mind, first, there should be no apology. That's a joke. It's stupid. Second, if the Democrats want to throw a tantrum maybe they should at least use their brains and throw one where it makes some sense. If the Republicans try to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg with a conservative Justice, blocking that would be in order.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree x 1
  4. Craig

    Craig Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Messages:
    33,987
    Likes Received:
    3,668
    1, False. No such tradition exists. The Presidential term is 8 years, not 7.

    2. Interesting. Clarence Thomas, in no way, had or has, a similar mindset to Thurgood Marshall.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree x 1
  5. Jen

    Jen Proud Deplorable

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    34,680
    Likes Received:
    9,251
    1. Disagree with your disagree.
    2. I maintain that they would have reason to try to block it if the Republicans tried to replace Ginsberg with a solid conservative while what they are doing now just amounts to sniveling. Your "reason' here is irrelevant. Try to think, Craig.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Craig

    Craig Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Messages:
    33,987
    Likes Received:
    3,668
    Sigh.

    You're trying to make up new "traditions"...and these are entirely partisan based.

    There simply is no tradition of waiting until the next President takes office to discuss a nominee. The "replace with same" concept is also not a "tradition"...and the Thomas appointment, which you hasten to label irrelevant, is precisely the appointment to prove your "tradition" incorrect and wildly so.

    The SCOTUS appointments are a result of the normal ebb and flow of political power, not an enduring testimony to one political side. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that the court should always have the same make up...and that make up should always be slanted to the right.
     
    • Disagree x 1
  7. Supposn

    Supposn Council Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    3
    Jen, if the Democrats attempt to block all President Trump’s nominations (until the parties come to some agreement), majority leader Senator McConnell then necessarily must threaten to enact the “nuclear option”. That would further be detrimental to the decorum and reputation of the U.S. Senate.

    But of greater concern would be the additional rule further reduce the U.S. Supreme Courts reputation. The previous senate rule change reducing confirmation requirement to a simple majority vote excluded application to supreme court appointments. There’s good and sufficient reason for that exclusion. Further extension of the rule would be detrimental to the reputed independent quality of the justices appointed and to the entire court.

    If Democrats do not act to maintain political balance, by default they’d be accepting Democratic Presidents should be unable to appoint a U.S. Supreme Court Justice unless at that time Democrats also hold 67 seats in the U.S. Senate.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  8. The Sage of Main Street

    The Sage of Main Street Mayor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    5,926
    Likes Received:
    727
    She Is the Sea in Which Your Ship Shall Sink

    If the Hillaraptors keep grasping for straws, all they're going to come up with is strawmen.
     
  9. Jen

    Jen Proud Deplorable

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    34,680
    Likes Received:
    9,251
    Oh yeah. The nuclear option (created by Democrats) would be "detrimental to the decorum and reputation of the U.S. Senate". [​IMG]

    Give me a break.

    Democrats are becoming a joke.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
  10. Supposn

    Supposn Council Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    3
    Jen the understandable necessity evoking the rule changes, first by the Democrats, has to some extent been detrimental to the decorum and reputation of our U.S. Senate and it has increased the opportunity for persons of lesser characteristics to be appointed.

    If Republican are impelled to further extend those changes to be applicable to supreme court nominees, it would be detrimental to the reputed independent and equitable characteristics of the justices appointed and to the entire court. Unlike other appointments, those are lifetime appointments.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2017
  11. oicu812

    oicu812 "Trust, but Verify"

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    17,717
    Likes Received:
    4,511

    funny how you progs are just recently becoming interested in just how our country works...first the EC, now the importance of SCOTUS picks...

    it makes one wonder WHY ginsburg hasnt retired while obobo was in office, thus assuring a prog pick...NOW, if/when she kicks, its highly likely a conservative will make that decision....

    yes,,,lifetime consequences for overlooking the "long game"...
    and i'm ok with that...after all,,it WAS the reason don was elected...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page