RIP RBG

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

drbwh

Territorial Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
9,802
3,741
1,743
Considering that Obama was held up on his nominee when Scalia died, POTUS Trump needs to wait until after the election. People on the fence will move to Biden if he doesn't...I am NO fan of RBG, but you don't move on this until AFTER you win the election. The only issue with that is if there is NOT nine justices on the court in a contested election what happens. Maybe if he nominated a moderate justice that everyone could get on board with? I just hope he takes a deep breath...and doesn't nominate someone with my political leanings unless he waits. This sucks so bad that this just happened now. Both the left and the right need to not let this further divide us. Ouch, I really hate this...
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS!!!!!!!

The White House and the senate are controlled by the same party. Last time it was different parties. People are absolutely clueless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,745
9,998
1,743
Earth
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS!!!!!!!

The White House and the senate are controlled by the same party. Last time it was different parties. People are absolutely clueless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Honestly I don't care what happens, but I think it would be better to nominate and wait to confirm after the election maybe...just my opinion since it's going to be on the news constantly and cause stupid riots by the other side.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,267
945
743
Edmond
Honestly I don't care what happens, but I think it would be better to nominate and wait to confirm after the election maybe...just my opinion since it's going to be on the news constantly and cause stupid riots by the other side.
So a presidential term is only 3 years. Don't all in DC get too much time off with toomuch money?
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,248
4,121
743
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS!!!!!!!

The White House and the senate are controlled by the same party. Last time it was different parties. People are absolutely clueless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Honestly I don't care what happens, but I think it would be better to nominate and wait to confirm after the election maybe...just my opinion since it's going to be on the news constantly and cause stupid riots by the other side.
So you talk about Covid like we shouldn't cower, but now we should?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

verbal

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Mar 26, 2009
3,453
1,638
1,743
Nobody said he couldn’t. They just wouldn’t confirm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll play your semantics game. Why is it okay to not confirm in year 8? Why not extend that to year 7. What makes it okay just because it is an opposing party. Why not just never confirm an opposing party's nomination?
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,086
1,949
1,743
I'll play your semantics game. Why is it okay to not confirm in year 8? Why not extend that to year 7. What makes it okay just because it is an opposing party. Why not just never confirm an opposing party's nomination?
I understand why you think this is like the Garland situation.

Absolutely they are very similar, but they are not the same. McConnell risked a lot by holding off the vote of Obama’s selection. But he had leverage and went ahead and wagered that risk. If the Dems controlled the Senate in 2016 is there any doubt that Obama’s selection would have been confirmed? Of course, not.

McConnell also is risking again. And again he is using his position of power that the Senate confirms SC justices. Elections have consequences. One reason to vote for a President is because of SC justices. Conservatives tend to approve judges that are constitutionalists; liberals tend to approve judges that will interpret. Trump has power to nominate, like Obama did. The major difference is Trump has a Senate that will move forward with his late-term nomination.

It is understandable that liberals are upset about this. And understandable that they feel this is hypocritical. But they gave up that argument when they dropped the hammer in 2013 by eliminating the filibuster rule. They wanted to push federal judges in the last year of having Senate control and changed Senate procedural rules that had been in place for decades. The Dems didn’t necessarily make their own bed, but they certainly set the table.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,248
4,121
743
I'll play your semantics game. Why is it okay to not confirm in year 8? Why not extend that to year 7. What makes it okay just because it is an opposing party. Why not just never confirm an opposing party's nomination?
What made it "okay" is that it was the tradition, crossing both parties. The norm is to NOT confirm a justice of the opposite party. Has nothing to do with what is happening now where the President and Senate are of the same party.
 

verbal

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Mar 26, 2009
3,453
1,638
1,743
I understand why you think this is like the Garland situation.

Absolutely they are very similar, but they are not the same. McConnell risked a lot by holding off the vote of Obama’s selection. But he had leverage and went ahead and wagered that risk. If the Dems controlled the Senate in 2016 is there any doubt that Obama’s selection would have been confirmed? Of course, not.

McConnell also is risking again. And again he is using his position of power that the Senate confirms SC justices. Elections have consequences. One reason to vote for a President is because of SC justices. Conservatives tend to approve judges that are constitutionalists; liberals tend to approve judges that will interpret. Trump has power to nominate, like Obama did. The major difference is Trump has a Senate that will move forward with his late-term nomination.

It is understandable that liberals are upset about this. And understandable that they feel this is hypocritical. But they gave up that argument when they dropped the hammer in 2013 by eliminating the filibuster rule. They wanted to push federal judges in the last year of having Senate control and changed Senate procedural rules that had been in place for decades. The Dems didn’t necessarily make their own bed, but they certainly set the table.
The people voted for Obama. He had a right to nominate and theSenate should have confirmed. I fully understand what happened. What I don't understand is why you think I "think this is like the Garland situation" then say it isn't the same but offer no real difference. The only difference is that it was a dem pres and repub senate and they did not want Obama to nominate a justice. That is it that is the only difference.
 

verbal

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Mar 26, 2009
3,453
1,638
1,743
What made it "okay" is that it was the tradition, crossing both parties. The norm is to NOT confirm a justice of the opposite party. Has nothing to do with what is happening now where the President and Senate are of the same party.
It was not tradition. That was a bs reason spread by some conservatives.
 
Nov 18, 2011
1,733
1,411
743
55
I'll play your semantics game. Why is it okay to not confirm in year 8? Why not extend that to year 7. What makes it okay just because it is an opposing party. Why not just never confirm an opposing party's nomination?
. Honestly the majority party could, thanks Harry Reid. Obstructing for 2-4 years though probably wouldn’t bode well come election time. The Dems would have certainly done that though if they’d have had the senate in the last 4 years. You think it is bad that Republicans are breaking norms, even though Dems supported it previously, just wait. Dems are already threatening to just expand the court once they regain power.
 

verbal

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Mar 26, 2009
3,453
1,638
1,743
Then tell me the last time an opposite party Justice was confirmed in this situation.
That is the exact opposite of how tradition would work in this scenario. You would need to show me multiple times that it did happen.
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,885
2,838
743
33
Just my 2 cents, Trump absolutely should fill the seat, but if you are breaking out the apologetics as to why blocking merik garland was right and confirming whoever the nominee is this time is also right then you are a hypocrite, a partisan malefactor and if you don't feel unscrupulous with this juxtaposition then you have lost all principles
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,267
945
743
Edmond
I'll play your semantics game. Why is it okay to not confirm in year 8? Why not extend that to year 7. What makes it okay just because it is an opposing party. Why not just never confirm an opposing party's nomination?
Because the r's controlled the senate and it did not get put up. If the d's controlled the senate tell me that would not have pushed garland through. Hell, Obama put garland forward , so they were trying to fill the seat. They just did not have the senate to get it done.