Jump to content

Should the Senate vote on our next SCOTUS justice before the midterms?


KoB2011

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Reacher said:

Since when does popular support determine which laws get overturned? Call me old fashioned but a law is either constitutional or not and that has nothing to do with what the latest fads are. If a law needs changed, or clarified,  then Congress should change it.  I don't recall anything in the constitution about judges making laws. Interpret yes, making is for congress.

 

4

We have had Judicial Review since 1803. It isn't spelled out in the Constitution, but it is something the court has been claiming for over 200 years. Rather or not they should be doing that is irrelevant to the fact that they do that. 

If you believe the court should have nothing to do with the latest fads, then why are you not irate at Mitch McConnell not even attempting to hold the confirmation process two years ago? If the "latest fads" as you call them don't matter, then why does the election even factor into the confirmation timeline? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, Reacher said:

I don't equate the actions of a member of congress to that of the judiciary. Apples to oranges. The process for selecting a Justice has nothing to do with creating / overturning laws by the Judiciary. 

So the process for selecting them is political but you expect them to be apolitical? If you expect them to be apolitical, then you should have had a MAJOR problem with McConnell doing what he did and shifting the balance of power on the court for political reasons. 

It is an intellectually dishonest position to say that popular opinion doesn't matter with regard to the Supreme Court while at the same time arguing it was perfectly reasonable for Mitch McConnell to not seat a nominee in 2016. Does popular opinion matter or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What McConnell did was shifty but really, he just set a new precedent.  The democrats can use it in the future. The senate changes rules and sets new precedent frequently.   Harry Reid ditched the 60 vote minimum for confirmations.

Maybe what McConnell did was in retaliation to that rule change?

Also, have there been any rulings that have later been overturned? As I understand its the courts practice to not revisit cases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

What McConnell did was shifty but really, he just set a new precedent.  The democrats can use it in the future. The senate changes rules and sets new precedent frequently.   Harry Reid ditched the 60 vote minimum for confirmations.

Maybe what McConnell did was in retaliation to that rule change?

Also, have there been any rulings that have later been overturned? As I understand its the courts practice to not revisit cases. 

The SCOTUS has overturned itself many times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

So the process for selecting them is political but you expect them to be apolitical? If you expect them to be apolitical, then you should have had a MAJOR problem with McConnell doing what he did and shifting the balance of power on the court for political reasons. 

It is an intellectually dishonest position to say that popular opinion doesn't matter with regard to the Supreme Court while at the same time arguing it was perfectly reasonable for Mitch McConnell to not seat a nominee in 2016. Does popular opinion matter or not?

I disagree. A judges job is to be impartial and interpret the law. A congressman is supposed to represent their district. They are going to be political and bow to public opinion. 

How would you like to go in front of a judge with the law on your side but lose because the judge isn't abiding by the law? Sorry, that doesn't work for me. 

I know some judges are political and or corrupt but they should be removed for that. 

I view it as intellectually dishonest to presume a judge should not follow existing law/ precedent but rather do what they want/ think is popular. Ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

I disagree. A judges job is to be impartial and interpret the law. A congressman is supposed to represent their district. They are going to be political and bow to public opinion. 

How would you like to go in front of a judge with the law on your side but lose because the judge isn't abiding by the law? Sorry, that doesn't work for me. 

I know some judges are political and or corrupt but they should be removed for that. 

I view it as intellectually dishonest to presume a judge should not follow existing law/ precedent but rather do what they want/ think is popular. Ridiculous. 

The Majority Leader of the US Senate should respect our system of government. If you don't believe the judicial system should be politicized then you should have an issue with him politicizing it. I'm just looking for a little consistency in your positions. 

I'm not being intellectually dishonest. I've never said rather or not I think judges should weigh public opinion. I have maintained that McConnell was wrong to politicize the SCOTUS in 16 and that they should hold confirmation hearings now. Seems pretty consistent to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting take. I'm not sure I could come up with a logical reason why this is wrong. Would love for an attorney to weigh in on rather or not legislative rules actually constitute laws and cannot be changed on a whim when it benefits the majority party. 

There's no question that what McConnell did/is doing violates the spirit of majority rule, minority rights which is fundamental to our democracy. But I'd be interested to know if he is legally in the right to do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Here is an interesting take. I'm not sure I could come up with a logical reason why this is wrong. Would love for an attorney to weigh in on rather or not legislative rules actually constitute laws and cannot be changed on a whim when it benefits the majority party. 

There's no question that what McConnell did/is doing violates the spirit of majority rule, minority rights which is fundamental to our democracy. But I'd be interested to know if he is legally in the right to do it. 

Get Dan Quayle on the phone.  Need his #?  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Here is an interesting take. I'm not sure I could come up with a logical reason why this is wrong. Would love for an attorney to weigh in on rather or not legislative rules actually constitute laws and cannot be changed on a whim when it benefits the majority party. 

There's no question that what McConnell did/is doing violates the spirit of majority rule, minority rights which is fundamental to our democracy. But I'd be interested to know if he is legally in the right to do it. 

After reading and researching the article you linked, I have found many claiming that it is a partisan piece and has been debunked.  Here is one article- http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/dems-misuse-mcconnells-fake-supreme-court-rule-get-scolded.html. There are also comments attached to the Levy article that seem compelling if you can wade thru the garbage to find them. 

I'd caution everyone to look at both sides of an argument and not just take the word of a law professor or commentator on the media as gospel. This whole issue is going  to end up politically charged. 

Thanks KoB for starting this post and getting me, and others, paying more attention to the topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Reacher said:

After reading and researching the article you linked, I have found many claiming that it is a partisan piece and has been debunked.  Here is one article- http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/dems-misuse-mcconnells-fake-supreme-court-rule-get-scolded.html. There are also comments attached to the Levy article that seem compelling if you can wade thru the garbage to find them. 

I'd caution everyone to look at both sides of an argument and not just take the word of a law professor or commentator on the media as gospel. This whole issue is going  to end up politically charged. 

Thanks KoB for starting this post and getting me, and others, paying more attention to the topic. 

As I said above, I don't think Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc........set up the the Supreme Court to be a political "juggernaut".  We, as citizens, need to have a say.  The government was created by the people, and for the people.  Why should the Supreme Court be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I'm going to go ahead and say that in light of today's news, there is no way that a confirmation hearing should take place. 

May I ask what happened? I entered his name in search via twitter and just saw the normal stuff. Anything in particular I missed? 27 holes this evening and I don't feel like searching. Haha..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

May I ask what happened? I entered his name in search via twitter and just saw the normal stuff. Anything in particular I missed? 27 holes this evening and I don't feel like searching. Haha..

12 Russian intelligence officials (spies) were indicted by the mueller investigation for hacking DNC emails in 2016.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

12 Russian intelligence officials (spies) were indicted by the mueller investigation for hacking DNC emails in 2016.  

 

And honestly I'm still waiting for the direct link to where Trump is tied to these 12? Full disclosure. Life long Republican. I find myself leaning more to the middle on more and more issues but still hold Republican near and dear. With that said. The left is getting very desperate and I wish they would realize they are pushing the American public more and more away towards people like 45. 

Wake me up when it there is written and verbal proof of DT saying do this. At that point...I might pay attention. Seems to me just more leftist hate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump being tied to the investigation is irrelevant in terms of the SCOTUS pick. There should be no hearing because it is possible that out election was compromised and that Trump is only the president because of that fact AND the SCOTUS could have a major impact in how this plays out. Trump should not get to handpick the court that may decide his fate as president. 

The fact that those are legitimate questions at this point means we must wait for the sake of our democracy. We know that our election was compromised by an enemy; to not proceed with extreme caution would be incredibly irresponsible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Seeking6 said:

And honestly I'm still waiting for the direct link to where Trump is tied to these 12? Full disclosure. Life long Republican. I find myself leaning more to the middle on more and more issues but still hold Republican near and dear. With that said. The left is getting very desperate and I wish they would realize they are pushing the American public more and more away towards people like 45. 

Wake me up when it there is written and verbal proof of DT saying do this. At that point...I might pay attention. Seems to me just more leftist hate. 

 

The point isn't if Trump did it. The point is our election and democracy has been compromised; we should not be making lifetime appointments until we fully understand what happened, who was involved and what the impact of it was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

When is comes to SCOTUS pick, the president was given a list and he seems to actually take the appointments seriously and is choosing from this list he didnt put together.  

I dont see how this process would be compromised in any way by these indictments.

I don't disagree with your first paragraph, but Trump may not actually be the guy who should be making these appointments. We also don't know if the Senators should be confirming; we know at least one House candidate was seeking out and using information. What's to say there aren't Senators who did that as well who have been compromised by the Russians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

The point isn't if Trump did it. The point is our election and democracy has been compromised; we should not be making lifetime appointments until we fully understand what happened, who was involved and what the impact of it was. 

Elections being rigged and fixed? Shocking. Does that mean since we think or have proof of the mob influencing JFK election and victory we should hold all opinions that White and Goldberg had because of that?? Of course not.

Pretty foolish to continue to invest time/energy/resources in this. If I'm the left I start figuring out who they should run up the aisle in 2020 and not try to undo something that even if you had absolute proof isn't going to be undone. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...