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

[KoB2011]

If no, why not?

Is yes, how is it different than 2016? 

[mrflynn03]

I can see both sides.

Midterms aren't that far away.

But 2016 was a presidential election year and 2018 is not. 

Ultimately I say yes.  These people are in office to do a job and they need to do it.

 

 

[5fouls]

Yes.  They should. 

And, while it's slightly different because 2016 was a presidential election year, I don't agree with how 2016 was handled.  Playing political games for things as important to this is bad for the country.  There should be a mandate that requires the seat to be filled in 'X' number of days.

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

Yes.  They should. 

And, while it's slightly different because 2016 was a presidential election year, I don't agree with how 2016 was handled.  Playing political games for things as important to this is bad for the country.  There should be a mandate that requires the seat to be filled in 'X' number of days.

I tend to agree, although I don't think there's a difference. 

I also think it's the type of thing that should not be forgivable to a voter. 

[Reacher]

The Seanate should vote as soon as they can. As has been said, mid terms are different than a Presidential election year. I think you will see an unprecendented level of nastiness regarding this. I think it would be better for the Republicans to take their time as all indications are they will pick up 3-5 Senate seats (Dems have a number of vulnerable seats in states Trump won) and the confirmation will be much easier by waiting. The more the Democrats get nasty and violent, the worse their prospects will be. I wouldn't doubt part of the strategy is to push ahead to showcase this unhinged behavior (Calling for violence against elected officials?- who is going to defend that?) yet ultimately waiting if the pick does not look to be able to sail through.

[KoB2011]

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

The Seanate should vote as soon as they can. As has been said, mid terms are different than a Presidential election year. I think you will see an unprecendented level of nastiness regarding this. I think it would be better for the Republicans to take their time as all indications are they will pick up 3-5 Senate seats (Dems have a number of vulnerable seats in states Trump won) and the confirmation will be much easier by waiting. The more the Democrats get nasty and violent, the worse their prospects will be. I wouldn't doubt part of the strategy is to push ahead to showcase this unhinged behavior (Calling for violence against elected officials?- who is going to defend that?) yet ultimately waiting if the pick does not look to be able to sail through.

Midterms aren't different. What McConnell did two years ago was incredibly wrong and unprecedented. 

While it is correct that there are a number of Dems up for reelection in states Trump won, all indications do not point to the GOP picking up 3-5 seats. It is obviously possible, but polling today doesn't suggest we should expect that nor do the results we have seen in the 18 months since Trump took office. 

[PoHoosier]

Lots of political talk and it remains civil.  I continue to be amazed with HSN and its members.  

Despite that, is it uncivil of me to suggest we vote everyone out and start over?

😀

[rico]

13 minutes ago, PoHoosier said:

Lots of political talk and it remains civil.  I continue to be amazed with HSN and its members.  

Despite that, is it uncivil of me to suggest we vote everyone out and start over?

😀

I say we vote them all out!!!!  Just sayin'

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, rico said:

I say we vote them all out!!!!  Just sayin'

I'm fine with this

[Reacher]

On 6/30/2018 at 11:23 AM, KoB2011 said:

Midterms aren't different. What McConnell did two years ago was incredibly wrong and unprecedented. 

While it is correct that there are a number of Dems up for reelection in states Trump won, all indications do not point to the GOP picking up 3-5 seats. It is obviously possible, but polling today doesn't suggest we should expect that nor do the results we have seen in the 18 months since Trump took office. 

I have read numerous articles over the past months all indicating Republican gains in the Senate. The left leaning NY Times agrees with this- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/us/politics/senate-republicans-midterms.html.  You can debate the number of seats. Somewhere from 2 - 8. I went in the middle.

Please show me one credible path for the democrats to take the Senate.

You may feel midterms are not different than Presidential election years, I do. 

The big mistake was Harry Reid scrapping the 60 vote rule for judges. 

 

[mrflynn03]

I see the democrats having an unimpressive midterms. I think their radical fringe groups redefining terminology and throwing it around everywhere along with their 2 year long temper tantrum is frustrating alot of people who are more moderate in their views. 

At least the people around me are fed up with it. 

[KoB2011]

15 minutes ago, Reacher said:

I have read numerous articles over the past months all indicating Republican gains in the Senate. The left leaning NY Times agrees with this- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/us/politics/senate-republicans-midterms.html.  You can debate the number of seats. Somewhere from 2 - 8. I went in the middle.

Please show me one credible path for the democrats to take the Senate.

You may feel midterms are not different than Presidential election years, I do. 

The big mistake was Harry Reid scrapping the 60 vote rule for judges. 

 

I never said the Democrats would take the Senate so I'm to bother proving a claim I didn't make. I rejected the ridiculous comment that all accounts point to the GOP picking up 3-5 seats. 

It is possible, as I admitted, but not something all signs point to. Here is a good collection of polls, all of which project only 7 GOP wins (4 of which are safe). Given Democrats lead in a generic ballot and massive over performance in special elections this cycle it would be silly to think out of the 7 or so tossups races, 5 of them go Red to make a 3 seat gain for the GOP. 

 

[Reacher]

I'm not calling your comments ridiculous.  Please respect the opinions of others.

Apparently you agree the Republicans will pick up 1-2 seats but 3 or more seats is ridiculous? Come on.

You may be oblivious to it, but I'm seeing a huge anti Democrat groundswell (would be much larger if not censored by social media and mainstream news). 

Have you seen the #WalkAway videos? If not, maybe this is the reason-  " Strange. “Impeach 45” has 60 tweets within the last hour, according to twitter, and yet it’s the number 4 trending topic. #WalkAway has 1500 tweets and it’s not mentioned. "

When party leaders are calling for violence, hate, censorship and open borders, there is something wrong. That does not appeal to the majority of Americans. 

[mrflynn03]

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

When party leaders are calling for violence, hate, censorship and open borders, there is something wrong. That does not appeal to the majority of Americans. 

The next few years will be interesting.  It is not to the level of what i've read about late 60's, particularly 1968 being like.

But there is a real possibility the current POTUS is re-elected and could potentially seat another judge or 2.  The republicans most likely will keep the senate and house, at least for this cycle.

Seeing the reaction to what has happened so far and the continuous manufacturing of rage I cant imagine what will happen if the above scenario plays out.   

[KoB2011]

4 hours ago, Reacher said:

I'm not calling your comments ridiculous.  Please respect the opinions of others.

Apparently you agree the Republicans will pick up 1-2 seats but 3 or more seats is ridiculous? Come on.

You may be oblivious to it, but I'm seeing a huge anti Democrat groundswell (would be much larger if not censored by social media and mainstream news). 

Have you seen the #WalkAway videos? If not, maybe this is the reason-  " Strange. “Impeach 45” has 60 tweets within the last hour, according to twitter, and yet it’s the number 4 trending topic. #WalkAway has 1500 tweets and it’s not mentioned. "

When party leaders are calling for violence, hate, censorship and open borders, there is something wrong. That does not appeal to the majority of Americans. 

I don't agree Republicans will pick up 1-2 seats. I think it will be a push or Dems pick up one, based on polling data and what we have seen in Special Elections. 

And yes, I'm oblivious to the anti-Democrat groundswell.  Mostly because there is no data to back it up. Trump's base has been anti-Democrat, but his base isn't growing. It's remained relatively flat. Something around 1/4 or 1/5 Americans strongly support Trump. Twice as many people strongly oppose him. These are the people motivated to go vote on both sides. 

What specific quotes are you talking about coming from Dem. leadership? Explain how it is worse than what has come from Republican leadership? 

[Reacher]

23 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I don't agree Republicans will pick up 1-2 seats. I think it will be a push or Dems pick up one, based on polling data and what we have seen in Special Elections. 

And yes, I'm oblivious to the anti-Democrat groundswell.  Mostly because there is no data to back it up. Trump's base has been anti-Democrat, but his base isn't growing. It's remained relatively flat. Something around 1/4 or 1/5 Americans strongly support Trump. Twice as many people strongly oppose him. These are the people motivated to go vote on both sides. 

What specific quotes are you talking about coming from Dem. leadership? Explain how it is worse than what has come from Republican leadership? 

"No data" ?  How about this Reuters poll showing a 23% swing in white millenial males from Democrat to Republican in the last 2 years? - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-millennials/exclusive-democrats-lose-ground-with-millennials-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1I10YH.  Thats a rather sizeable number. #WalkAway may not be a poll, but thousands/ day has to mean something. 

I think too many people confuse the person of Trump / his tweeting with the results of his agenda. I am not a fan of the means in many cases but I am hard pressed to find results I do not agree with.  Forget about "Trump" voters and focus on where the Independent/ conservative voters are going to vote. 2020 will not be about Trump the person but rather his acheivements or lack therof. 

Have you not heard Maxine Waters calling for harassment of public officials? Kirsten Gillibrand calling for the elimination of ICE? That is more than typical political BS that both parties spout. The only comparable Republican comment I can think of in recent years was for the abolition of the IRS. While I'm not in favor, there was corruption there and our tax code is way too complicated. It should be simplified/ streamlined. Eliminating ICE is a safety issue. 

As someone asked Maxine-  “Do We Need to Sit at Back of the Bus?… Where Can Conservatives Eat?” Why can't we have equality and civility?

[Reacher]

2 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

The next few years will be interesting.  It is not to the level of what i've read about late 60's, particularly 1968 being like.

But there is a real possibility the current POTUS is re-elected and could potentially seat another judge or 2.  The republicans most likely will keep the senate and house, at least for this cycle.

Seeing the reaction to what has happened so far and the continuous manufacturing of rage I cant imagine what will happen if the above scenario plays out.   

I agree. Apparently there was a riot in Portland just this last weekend. We saw someone shoot a Congressman last year. I think conditions will get worse before they get better.

[KoB2011]

54 minutes ago, Reacher said:

"No data" ?  How about this Reuters poll showing a 23% swing in white millenial males from Democrat to Republican in the last 2 years? - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-millennials/exclusive-democrats-lose-ground-with-millennials-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1I10YH.  Thats a rather sizeable number. #WalkAway may not be a poll, but thousands/ day has to mean something. 

I think too many people confuse the person of Trump / his tweeting with the results of his agenda. I am not a fan of the means in many cases but I am hard pressed to find results I do not agree with.  Forget about "Trump" voters and focus on where the Independent/ conservative voters are going to vote. 2020 will not be about Trump the person but rather his acheivements or lack therof. 

Have you not heard Maxine Waters calling for harassment of public officials? Kirsten Gillibrand calling for the elimination of ICE? That is more than typical political BS that both parties spout. The only comparable Republican comment I can think of in recent years was for the abolition of the IRS. While I'm not in favor, there was corruption there and our tax code is way too complicated. It should be simplified/ streamlined. Eliminating ICE is a safety issue. 

As someone asked Maxine-  “Do We Need to Sit at Back of the Bus?… Where Can Conservatives Eat?” Why can't we have equality and civility?

Hadn't seen that. It's definitely interesting data, but it's one poll indicating that in the face of every other poll and the real elections we have had since then. But definitely worth considering. 

Maxine Waters isn't leadership. Gillibrand isn't calling for the elimination of ICE with no replacement; to ignore that she thinks we need something else in place for immigration is ignoring the facts. 

You're harping on the comments of Waters, when they are tame compared to Trump. He talks about raping women, murdering people in the street, harming the press and calls people who disagree with him dangerous. His rhetoric is completely unhinged and has created the vacuum that allows for what Waters says. How can you not see when the President has that type of dialogue that whatever response happens, from either side, is on his shoulders? 

[Reacher]

11 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Hadn't seen that. It's definitely interesting data, but it's one poll indicating that in the face of every other poll and the real elections we have had since then. But definitely worth considering. 

Maxine Waters isn't leadership. Gillibrand isn't calling for the elimination of ICE with no replacement; to ignore that she thinks we need something else in place for immigration is ignoring the facts. 

You're harping on the comments of Waters, when they are tame compared to Trump. He talks about raping women, murdering people in the street, harming the press and calls people who disagree with him dangerous. His rhetoric is completely unhinged and has created the vacuum that allows for what Waters says. How can you not see when the President has that type of dialogue that whatever response happens, from either side, is on his shoulders? 

You ask for data and I provide data than you dismiss it? There is evidence all over. I picked a left leaning poll so you would not be inclined to question it as you didn't like the questions in the previous poll I linked. My guess is the shift is even greater than what was reported.  Did you see the recent poll saying the majority of blacks and hispanics favor stricter immigration controls? The one saying 85% would turn in an illegal? These do not mesh with what the media reports. It is incredibly apparent to me that polls are no longer relevant in the age of Trump and that you should 5-10 points in his favor on anything to be accurate. How many predicted the Trump victory and margin?

I live in blue as blue C(r)ook County, IL- definitely not in any bubble here- and see the unlikeliest people supporting Republican ideas. A few months ago the Democrats were supposed to take the House and Senate in a Blue Wave and led in generic polls by 15%. That has now evaporated. Which way is the tide shifting? It may very well shift again (and back a time or two) before the elections.

I'd urge you to quit focusing on what Trump says and instead focus on the policies of the Republicans and what the results are- record low unemployment (especially for blacks and hispanics) decreased disability claims, dangerous sexual predators and MS 13 gang members being removed from the streets, better care for veterans, GDP forecast above 4% when a couple years ago we were told 2% is normal, record high tax revenues, a shortage of workers driving up wages for the first time in 20 years, more humane treatment for kids and families at the border, consumer and business optimism at multiyear highs, tax cuts helping the lower and middle class, reigning in North Korea, ISIS finally being decimated... I'll take those results vs media hyped rhetoric all day long.

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

You ask for data and I provide data than you dismiss it? There is evidence all over. I picked a left leaning poll so you would not be inclined to question it as you didn't like the questions in the previous poll I linked. My guess is the shift is even greater than what was reported.  Did you see the recent poll saying the majority of blacks and hispanics favor stricter immigration controls? The one saying 85% would turn in an illegal? These do not mesh with what the media reports. It is incredibly apparent to me that polls are no longer relevant in the age of Trump and that you should 5-10 points in his favor on anything to be accurate. How many predicted the Trump victory and margin?

I live in blue as blue C(r)ook County, IL- definitely not in any bubble here- and see the unlikeliest people supporting Republican ideas. A few months ago the Democrats were supposed to take the House and Senate in a Blue Wave and led in generic polls by 15%. That has now evaporated. Which way is the tide shifting? It may very well shift again (and back a time or two) before the elections.

I'd urge you to quit focusing on what Trump says and instead focus on the policies of the Republicans and what the results are- record low unemployment (especially for blacks and hispanics) decreased disability claims, dangerous sexual predators and MS 13 gang members being removed from the streets, better care for veterans, GDP forecast above 4% when a couple years ago we were told 2% is normal, record high tax revenues, a shortage of workers driving up wages for the first time in 20 years, more humane treatment for kids and families at the border, consumer and business optimism at multiyear highs, tax cuts helping the lower and middle class, reigning in North Korea, ISIS finally being decimated... I'll take those results vs media hyped rhetoric all day long.

I didn't dismiss the poll, I just said it is one data point. And it is just one data point. It also isn't a left leaning poll, its pretty much right down the middle. 

I work in data for a living and studied political science. I am acutely aware of how to interpret data and how polling works. 

The polling in 2016 actually fell within the margin of error. Polling largely works as a predictive tool. 

We will have to agree to disagree on what is going on in the country. I can't stand the rhetoric, but that isn't what my issue is. The only time I've brought up the rhetoric is when you acted as if Democrats are the issue there. 

[Reacher]

Getting back on topic, I think the best comparison is to the 2010 midterm year in which Elena Kagan was appointed in June and confirmed 87 days later just prior to the midterm elections. You had a democratic President and democrat Senate. The republicans picked up 6 seats in the Senate that fall. There was no talk of delaying the vote. Democrats did their best to push her through before the elections in which they knew they were likely to lose seats. 

2018 is slightly different in that (at least some) people predict republicans to enlarge their majority in the Senate making confirmation easier. 

2010 is comparable to 2016 in that it can be argued that it would have made sense to wait until after the elections to more accurately reflect the will of the voters. 

[KoB2011]

13 minutes ago, Reacher said:

Getting back on topic, I think the best comparison is to the 2010 midterm year in which Elena Kagan was appointed in June and confirmed 87 days later just prior to the midterm elections. You had a democratic President and democrat Senate. The republicans picked up 6 seats in the Senate that fall. There was no talk of delaying the vote. Democrats did their best to push her through before the elections in which they knew they were likely to lose seats. 

2018 is slightly different in that (at least some) people predict republicans to enlarge their majority in the Senate making confirmation easier. 

2010 is comparable to 2016 in that it can be argued that it would have made sense to wait until after the elections to more accurately reflect the will of the voters. 

The difference is 2010 respected prior precedent, 2016 did not. 2016 did set a new precedent, that the Republicans are again ignoring. At what point can we just admit Mitch McConnell is only interested in doing what is best for the Republican Party? 

[Reacher]

51 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

The difference is 2010 respected prior precedent, 2016 did not. 2016 did set a new precedent, that the Republicans are again ignoring. At what point can we just admit Mitch McConnell is only interested in doing what is best for the Republican Party? 

I would think it is very obvious McConnell does what is best for Republicans just as Schumer does what is best for Democrats. 

I was comparing 2010 to 2018 which have lots of similarities.  Is it hypocritical for those on the left to demand something different this time when they set precedent in 2010?

[KoB2011]

8 minutes ago, Reacher said:

I would think it is very obvious McConnell does what is best for Republicans just as Schumer does what is best for Democrats. 

I was comparing 2010 to 2018 which have lots of similarities.  Is it hypocritical for those on the left to demand something different this time when they set precedent in 2010?

They didn't set a precedent in 2010, they followed precedent and did what both parties have been doing with SCOTUS confirmations for a century. I said earlier in this thread I think they should hold confirmation hearings for this nominee, I just think it is unforgivable that McConnell politicized the SCOTUS in the first place. 

Having said all that, I think the GOP would be wise to put a judge on the court who could/may/will overturn some things that have overwhelming support in this country. 

[Reacher]

8 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

They didn't set a precedent in 2010, they followed precedent and did what both parties have been doing with SCOTUS confirmations for a century. I said earlier in this thread I think they should hold confirmation hearings for this nominee, I just think it is unforgivable that McConnell politicized the SCOTUS in the first place. 

Having said all that, I think the GOP would be wise to put a judge on the court who could/may/will overturn some things that have overwhelming support in this country. 

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.