It may take time for them to find some guy to make up a story to say she drugged and raped him when she was in high school and of course they will need to make sure to see if she ever farted and called it some other name when she was younger and heaven help her if she ever drank a beer.
According to Sen Grassley, 60-70 days. 50 days sounds doable by rushing it. 35 days (~expected time left to election by the time the President nominate) - never done before and not enough time for a full vet, especially during a health emergency.
Almost every Supreme Court nominee in the past is judicially well qualified and every one of them went through a full vetting process, if they didn't drop out or if the nomination didn't get pulled or simply blocked without any process (2016). Not all of them made it through the process.
“Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.”
Not exactly. This is a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land, and as such each nominee needs to be vetted thoroughly. Key questions include what is her thinking (and practice) on established precedence. And her philosophy on judicial activism. This is more important than other candidates since her political leanings is diametrically opposed to the person whose seat she would be taking. And especially given her age since a lifetime seat would mean 20-30 years, spanning up to 8 different presidential terms.
The political leanings of the person that is being replaced have absolutely nothing to do with this process. That is utterly ridiculous.
That's something a republican says when its a republican being nominated. The whole excuse for why Garland was blocked was because of politics and partisan differences.
So you weren't trying to lay a guilt trip just trying to make me feel guilty about the human toll that might happen if the court isn't stacked a position that I hold. Got it. There are several ways around a ruling against the ACA. I pointed them out earlier but will repeat it again. The current lawsuit is that the the whole law falls down without the mandate. The simple solution is the restore the mandate and make it a tax. That is what Roberts' was saying his his previous decision. Other option is to pass other parts of the law without the mandate as separate legislation. Beyond that can still greatly expand Medicare / Medicaid too. Further we don't know for certain how the ideological alliances might shift under a 6-3 majority. We've already seen Gorsuch buck the Conservatives and in many way's he's looking like the real inheritor of Kennedy than Kavanaugh. We also saw Kavanaugh buck the Conservatives also. If Lagoa is the Justice her record isn't nearly as rigid as people like Alito and Thomas. The court could very well be 3 conservatives, 3 liberals and 3 swing votes in Roberts, Gorsuch and Lagoa. I will respond to the rest of this in my response to SamFisher as this is pretty similar.
The Republicans controlled the Senate with the Garland nomination just as they do now. There is historical precedent for what happened in 2016 when the POTUS and Senate majority were from opposing parties just as there is historical precedent for what will likely happen this year when the POTUS and Senate majority are of the same party. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...cans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/ [/QUOTE]
The precedent was the people should decide instead of those in power (POTUS & Congress). It was a lie to you, to me, to all of us.
No doubt it was politics. That just what happens when the Senate is controlled by an opposing party to the POTUS. Had the tables been turned your side would do exactly what the Republicans are going to do. The filibuster would be a nice tool to block what is about to happen. I bet you are really mad at Harry Reid for originally getting rid of it judicial nominations. The Turtle warned him he would regret it and likely sooner rather than later.
Nope. I wanted you to understand the human toll because your post seemed divorced from it. But you can believe whatever you want about my intentions but I am telling you that's all your ego and defensiveness and not on my end. To me this argument is basically saying, "Well anything is possible!" There are risks by the boatload here. It's not easy to predict how justices will rule, and if SCOTUS rules that the whole law has to be thrown out because the mandate is gone, and it's too close to 2023 when it happens and the dems lose the house - then the ACA is effectively gone. Point being is it's high risk that you have an activist court.
I am sorry that is just not true based on history. Please read the article below which lays out what has happened historically with nominations to the SCOTUS both when the POTUS and Senate majority are of opposing parties and of the same party. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...cans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/
You make them pay a penalty at the ballot box. We still have elections and breaking norms are certainly a factor that should be considered in elections. I personally just donated this morning to Jamie Harrison, Amy McGrath and Cal Cunningham with that in mind. Anyway this debate is hypothetical. The court isn't going to be expanded as long as the makeup of the Senate stays the same. Further punishing breaking norms by breaking more norms doesn't really work. Again with doing away the filibuster on appointments has benefitted Mitch McConnell and the Republican caucus far more than it has the Democratic caucus. Article III says USSC Justices have lifetime appointments. Now yes they could just contract the court but again that leads to the very chaos I'm warning about of changing the number of the seats based on who controls the Senate. What this would lead to is contracting or adding seats possibly based upon decisions. For example if a Republican Senate is upset that Gorsuch ruled against them they contract his seat. I know you're already chilling the champagne for November but the election isn't over yet and while I agree that Trump is likely heading to defeat the Senate is far from certain, another reason why I donated to three Democratic challengers this morning. Your argument seems to be that the Republicans will never gain the majority again. That seems awfully shortsighted thinking and it was the type of stuff that people were saying back in 2012, even as Republicans strengthened their grip on the Senate. Yet here we are in 2020 with Trump as President and Mitch McConnell still as majority leader. The truth is we don't know what the political makeup will be 8 years from now let alone four years from now. While I believe demographics are against a Trumpist GOP continuing much longer that doesn't mean a Conservative party without the Nativism couldn't survive and do well. Any changes made now in the short term could very easily be undone or more likely be turned against the issues you support. History especially recent history has shown that anytime either party believes they have a permanent majority things have changed. Call it risk aversion but even in my lifetime I've seen how overturning things like long term norms and precedents have not always led to the results that people want. I believe in the principles of the Constitution that does mean that I believe that the structures that grant minority voices the power to slow down or stop the majority is critical to this country and one of the things that have made this country far more resilient than many. I understand it is frustrating that it gives WY as much Senatorial power than CA. The long run though majorities and minorities change. Changing the rules because you're frustrated in the short term is one that can and has backfired. We see that with the filibuster and we've seen that very much in the House where some of the practices that Newt Gingrich put in have been used by Pelosi against the Republicans. You argue that these rules are rigged and as a Rockets' fan I understand feeling the refs are against you. Your argument is essentially for a greater majoritarian rule, which again at the moment the Democrats aren't, and one that will run roughshod over minority viewpoints. It's an odd argument that to protect minority rights we have to grant the majority more power. That might make sense if the Democrats win both Presidency and Senate and that's the end of politics but I get the feelings politics is still going to be changing for a long time. McConnell and other GOP committee chairs held up a record number of appointments leaving many courts with vacant seats for years. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/mitch-mcconnell-judges-225455 Even accepting your argument that the courts could get larger to handle increased loads doing it this way out of a partisan fight isn't the way to do it. Increasing the court size to get back at the Republicans, in your words punishing, rightfully is seen as political move and will just invite a contraction or further alteration for political reasons. If the court needs to be expanded to meet workload that should be the primary argument put forward. The argument I'm hearing on this thread is it is all about diluting the conservative majority. Your own posts show that dealing with increased workload is at best a secondary argument.
Yes they will protect the right of white nationalists to shoot black people while denying women access to contraception and even early term abortions - a great victory for your kind!
What reaction were you hoping to get out of bringing up "the human toll"? Yes there is that risk. Not denying it. Changing the size of the court carries a greater risk given that the next Senate could just alter it further and so on.
That's not what Lindsey Graham said back in 2016 and 2018. He said said even if a Republican president in the last year of their first term." McConnell, Barasso, Cruz et al didn't say anything about parties and who controlled what in 2016. Also Merrick Garland didn't just not get confirmed he didn't even go through the process of getting confirmation. Judges nominated by Presidents of opposing parties can and have been voted down. What was new was not giving a hearing and Merrick Garland wasn't the only judge that McConnell did that on and not even in the last year of Obama's term as he had held up a record number of judges.
Maybe if the Republicans weren’t party over country when it comes to every single thing and worked with Obama when it came to getting judges appointed we wouldn’t be in this situation. They blocked everything he attempted to pass because they didn’t like him. I guess I shouldn’t have expected more from the party of fake Christians and hypocrites.
