Actually we all know that never in the history of the United States of America has a Supreme Court nominee been ignored out of the opportunity to even get a vote. Garland's nomination process was also the longest in the history of the United States of America.

 

I think a better question is you know how the Congressional approval process for the Supreme Court works, right?

I do, but clearly you don't.

They do not have to bring a candidate up. And former VP Biden agrees.

Basically in June of 1992, Biden said that in the event that a SCOTUS spot opened up, any vote should be held after the election. The full context of his speech at the time was that the Clarence Thomas nomination, and the recent history of confirmation votes in the 80s, meant that by the time a justice resigned, and someone was put up for the spot, the odds of confirmation were remote at best. This was merely a speech, and no rule was ever enacted.

 

The most important context here, of course, is that there was no opening on the Court when Biden made the speech! So whether Biden would have gone forward with preventing a justice (and whether the rest of Senate Judiciary would have followed suit) from getting a hearing is speculative at best. Further, Biden made the speech in June - four months after Scalia passed.

 

So... yeah, Biden in 1992 really has nothing to do with the obstructionist behavior by the Republicans in keeping Garland from getting a vote.

Except we both know it certainly does. But nice try.

 

You can keep your head buried and I will fight for you right to continue to do it.

Yep. And since Trump has already taken the unconventional step of filing his 2020 candidacy with the FEC already, isn't he already in "election season?"

 

Republicans can try to spin it anyway that they want, but they stole a seat from Obama and set a very, very dangerous precedent going forward.

You all can spin all you want...the speech by Joe works only when it fits your agenda.

I do, but clearly you don't.

They do not have to bring a candidate up. And former VP Biden agrees.

 

Great. We agree that the Democrats can sit on the Trump nominee as long as they want then.

Great. We agree that the Democrats can sit on the Trump nominee as long as they want then.

I don't think I ever said they couldn't. In fact I believe I said the more they sit, the troubles they'll be in come mid terms will be even greater.

Complete breakdowns of the norms that allow our Constitution to function is not a good thing regardless of who said what when. Our system really isn't flexible enough to handle situations where Congress just flat-out refuses to do its job. Imagine the chaos if the Democrats controlled the Senate and just flatly refused to confirm any and all appointments made by Trump regardless of who the candidates were, or refused to ever pass any bills whatsoever.

 

 

I do, but clearly you don't.

They do not have to bring a candidate up. And former VP Biden agrees.

 

Bruh, you know ss2k5 is one of the more right leaning posters here.

Complete breakdowns of the norms that allow our Constitution to function is not a good thing regardless of who said what when. Our system really isn't flexible enough to handle situations where Congress just flat-out refuses to do its job. Imagine the chaos if the Democrats controlled the Senate and just flatly refused to confirm any and all appointments made by Trump regardless of who the candidates were, or refused to ever pass any bills whatsoever.

They may not ever have control, but they are making it clear that they plan to do just as you describe as best they can.

Bruh, you know ss2k5 is one of the more right leaning posters here.

Not sure it matters, does it?

Bruh, you know ss2k5 is one of the more right leaning posters here.

 

Though no where near right leaning today.

I don't think I ever said they couldn't. In fact I believe I said the more they sit, the troubles they'll be in come mid terms will be even greater.

 

You give the American voting public way too much credit

Though no where near right leaning today.

 

Yeah, Im not even sure what the "right" means anymore.

brett05:

ss2k5 is definitely left wing extremist loon

I don't think I ever said they couldn't. In fact I believe I said the more they sit, the troubles they'll be in come mid terms will be even greater.

 

Want to make a gentlemen's bet that the Repubs get crushed if Trump keeps this up?

Want to make a gentlemen's bet that the Repubs get crushed if Trump keeps this up?

uh... I don't necessarily believe that.

 

the potential tea-party lite style attacks from the left may just keep the GOP in power.

uh... I don't necessarily believe that.

 

the potential tea-party lite style attacks from the left may just keep the GOP in power.

 

I think Trump is doing exactly what Hillary Clinton couldn't do in the last election. Motivate the middle of the political spectrum to vote for a Democrat.

brett05:

ss2k5 is definitely left wing extremist loon

 

Of course you know, this means war.

uh... I don't necessarily believe that.

 

the potential tea-party lite style attacks from the left may just keep the GOP in power.

After all, when the Democrats nominated an agreed-upon moderate, a guy Orrin Hatch said Obama wouldn't nominate because he'd be confirmed easily and wasn't left wing enough, and the Republicans didn't even meet with the guy...that totally cost them in the following election.

Want to make a gentlemen's bet that the Repubs get crushed if Trump keeps this up?

 

The 2018 Senate races are pretty brutal for the Democrats. The Republicans are defending 8 total seats with 2 of them only really being considered a possibility of flipping. The Democrats are defending 24 with as many as 13 being contestable.

 

Who knows what'll happen in the House, but even just holding where they are now in the Senate (48 seats) isn't really likely. 2020 is realistically the earliest they could hope to take it back.

After all, when the Democrats nominated an agreed-upon moderate, a guy Orrin Hatch said Obama wouldn't nominate because he'd be confirmed easily and wasn't left wing enough, and the Republicans didn't even meet with the guy...that totally cost them in the following election.

 

For whatever extremely stupid reasons they chose, Democrats didn't seem to push this at all and just assumed the electorate would take it into consideration.

I think Trump is doing exactly what Hillary Clinton couldn't do in the last election. Motivate the middle of the political spectrum to vote for a Democrat.

 

Sure, but if you live in my world right now, the far left is LIVID at the Senate Dems for confirming ANY cabinet picks, and for even considering Gorsuch. It's ugly over there.

Sure, but if you live in my world right now, the far left is LIVID at the Senate Dems for confirming ANY cabinet picks, and for even considering Gorsuch. It's ugly over there.

 

The left's choices are to vote D or let Trump keep his clean road to do whatever he wants. I am pretty sure this won't be an issue that stops them from voting.

Sure, but if you live in my world right now, the far left is LIVID at the Senate Dems for confirming ANY cabinet picks, and for even considering Gorsuch. It's ugly over there.

 

They need to get over themselves, just like the Jill Stein voters. Maybe one day there will be a different system, but for now its generally choice a or b, there is no magical c candidate behind the mystery door.

 

 

The left's choices are to vote D or let Trump keep his clean road to do whatever he wants. I am pretty sure this won't be an issue that stops them from voting.

 

This. To the extent that the Left develops a "purity" test, then they need to start primarying the candidates that don't meet that test. Staying home or voting for the Green Party accomplishes absolutely nothing.*

 

The next 2 years need to lead to a real awakening in the Democratic Party. The increased activism and engagement from the left in the last weeks has been a good start. But that needs to continue for the next two years, and it needs to ultimately lead to voting for Democrats in the midterms.

 

* For the record, I've said this before over the last two weeks, but it's absurd that anyone is questioning Warren's cred as a progressive (even as she has been the leading champion for the CFPB and other financial protections) because she voted to confirm Carson.

You give the American voting public way too much credit

I think the public spoke and if the Democrats keep up politics as usual, they are going to be voted out in record numbers.