Trump Stooge Hugh Hewitt Makes Incredible Explanation About SC Seat
I just happened to hear Hugh Hewitt, the conservative pundit who endlessly makes excuses for the Republicans and Trump explain why it's ok for Trump to name a new Supreme Court justice now but it wasn't ok when Obama tried to do it in 2016.
According to Hewitt, Obama didn't have a majority in the Senate, and Trump does, therefore Trump can have his nominee receive a Senate vote, but Obama's nominee could not.
This phenomenally bad "logic" is based on this- in 2013 the Democrats voted to change the required vote to confirm judicial nominees to 50% instead of the 60% it had been . According to Hewitt , this means in order to confirm a SC nominee a president must have 50% or more of the Senate from his own party.
This blatantly phony "argument" assumes that no one from the other party would ever vote for a nominee from the presidents party, and no one from the presidents party would ever vote against his nominee. This is blatantly anti-democratic, small d.
What is surprising is that a high profile GOP surrogate like Hewitt would spit this bile out on television. He is claiming that any judicial appointment is DOA unless the president's party is also the party with a majority in the Senate, BECAUSE every senator can be assumed to vote, always , with a 100% party line.
What the hell is happening to America?
By the way, at least two Republican senators have already said they would vote against a new Trump nominee.
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
The GOP has no good argument for their hypocrisy, so they are resorting to blatantly offensive nonsense like this hoping the American people are too stupid or apathetic to see what is going on.
no excuse necessary, Trump can nominate and the Senate can confirm
If you would like to address the premise of the article, that would be nice. Your same old same old is a waste of time.
I did.
perhaps you didn't like my comment. but it is on topic
It doesnt address the article or the premise, but if thats all you got, it is what it is.
the article talks about SCOTUS nominations, does it not?
You have nothing to say. Don't worry, I get it.
again, I wrote on topic and you don't like what I wrote
nah, everyone can see what is going on:
people who burn cities and destroy countless lives do not get to govern our country or pick supreme court justices.
( write that down it is on the test )
Hugh Hewitt, speaking for Republicans and conservatives, says that unless a president has a Senate with a majority from his own party, he shouldn't waste his time nominating a Supreme Court justice .
That is the topic, not riots.
true enough...
what's the problem?
He does, and he will.
The nomination process has already begun behind the scenes
Well for one thing, there is no such rule in the senate.
Secondly, it is anti-democratic, as it assumes votes before they are made.
who cares.
this is not a democracy. it is a republic.
lol. A "democratic" vote within the Senate would be a vote where the 100 senators vote on their own volition, and their vote is not assumed before it happens.
The media can say " this will receive a party line vote" prior to a floor vote, but the leaders of the two parties should not assume the result as part of the procedure the senate uses to set it's schedule.
If you can't see the problem then god help ya.
there is also no rule preventing a Trump nomination and Senate confirmation
Name those who are running for election who qualify.
So Trump is disqualified.
Garland is a perfect example of that. Clinton nominated him and the GOP Senate brought him to the floor for a vote. He was confirmed 76-23 with many GOP votes.
other than the TDS crowd... who's life did trump destroy?
can you even name one business trump set on fire and burned to the ground?
be specific please :
Your arguments are growing weaker by the minute. [Deleted]
if my arguments are so weak... you should have no problem answering my question.
other than the TDS crowd... who's life did trump destroy?
.
.
.
.
.
.
john the truth is your arguments rarely have anything but thinly veiled personal attacks.
[Deleted]
There is no rule that says he can not either. Just like there is no rule that say the Senate majority leader can not consent to a president's nomination or has a time frame in which to do it.
Tell us what Trump's qualifications are to be president, other than that he is over 35 and was born in Queens NY.
Cannot what?
This is not a complicated issue. Hewitt says that unless the sitting president is of the same party as the majority in the senate, he should not bother nominating someone to the court.
What is the explanation for this belief that is based in senate protocol? There is no such rule.
ok, so no rule. really doesn't have any effect on what is currently happening
pre covid trump set all time historic records in minority employment - and will do it again
that alone makes trump more qualified than any other president in our lifetimes.
but he did not stop there... among many other things and very unlike every other president, trump also is securing our border and has ended the shit trade deals, he is ending the never ending wars, and he is actually working to bring peace to the middle east.
why didn't obama and biden do that?
please show us where he claimed to speak for Republicans and conservatives.
lol, thats all i can say.
I'm sure you will find something else to say you'll be wrong then too.
[deleted]
I think the solar industry would count and I bet that quite a few family farmers would raise their hand too.
Here's news for you. The Senate majority leader is pretty sure he knows how the members are going to vote before something hits the floor for a vote, especially the votes if his own party.
well, of course he dies. like others before him.
thinking otherwise is just ignoring reality
hewitt is nothing more than a right wing jag-off that's still trying to give tricky dick a positive spin.
Hewitt is a simple minded hypocrite impersonating a scholar. He seems reasonable...with the sound off!
Garland didn’t have a majority for confirmation, so he wasn’t confirmed. If trump’s nominee does, she will be. It’s not that hard to understand.
the Democrats borking of Bork didn’t mean they couldn’t confirm a nominee republicans objected to, did it?
Really? and you definitively know that how? You sound exactly like Hugh Hewitt, an affliction I hesitate to wish on anyone. For all you actually know, Merrick Garland may have charmed the necessary handful of Republicans in the senate into voting for him, in committee or in the full senate.
It boggles the mind that Hugh Hewitt, or you, think you have offered a good reason for treating Garland and this vacancy differently.
He wasn’t confirmed was he?
boggles the mind that Hugh Hewitt, or you, think you have offered a good reason for treating Garland and this vacancy different
Nominating a justice and confirming him with majority support is the normal process. To not nominate someone to fill a vacancy would be to treat it differently.
You seem to have your heart set on trying bamboozle your readers. That may work on the Trump supporters but that is the extent of it.
Do you think history started in 2016? It's amazing how you and others just gloss over 30 years of escalating attacks and procedural hurdles on Republican nominees (while Republicans gave Democratic nominees free passes) and think the rejection of Garland happened out of thin air. As Obama's pastor likes to say, Democratic chickens finally came home to roost in 2016.
Because McConnell never allowed the Senate to vote.
Garland was highley respected and had the votes needed to become a Supreme Court Judge.
What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now
The fact that Garland had the votes is exactly why McConnell blocked the Senates Constitutional duty to give or withhold their consent.
By locking the whole process Mitch's anti Constitutional actions against Merrick Garland stole a Supreme Court pick from the majority of Americans who had chosen President Obama to fill judgeship's in our American courts, not some piss ass Senator, elected by a few thousand people in one State.
But Mitch's contempt for the American voters didn't start with Garland it just peaked there, (well until RBG passed).
Mitch has been stealing judges from the American voters for years.
In the battle over the US supreme court, Democrats can still have the last laugh
Good comment.
=====================================================
Lets look at Lindsey Grahams weasely thoughts
The Republics are consolidating their excuses around the highly dubious explanation that because there is a Republican majority in the senate they can do whatever they want. That is essentially precisely what they are saying.
Let's look at Lindsey Graham's "argument" for confirming a nominee in the last month before the presidential election, or , if Trump loses, in his lame duck period before the inauguration.
Harry Reid "changed the rules" in 2013. When Graham said, in 2018, that there should be no nominee in 2020 , it was five years after the rule change. So Graham's logic is pure bullshit.
It may or may not be sad that the Democrats "destroyed the life" of Brett Kavanaugh, but it is totally irrelevant to the issue of having a Supreme Court confirmation hearing a month before a presidential election.
Graham couldn't with a grammar school debate with that kind of "logic".
That's actually not such an unreasonable fear. SCOTUS approval votes have been very partisan in recent years, especially for Republican nominees.
Kavanaugh was approved 50-48. Only 1 Democrat voted for him. Gorsuch was approved 54-45. Only 3 Democrats voted for him.
It goes back further than that. Nominated by President Bush, Samuel Alito was approved 58-42. Only 3 Democrats voted for him.
John Roberts had bipartisan support, but before him, Clarence Thomas, nominated by Bush the Elder, was approved 52-48. As many as 8 Democrats were able to make themselves vote for him.
Looking the other way, justices nominated by Democratic presidents have also been subject to partisan votes, though somewhat less so.
Obama nominated Kagan and Sotomayor, who were approved on votes of 63-37 and 68-31 respectively. But only 4 Republicans voted for Kagan, while 8 managed to vote for Sotomayor.
The two justices nominated by Clinton - Breyer and Ginsburg - were approved with 87 and 96 yays, respectively.
None of that makes proper what has gone on in the last few years with nominations, but it's certainly understandable.
It's not understandable at all. Mitch McConnell holds an extremely powerful position and he should use it correctly. You cannot fairly assume that because a nomination comes from a president without a senate majority the nomination doesnt even merit a hearing. It's absurd and it should be offensive to every American.
so you are for nominees getting a hearing and a vote?
that's good
I think that is what the Republicans will do!
[Deleted]
I guess that is a pretty tough question
I don't understand your reply. Democrats repeatedly avoid voting for Republican nominees and you don't find it understandable that Republicans would fear the trend would continue? It's perfectly logical to recognize a trend and expect it to continue.
that makes sense.
perhaps too much
Which seems irrelevant since the GOP has the majority and have changed the rules so that's all they need for confirmation. Trump takes pride in nominating unqualified judges and makes no attempt to build consensus or nominate 'moderates' like Garland. The quality of Judges on the Federal bench has deteriorated and intentionally so.
It's not irrelevant. It's why there is such concern for (as in the article),
They want to argue that it's ok to do it now because - in their minds - it's necessary to do it now. Urgent, even.
If they wait until 2021, they may not have control of either the White House or the Senate and they will only be able to watch as Biden nominates some extreme liberal to the Court. And then the Democratic Party in the Senate will rubber stamp them. Just like the Republicans want to. So, they need to get this done now.
Your comment is what's irrelevant:
There's nothing about that in the seed, that's all on you.
Again, the GOP has a majority and that's all they need, trend or no trend.
The GOP is actually gleeful that the how the Democrats vote is irrelevant.
Your comment about the content of the seed should be addressed to the author.
Actually I QUOTED the seed and then responded to it. If you don't see the connection that's your problem.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. It doesn't appear to be related to anything I said. You're the one who came into this thread to question my comment. I didn't address anything to you before that.
Since what you quoted is NOT connected to your claim that how Democrats vote is relevant, NO, I see no connection. Yet that isn't MY problem since you are the one failing to get your point across
Oh wait. You think I care if I get my point across to you?
So I'm your only audience Tacos!?
I'm honored. /s
So you do know what a sarc tag is.......
[deleted]
And yet apparently still managed to get the comment from me exactly backward. Go figure.
Whatever...
Keep in mind the most partisan democrats, like Obama, tried to filibuster bush and Trump’s nominees for no reason other than ideology. Another escalation of the confirmation process by Democrats after republicans rubber stamped Clinton’s nominees.
the only way to end this is to go back to the way it was pre Bork. Absent Corruption issues or lack of qualifications, senators should vote to confirm a presidents nomination.
Is it your posit that Judges should be nominated based on ideology?
Your concept of a 'rubber stamp' differs from mine since they only confirmed 4 out of 20 of Clinton's federal district judges.
Basically it's, we are in power and going to do whatever the fuck we want, even if voted out, we will get it done before we leave.