The McConnell-Ginsburg Rule?
WASHINGTON — When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was released from the hospital last weekend after another in a string of health scares, blue America breathed a sigh of relief. Only one more month, many whispered, until the start of a presidential election year when filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court would be off limits in the Senate.
But would it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/senate-supreme-court-garland.html
30 days from today is New Years Eve, then 2020. There is a train of thought that suggests the Republicans have 30 days left to hope that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires or in some other way is rendered unable to continue on the Court. According to recent precedent, the proper thing to do during a presidential election year is to delay the naming and confirmation of a replacement to the high court until the voters have selected a president in November. In 2016 President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court seat of Anton Scalia, who had suddenly passed away. Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate would not allow hearings or a vote on Garland's nomination, using the justification that the voters should have a say on who the replacement SC Justice should be through their choice for president.
Not too many people had a concrete understanding of what should happen, mainly because it was not a situation that had arisen much before in US history. So McConnell iron fisted his way to success with his scheme, and Garland's nomination withered away until it was dropped when a new president took office.
What will happen if there is a Supreme Court opening in 2020? Would it surprise you to learn that prominent Republicans and conservatives are suggesting that McConnell should ignore his own "Garland rule" and confirm such a nominee as would be presented to them by Trump?
Although McConnell is on record as having justified his treatment of Garland by saying that the voters should decide on which president will nominate a new SC Justice when the opening comes up in an election year, it is expected he would ignore his own argument and jam a Trump nominee through on the "reasoning" that , in this case, the same party holds the Senate and the White House, which was not the case in 2016.
It is difficult to see what that has to do with justifying going against his own precept that the voters should have their say, but McConnell is not big on needing to justify his actions logically.
Tags
Who is online
77 visitors
Will McConnell be a man of honor in 2020, and deny Trump a Supreme Court nomination, should one come open, on the same basis he denied Obama and Merrick Garland ?
McConnell has already said himself that he will not follow the rule he placed on the previous president. [Removed]
This is a "rhetorical" question. We all know he has no honor. I wonder if independents and moderates will openly object to McConnell's stance when the time comes, or will they see "both sides" of this issue?
We know that the republicans on this site will not object for the same reason McConnell will break his own rule.
I doubt that the Honorable Justice Ginsburg will expire within the next few months. But it will not take too long to nominate and confirm a new Justice in as little as six months if the occasion arises. But Trump will be reelected and will have ample to time to appoint another Justice or two. I would expect Trump and the Republicans to take every political advantage that they can while they retain power in the WH and Senate, and hopefully in the House again after next years election. That is what the Democrats have done and would do again. Personally, I hope Trump and the Republicans pack the Court(s) with as many conservative judges as possible in order to save our country from the evil clutches of the Far Left.
In all fairness, you don't seem to understand the issue.
None of the republican leadership have any honor.
Beg to differ with you. His point makes much more sense than the continued refighting of 2016. It's gone and past and many just haven't recognized that the future keeps coming and the past keeps going.
You apparently don't understand the issue either.
That's a dishonest framing of the situation. I didn't expect any different though.
John, we can't help it if you are unable to comprehend and understand reality. If Ginsburg passes away, I hope the Republicans (McConnell) would ram a conservative replacement through.
Do you hear me now? I can't explain it more clearly than that. All your little mini-put downs and dismissive insults show the weakness of your arguments and opinions.
So you are admiting that Republicans will lie and cheat (their own rules) to get conservatives put through. Are you confused enough to think I dont already know that?
Sugar, you need to get a hold of yourself. I can see that you are scared beyond common sense, but my goodness!
Talk about being removed from reality. He supports the worst president in current times and the democrats are the problem? This president is tearing the country apart with his divisive policies and his hate speech but yet the democrats are the problem?
"Elections have consequences", to quote Obama.
The Dems don't control the Senate. That is their issue; not the Republicans. If Ginsburg retires, or expires, before Trump is out of office; and the Republicans hold the Senate- then they will nominate and confirm a new Supreme Court Justice. The same thing the Democrats would do it they held the senate and it was a Democratic president nominee.
What you should really be asking yourself is how the Republicans will react the next time a Democrat president nominates a new Supreme Court Justice after Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh BS by the Democrats. It won't matter if Republicans have power in the Senate or not. If they so desire they can create allegations; drag the nominee's entire life through the mud; and find every Republican that remotely knew the nominee to defame them. Should be a real three ring circus.
nah, he is just destroying the progressives plans for our future while everyone else is having the time of their lives.
cheers
Sanctimonious today? Apparently only thoughts going your direction are proper? That's a great thing about people PJ - everyone has THEIR opinion which is just as valid as anyone else's opinion. Read what I wrote, think about it and then, if you wish, respond to it without your opinion and only use rationale, analytical thinking - not personal bias.
Thanks.
Please stop spouting nonsense on my article.
republicans have choices also;
History will never forget what this President and those who support him have done.
No, I'm tired and disappointed and still in shock how so many people who claim they are Americans can be so anti-American.
No, he's destroying America by pitting us against each other.
Something you seem to think weirdly is a good thing.
progressives (under obama) built that.
just remember how much fun the left had telling us the gop is dead while obama was in office.
payback is a bitch huh?
It would be one thing if McConnell was going to violate "Democrats" rules for the senate, but he is going to violate HIS OWN rule.
Obviously he has no honor and neither do those who approve.
From whose viewpoint John? Not everyone has the same frame of mind that you have and they see/understand differing points in the written word.
The Dems/Libs in Congress can not get over losing the 2016 election and they are doing all within their power to unseat, through hook'r'crook, a sitting President - simply because they LOST THE 2016 Presidential election.
Though Democrats would lack procedural weapons, they and their allies say they would still mount a challenge using whatever tools available, and their attention would focus intently on the nominee.
And you thought Kavenaugh was a nasty battle????
Hook'r'crook - that is the issue - get used to it.
Sorry it doesn't meet your mantra - and it's only nonsense to you - a single OPINION.
"We all know"??? Quite a generalization there John. Who is this "all" you're talking about?
It's called patriotism. Maybe you should try it?
I remember the gop and their supporters very upset that a negro got in the WH so you're right that under Obama the divide grew but it took solid root under Bush when he lied to Americans and ousted a CIA agent so his buddies at blackwater could make some money.
History has shown time and again how the republican party fucks everything up and the democrats have to come in and fix it.
The only thing I've seen that the republicans are better at is lying about what they're for and about what the democrats are for.
Could you explain, please, just what is "American" and "anti-American" about following the Constitutional rules?
U. S. Constitution - Article II -
Section 2
1: The President
2: He shall . . . nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:
Don't see anything here that sez the House is involved. Do you? It's just the Senate. So, you're saying that the Senate is "anti-American"?
so half the left is not interested in socialism?
interesting theory ya have there. I wish that was true.
btw: socialists do not get to be called patriots.
Obama was White - 'member???? His mother was a full-blooded, non-hyphenated White woman.
1st, an opinion that it is OK for McConnell to break HIS OWN rule from the last Supreme Court nomination , because Democrats oppose Trump, is NOT a valid opinion. It is stupidity.
In 2016 they ( the Republicans) went through a great deal to establish the precedent that a Supreme Court nomination should not occur in a presidential election year. And they were successful. That precedent is now in existence.
Can you answer me one question. Based on the information you posted would you say that what McConnell did to Obama was anti-american since it went against the Constitution?
If you're honest I think you'll be able to answer the question you posed to me.
Obama was not white.
In the United States people self-identify as to race, within reason. In other words, if Obama, or anyone else, says he is black based on a black parent, then he is black. Case closed. Only racists argue otherwise.
More and more mixed race people identify as mixed race, not black or white, and that is a good thing.
1st,
Hold on there. John is right. When Obama presented the moderate judge Garland, McConnell insisted that a judge could not be appointed during an election year, and the seat was put aside till after the election. Well, if something happens to judge Ginsberg, that rule should still apply.
Anything else is a double standard.
We were already pitted against each other. He's not doing it, he's just capitalizing on it.
So are Warren, Sanders, and AOC, BTW.
John - let's do "tit-for-tat", OK?
My statement - "everyone has THEIR opinion which is just as valid as anyone else's opinion."
Please show me, in the above statement, where I said "an opinion that it is OK for McConnell to break HIS OWN rule from the last Supreme Court nomination , because Democrats oppose Trump," was the OPINION that I had.
My opinion is that the past is gone and the future is coming - quit fighting over spilled milk and hurt feelings and start working TOGETHER for the future.
That was my "OPINION".
See how differently we think?
Hahahahaha - says the native american.
You should know that any drop of negro zeros out any other blood someone has in them. Just like native americans were treated differently even if they had mixed blood. Whites never accepted them.
I enjoyed your argument though.
Let's see if they listen to you. I of course agree with you, but the same argument is made in the article and throughout the thread and they simply ignore it.
Oh.....okay. The old 9 year old argument "but they did it too!".
Yes, let's not expect our President to rise above it and be a leader to ALL Americans.
And McConnell was/is wrong - according to the Constitution - that's my point - that I haven't made to John, but have to others on this thread.
Per the Constitution, it is the President's duty to appoint a Justice for the Supreme Court. There are/were no boundary lines drawn as to when that appointment was/is to be made. The Senate, somehow, sometime, decided to set the standards for the appointment - did they have that authority? Not according to the Constitution. The only "job" of the Senate, in this situation, is to "advise and consent" - not to set standards.
Are you serious????? Now who's being racist?
Ok, after McConnell says that he will NOT confirm a Supreme Court nomination in 2020 (should an opening exist) we will think about "together" , not before.
This article was about a specific topic, Ginsburgs health issues have led to speculation that there could be a Supreme Court opening in the election year.
The article is not about anything else, such as conservatives desire to pack the court, or about Democrats.
You obviously do not understand the issue. Having a white parent does not automatically make you white in this society. I have no idea where you get that idea, although I have seen it spouted by right wingers.
reminds me when obama said he could not change immigration laws by executive order
does daca ring any bells?
PJ - don't care if it's the House or the Senate - they can't change what the Constitution says regardless of how they feel. Even "tweaking" sections of the Constitution to fit the purpose they desire is not allowed - per the Constitution.
Yeah - and I argued against what Biden and McConnell did because it does/did not conform to the written guidance of the Constitution. Hell, even Tip O'Neill wouldn't have tried to pass such a "resolution" and he was a helluva lot stronger and more savvy than Biden and McConnell in the political jungle.
And I have not attempted to make it such.
1st,
How convenient to say that McConnell was wrong, now. Where were you when he did this with judge Garland?
Once something is established as rule of order, it should be applied equally.
Stop throwing in a red herring with executive orders. This issue has nada to do with executive orders.
I have to agree with you Jack. Hence why I am looking for someone who can unify this country as president and why I am not for impeachment.
trump did not promise to be a leader for progressives or socialists.
he promised to stand against them and their regressive ideology
so yeah, some are being ignored and will be left behind.
Well McConnell did it and no republicans rose up and demanded he not go against the Constitution. He should have been removed immediately but he was cheered and praised for doing it to give the republican party a win over the country and the constitution. I'm sick of you guys pretending you value the constitution when you turn your head while your side fucks america over.
McConnell breaks the rules but demands the democrats follow the rules. He is anti american and anyone who supports or stands with him stands against america.
If I said something like, you're a moron. That would be an example of a personal attack.
Answering your question and suggesting you unite with me is not a personal attack.
double standards are double standards no matter how or where they come from.
the left has just realized two can play the double standard game.
the left started this culture war... so, heads up, war is not fair.
Look, Trump has made more executive orders than Obama has for the same period of time. They still have nothing to do with what we are talking about.
And I am not talking about "Culture Wars either".
3/4 of americans are being ignored. When a President ignores the majority of americans it's no longer a democracy.
Let me just say that the democratic leadership have finally realized that the republican leadership and party will NEVER play by the rules.
The republican leadership are setting a precedence and by god the democrats are going to pick up the mantle when they are in power.
America is witnessing first hand how the middle east tribes and fighting ensued. We are watching it develop here in America thanks to this Administration.
Rest assured, whether I help someone or not will be determined by whether they support this President or not.
[deleted]
yepp... that is how ya undue previous executive orders.
fight fire with even more fire. tried and true.
I am.... but I always factor the bigger picture
The 9 year old argument is imagining that Americans and American politics are binary, that your "team" can do no wrong and bears no culpability in the current state of affairs.
You can expect whatever you like, but the fact is that almost never happens unless we're at war. Reagan is the closest we've had since WWII, unless you count GWB in the few weeks after 9-11.
Thanks for playing!
Cheers
my pleasure
We ARE at war. We are at war with each other!!! Don't you see that? It's far more dangerous than being at war with another country.
This is a bit of a ridiculous statement. Is there more to your assertion than emotion?
Personally, my integrity and character are not dependent upon other people's political views. But you make whatever decision you feel you can live with.
I have to agree with that PJ.
progressives started this war.... talk to them.
I find it funny how the left starts conflict and then once they lose they cry for civility.
makes me laugh every day
Oh please. Both extremes sides of the parties caused this. One knee jerk reaction after another. I am so tired of the blame game. We are suffering because of a minority of people from each party.
Be specific about what these "divisive policies and hate speech" are? Just because you do not like Trump does not mean his policies are divisive or he has hate speech. If you decide to divide yourself from the positives of what this country is going through, then that's on you.
Even the person who hates Trump like he has never hated anyone before, or will since, the seeder of this post, can only cite that he "lies" and that his name is not Hillary to slam the President.
Maybe you can do better?
Some are too shortsighted to see the bigger picture. They've been brainwashed that this is just another super bowl, it's just two team fighting and afterwards the slate is wiped clean.
This will have lasting affects to our country. We have become the hatfields and the mccoys and it's going to take a miracle to bridge the divide.
If you are not capable of seeing for yourself that some of his language is hateful and some of his policies are questionable then nothing I offer is going to make a difference.
It sounds like you are absolutely fine with everything this president has said and done.
In fact, we are not. That's melodrama.
You're talking about people's emotions. The thing about emotions is....the people having them are the only ones who can change them. They can decide to feel differently. They can decide to stop panicking about Trump or immigrants or Trump or rampaging socialists or Trump or bathrooms.
A president cannot change their "feelings". That's up to them.
When we start playing taps over flag draped coffins of kids killed in battles on US soil, that won't be silly.
Well they do say ignorance is bliss.
Wrong..
Liberals have decided to go the " we hate Trump" direction simply because he is not Hillary. You have no legitimate reason as to why you don't like him.
Many conservatives did not like Obama for his policies, but liberals decided to take the low road and continuously call us racist every time we criticized him.
Nothing Trump has done makes me want to hate another American, however, because liberals hate Trump, by default, they hate Trump supporters.
Your comments about Trump supporters prove my point.
I don't think we're actually suffering.
I think some people like to believe we're suffering. They're kinda like that teenager who thinks having a curfew is the same a being in a Gulag.
true.. so why is the left upset?
Patriotism is not hating those that simply support someone you don't like.
Wrong. Liberals are at war with the right simply because they don't like who they support.
No other reason...
Pretty selfish of you, and not very.....liberal.
Are you saying that if someone falls out on the street, you are going to ask them who they voted for, and if they say Trump, you are just going to walk away?
it started in the 60's but in 08 progressives went into overdrive.
today? I am a member of the bitter clinging, bible-thumping, deplorable cult who belongs in a basket... and loving every minute of it.
for the first time in my life I have hope for our countries long term survival as a sovereign nation.
trump did everyone a favor, under hillary this culture war would have gone hot. states would be leaving the union as we speak.
So you have nothing, just parroting what you are told to parrot.
Where did I say I am absolutely fine with everything he has said and done? I just don't go full blown whiny because of what he says or does.
I'm curious, what did the progressives do that started this war? I'm asking genuinely. Maybe I'm missing something that will help me look at this differently.
It's banding together against those who would side with putin over fellow americans.
I'll try and ascertain whether they are a trump supporter based on what they might be accessorizing with, e.g. racist MAGA hat, grab my pussy t-shirt, trump/pence bumper sticker, or if they're carrying a bible. If I can't make the determination then I'll casually ask.
No, I won't just walk away. I'll give them the finger first and then walk away.
Jack,
I have to disagree with you here. It might be because I am looking at the big picture and not this specific moment in time.
When Obama got elected we instantly had a backlash. The Tea Party was formed, and anything Obama did was bad. I didn't vote for the guy, but I was not blind to the fact, that right wing was going to fight him to the end on any policy good or bad. Even his citizenship was endlessly debated.
Then we got Trump, and things got even more ramped up. The tweeting didn't help the situation either. But really, how different is what the left is doing from what the right did? In fact, not at all.
And what bothers me, is that there are people within each party and loads of people who have become indies who agree with my perception.
Just look at this non-discussion going on in this article. I find it beyond annoying. People on both sides go right to their talking points and have no interest in listening to each other.
I guess your point is that is an exaggeration and I would have to agree that there is a lot of hyperbole going on, but I see it from both sides. And I know that John will be pissed at that, but it happened with Obama and it happened with Trump, instantaneously upon election.
Who did that, and show proof, real proof, not feelings, of your accusations?
BTW....American is ALWAYS spelled with a capital A. Your failure to continuously not abide by that shows your real feelings towards those that do not think like you.
Personally, I like it when Trump supporters openly explain themselves like this. We achieve clarity.
Of course you will...and you say conservatives are the loony ones?
Then how the hell can you support Trump? You call yourself a bible thumper? He was cheating husband, a liar, talks like a pig, and was and is a disgusting human being. He was that before he was elected and I know that as a fact, as a New Yorker.
How can you support him and be a Christian at the same time?
The difference is that Obama didn't side with Russia over his own intel communities, he didn't invite other countries to interfere in our elections, he didn't sympathize with racists, he didn't misuse appropriations to pad his pockets, he didn't call other americans enemy of the country and he didn't try to squelch freedom of speech.
There is a difference. Both sides are not the same.
Perrie - read 1.1.47 - hell, even Biden was wrong in '92 when he implemented the rule.
as the bs really started in the 60's that answer is wayyyyyy to big for a sunday chat.
but I will say this... starting n 08
when a president told us he was going to fundamentally change our country? said this was not a christian country or called us bitter clingers and bible thumpers that might have had something to do with it. could have been obamacare, could have been daca, might even have been trying to control speech they did not like with censorship. and when the left called us teabaggers, that might have played a part as well. then again, perhaps it was being called deplorable? or nazi's? or russian bots? god only knows, it was all the above and then some.
I gotta admit, describing us as a cult? that was new... LOL
now? trump is restoring our country and reversing 60yrs of progressive bs.
it is a big job. I wish him godspeed.
the lefts plan to destroy our culture and country from within did not have provisions for the right refusing to play along? the left didn't think it through.
1st, Biden might have been wrong, but it was done again, by McConnell, who cited Biden doing it. Now he's changing his mind? That is total hypocrisy.
You didn't answer my question. What exactly happened in the "60's" that you think started this war?
I was born in the mid 60s, so I don't have direct knowledge, however, my guess would be liberals spitting on our soldiers coming back from Vietnam.
I think that if many liberals of today thought they could get away with it, and not ceremoniously get their asses beat, they would continue the practice today.
That's your best guess?
bugsy.
I did. that is when the left started tearing at our culture.
here is a hint: ya don't remember The Weather Underground? go figure... LOL as a nation we forgot. but in 09 thru today = we started to remember again.
and as I stated that conversation would take way too long for a sunday chat. so I'm not going to even start.
don't worry, you will get over it
I'm probably far closer than you can imagine.
Nope - you were a baby. You have no idea. You're just guessing. Nice try
If they remain in power, they are free to set a new precedent.
The whole idea while in power is to use it to the fullest extent possible. .
Hahahahahahahaha -
I'm glad I could make ya laugh...
I seriously hope you also enjoy the next 5 yrs of trump as your president. ya have lots more laughs coming.
cheers
Based on the information you posted would you say that what McConnell did to Obama was anti-american since it went against the Constitution?
It never went beyond the Constitution. They can refuse to consider advising or consenting to any nominee. Look it up.
Well, bugsy I'm a dem/liberal and served two combat tours in Vietnam. My son is a dem and served combat tours as a US Marine in the ME (purple heart) and of course, my dad was Marine in WWII, silver star and purple with three oak leaf clusters and a dem.
You should have been at our house for Thanksgiving this year. You would have enjoyed meeting my bil and sil, 24 years Army Infantry (purple heart and Bronze Star with V device) and 20 years Army signal corp. Oh and Jerry our neighbor US Army (purple heart). And Kate another neighbor whose husband served 24 years Army (purple heart with oak leaf cluster).
Oh, and my bil and sil grandson called from Lackland AFB on Thanksgiving day and my great-grandson called from Australia he's SAS (Special Air Service - Australian Special forces) they too are liberals.
I'm sure that you're aware of the old saying about assumptions.
for every one liberal in the military, there are thousands of rightwingnuts
ya know what they say about math...
Didn't say they weren't/aren't. In my opinion though, the Constitution prohibits what they are doing.
You admire Trump and all his childish immature actions but you think I'm immature......lol
I'm not at all concerned about what a trump supporter thinks about me.
Exactly what I said. Thanks for agreeing with me
You make me laugh quite a bit.
I have no idea what the next election will bring. It definitely could be another term of Donald Trump. If that happens I think it will damage America for a very long time.
Yes, we agree you're just making shit up.
3/4? not a chance.. LOL 1/4th of the country spread out in 30 states could not have elected trump... too funny.
btw the usa is not a democracy. never was, never will be. and that would be why hillary winning the national popular vote means nothing.
your democracy is in your state govt.
cheers
Um, that's why I said it was a guess.
PJ asked a question, I responded by saying I was very young in the 60s, but my guess is...
That means it was an opinion. I didn't say unequivocally a fact.
That still does not take away that it was probably liberals that spit on our soldiers during Nam.
Well, that essentially is what a guess is.
Prove that.
nah, america will be just fine, better than ever. progressives? not so much.
I surely do. ''Figures lie and liars figure.
Which are you?
An opinion is a personal view about a fact, whereas an assumption is a belief without any or total proof.
BTW, thank you for your service bugsy.
Thank you. And the same for your family and friends.
Thanks, bugsy.
Personally, I saw a huge uptick in cross-party animosity develop during the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The 2010 election reinforces that development, IMO.
That was made worse by the constant accusations that anybody who thought the ACA was bad legislation must be a racist. It was made still worse by the accusations that anybody who doesn't have a problem with a co-pay for oral contraceptives is a misogynist engaged in a "war on women", or the accusations that anyone who recognizes "identifying" as a woman doesn't actually make you one is a homophobe.
In the past you have described how the fact that Trump is in the WH has emboldened the worst of his followers to come out from the rocks under which they usually hide. The same was true of the worst of Obama's supporters, who assaulted the character of anyone who didn't get completely on board with the far left agenda they mistakenly believed he would advance.
I believe social media is a major catalyst for the animosity uptick. Whackjob extremists used to be isolated. Social media enables them to connect with each other and delude themselves into thinking their ideas are actually normal.
As it turns out...maybe not so much.
The Tea Party was a whackadoodle bunch of extremists with almost zero influence...until the ACA was passed. Then, all of a sudden they became the group most capable of stopping any further damage. Huge numbers of politicians fail to realize that lots of the people who voted for them were really simply voting against the other guy, and mistakenly believe they have some sort of mandate that extends far beyond what it really does. The Tea Party certainly made that mistake.
Absolutely.
Twitter will be the end of American civilization.
I'm not saying it is. I simply said we aren't suffering. The economic figures are very clear on that.
People who cannot control their emotions and allow things other people say to influence those emotions are suffering. But they will always suffer, no matter who is in the WH or what else is happening. That's on them. They alone can solve that problem.
Listening to others requires intellectual effort. Most people are lazy.
My point is that sticks and stones can break their bones, but words can only hurt them if they agree to be hurt.
Yes, those words get thrown from both sides. Yes, John will be unhappy. But he's a perfect example of what we're talking about.
There is a substantial difference between independent and moderate. Independents do not abide by partisan positions and instead think for themselves. Moderates, as you apparently see them, simply look for common ground.
The obvious independent position is that the rule applies regardless of the party of the sitting PotUS. Also, I suspect McConnell would break the rule using a weak excuse such as Trump is an incumbent whereas Obama was term limited or equivalent.
That's a big "if" since RBG seems to keep rolling along. However if an opening comes up and this President gets to fill it, courtesy of the Senate Leader, progressives will finally get to find out what a double standard feels like. It will be good for them.
well, not really. What it is, is politics.
Except McConnell has already publicly stated that he would fill the seat.
Already asked and answered. Why is the NYT acting like there is any doubt?
So where were you when the Crypt Keeper Harry Reid violated his own rule and changed how the Senate approves judges? Don't remember any of the Dems having a problem with going nuclear. In fact they flat out blamed the Republicans for it and were applauded. Of course they screamed murder when McConnell refused to change the rules back once the Republicans took power, and Trump won the Presidency.
To repeat Obama's words of wisdom, "elections have consequences".
Want to make the rules in the Senate? Want to nominate judges? Then win some elections. Until then, to paraphrase Obama, "Democrats can ride with us if they want; but they have to sit in the back seat". (And the left is shocked when anyone calls Obama divisive.) With the way they are acting I would suggest baby car seat facing away from the front. Wouldn't want to scare them when they see what is coming.
This false sense of outrage from the left is quite amusing. Don't worry, chances are the Dems will retake the Senate (If they don't screw the pooch with the impeachment. Not looking good for them now).. Then it will be Republican's turn to be outraged again.
There is, however, substantial overlap between the two groups.
For different reasons though than what I suspect you are thinking.
Note first that there are R independents and D independents. An independent (as I was using the term) is not a political affiliation — it is a philosophy of reasoning. One can be a registered R, D, Green, etc. (and of course I) and think independent of the party line (not simply accept party positions as best).
Moderates (again, as I see them defined) follow the flawed philosophy that the best solution is always somewhere in the middle. That if one finds compromise between R and D the compromise will necessarily be a good thing. That seems silly to me and thus I tend to see the label 'moderate' as an insult. 'Independent', in contrast, correlates with objective reasoning / critical thinking.
I disagree with your definition, which seems to me to be almost oxymoronic.
To describe a "moderate" using words like "always" and "necessarily" seems a little strange. The person you describe would simply be a pacifist, not a moderate.
A moderate is simply a person who tends to reject extreme views for the folly that they are, without regard to the opinions of the lunatic fringe one way or the other.
Clearly it is not oxymoronic since you have noted that it equates with pacifist (which almost works for me). To me, as I noted, the moderate holds that there is truth in both sides of a debate and that the real truth is somewhere in the middle.
By that definition, most people are moderates. I think your scope is too broad.
I like that better.
I think most people are moderates. I think most intelligent people are certainly moderates.
The vast majority of Americans are smart enough to realize that the best alternative to running off one side of the road is not actually to run off the other side.
Well my hope is that most Americans will be critical thinkers.
So?
The Democrats would do the exact same damn thing if it was a Democratic President, and they controlled the Senate.
Please stop pretending they wouldn't.
they would do exactly that in a heartbeat.
Totally concur that we should have term limits on the SCOTUS justices - and, we should also have them for our Congressional folks.
Get the old blood out and the new blood and ideas in. We're growing stagnant with the same arguments over and over and over and over.
Your comment is not related to the topic of the article.
the country is not growing stagnant. progressives are.
our republic was designed to be a pain in the ass like that. see: long term stability.
if every generation got to change the legal fabric of our nation it would become a shit-hole almost overnight.
how can trump make an appointment?
I thought trump was going to be removed from office any day now.
c'est la vie
Another comment divorced from the points made in the article and the first comment.
divorced from the point? LOL
ya say trump will be removed any day now. and yet ya say trump could appoint a new justice to the bench next year? how is that even possible? (rhetorical)
I guess there is nothing to this impeachment thing after all. my bad yo.
cheers
You can't refute what we are saying. Quit trying to hide behind the "not on topic" excuse because what you state doesn't inspire echo chamber participation.
Please, no senseless babbling on my articles.
Yep it's probably going to happen and conservatives will rejoice. Just one more reason I'm glad Trump won.
So, to be clear, you agree that McConnell should simply ignore the precedent he himself set for these things just 3 1/2 years ago?
Why was it ok for the voters to have a say in 2016 but not in 2020?
If it happens ( an opening on the Supreme Court) in 2020 it will be the exact same circumstance as 2016 and garland. (McConnells assertion that it is different because the president is a Republican now is nonsensical)
It was a gamble by McConnell that turned out to be a brilliant strategic move. Many Dems said it would cost the Republicans at the polls but it helped result in their strongest position in seventy years.
to be clear...
when we said we will be taking our country back from progressives.
we never said we would ask their permission.
the left has changed enough rules... now it is our turn.
that said... relax. odds are ginsburg will probably last another year.
So you approve of the Senate Majority leader being a bald faced liar ABOUT senate procedure. (which is not a political matter).
No he should just use the Obama move and say his views have evolved.
yepp
I have to say, I usually have low expectations for the Trumpers on this site, but they are exceeding ( going lower) my expectations on this article !
The responses from conservatives on this seed are a good example of why we are at "war" with these people and must realize there is no hope of being 'reasonable' with them.
Virtually every right winger who has replied to this seed has openly proclaimed that they see nothing wrong with McConnell doing a 180 on how Merrick Garland was treated and putting through a Trump appointee in direct opposition to what was done in 2016.
You can't "reason" with such people, you have to beat them.
I wonder when our moderates and independents will realize this.
You can't "reason" with such people, you have to beat them.
Even the moderates and independents don't agree with your views and won't help the Dems come election time.
You simply can't beat "us" because the good people of this country reject what the left is currently offering.
I think they mean the Biden Rule. Welcome to D.C.
You dont understand the "Biden rule". The "Biden rule", if it exists, would argue against a Supreme Court nomination in 2020.
I'm not following you as to what you think I'm missing. Can you expand and clarify your remarks?
Who was up for nomination when this, "Biden Rule" was used?
No one.
What’s in a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?
Peanut Butter and Jelly (and bread of course).
No one has any "honor" on this position. The last two times Democrats controlled the Senate with a Republican President in an election year, the Democratic leadership publicly announced Democrats wouldn't confirm a Republican Supreme Court candidate during an election year.
But Democrats were more than willing to ignore their stated "rule" and confirm Merrick Garland in 2016. It's all about votes. The same people allegedly so concerned with "honor and "honesty" were more than happy to see Democrats go ahead and confirm a nominee despite their recent promises to block nominees in an election year.
Let's say Republicans honor the Biden rule in 2020 and Trump loses.
What person believes the democrats would leave a seat (say Clarence Thomas) in 2024 open if they control the Presidency and the Senate?
Any party will confirm a Justice if they can. To believe otherwise is to be a gullible fool.
Sean, at least you addressed the topic.
MITCH MC CONNELL is the very person who declared that the American voter should have their say in an election year. That was HIS rationale. This particular situation isnt about the Democrats, it is about him possibly opposing his own on the record position on approving SC justices in presidential election years. According to news accounts, his rationale will be that the president is now of the same party as the Senate, so 2020 would be a different situation than 2016.
But his stated reason in 2016 was that the VOTER should decide who they want to nominate the next SC justice. It had nothing to do with what party the senate or president were. He says that now because it is his only way out.
Of course it is. The rationale is as much Biden and Schumer's as it is McConnell's. I take them at their word that they would have killed any nominee either Bush had nominated in similar circumstances. The difference is the media doesn't hold Democrats to their previous positions or even acknowledge they exist , but they hold Republicans to a different standard.
It's all about the politics of the moment. If there are 50 Republicans who want to confirm, they will. If there's not, they won't. Joe Biden isn't going to follow the Biden rule in 2024, nor would any any Democrat whenever chance may have them controlling the Presidency and the Senate. Just imagine what Democrats would do if they did.
No majority party is going to refuse to confirm a Supreme Court nominee given the chance, in part because they know that's how the other party would act and that the political price of not confirming is worse than voting to confirm.
The article is speculation, so let's speculate.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday vowed to be the "Grim Reaper" for progressive policies if Republicans hold on to the Senate in 2020.
Now, while he says "if" Republicans hold on to 2020, I fully expect he would do all he can to insure that will happen. And if it looks like they may not hold the Senate, I fully expect he would ignore his own "rule" and force someone through.
If this situation arises, i.e. Ginsburg is gone during the next year, Trump should fool the Democrats and nominate a brilliant liberal jurist who votes Democrat to the SCOTUS - Dershowitz.
Excellent choice!
Exhuming Roland Freisler would be the best Trumpian choice.
I would never be so foolish as to count Ms. Ginsburg out any time soon as so many seem to be anxious to do. It is a bigger bet that she will see both the Turtle Man and Trump out the door before she does.
She was just recently released from the hospital again. She’s had four battles with cancer including lung and pancreatic cancer.
So? Are you her physician? Do you know her overall health? Or are you pretending to be the Grim Reaper?
What she has gone through does not mean she is already in the grave.
However, continue to keep your morbid outlook. Iam sure that Ms Ginsburg does not let it bother her in the least.
The answer to all of those ridiculous questions is no. I’m simply reporting the facts.