Senator Schumer proclaims (transcript).
October 22, 2020
"The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is the most illegitimate process I have ever witnessed in the Senate and her potential confirmation will have dire, dire consequences..."
"... for the Senate, for the Supreme Court and our entire country for generations to come.... Democrats will not lend a single ounce of legitimacy to this sham vote in the Judiciary Committee. Democrats will not lend a single ounce of legitimacy to this awful, awful hearing. We are voting with our feet, we are standing together and we are standing against this unprecedented mad rush to jam through a Supreme Court nomination just days, days before an election."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
111 comments:
This guy does know a lot about illegitimate senate processes.
Schumer is a smart politician who knows how to sling the bull. Just be careful you don't wade in without your boots on.
Blow it out your ditty bag, Cryin’ Chuck.
This reminds when the Republicans didn't add any input to Obamacare; except then, the Democrats actually locked them out of the committee rather than Republicans boycotting it.
"The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is the most illegitimate process I have ever witnessed in the Senate
Sure.
Pelosi's "you have to pass the healthcare bill to find out what's in it" gambit just doesn't measure up.
...we are standing together and we are standing against...
Sounds more like you're all stomping your feet, Chuck.
Dire dire; awful awful; voting feet and mad rush; standing standing; days days
Such a mishmash. Are you standing or moving, Chuck? Sometimes it seems you don't know the difference. We just know these are dire dire awful awful days days.
This is performative theatre. They want to vote against ACB, but her popularity makes that radioactive. Progressives are not going to tolerate the Senate just rolling over for Mitch McConnell.
It's going to be bad, but particularly for Schumer and Feinstein. It'll just feed the anti-Semitic tendencies of the modern Democrats.
Good.
After he and Reid rammed through Obamacare on a parliamentary maneuver he has no right to complain.
I'm not a constitutional scholar. What was unconstitutional or illegitimate about a president nominating a judge and the Senate advising and consenting to it?
I wonder if Ginsburg had an epiphany, a change of heart and mind. That said, Judge soon to be Justice Barret is eminently qualified. Schumer is stuck wading in the muck of the overflow of Water Closet. He chose poorly.
There’s yer banality of evil right there.
As if the Dems would have done otherwise if the shoe were on the other foot..
Isn't this Schumer creature the same filthy piece of human shit that stood in front of the Supreme Court building and openly threatened the justices?
This is the bat-signal for Democrat Senators to imitate Texas and Wisconsin Democrat state legislators in the 1990s and early 2000s and flee their jurisdiction (DC, in this case) to deny the Senate a quorum on Barrett’s confirmation vote. I suggested to friends a few weeks ago that the Dems were both crazed enough and irresponsible enough to try this and it is starting to look like I may have been right. Unfortunately.
He must have not been there (or closed his eyes) for the impeachment trial.
That's a super-duper-ultra-fancy way of saying Karma's a bitch for annihilating the nuclear option in 2013.
Karma. Is. A. Bitch.
The dnc/media will not push back even a bit.
Words do have definitions, and Schumer's(Democrat's)deffinitions are exactly opposite of the words they are using. Well within the Article II and III powers as defined in the constitution. Also well within traditions of the United States Government over the last? 150years?
Strange that while claiming this is beyond the pale somehow, by following past traditions, Democrats promise to violate all traditions when they gain enough power to make it happen.
How dare the President nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court, and how dare the Senate act on confirming that candidate? It takes a certain level of hubris to call something illegitimate that is specifically laid out in the Constitution. Before the left get all weepy and bring up Merrick Garland, the Constitution laid out a two actor process for filling supreme court vacancies. The President nominates, and the Senate has the power to advise and consent. In that case as I believe stated by Mitch McConnel their advice was, "Don't bother nominating anyone, because we aren't confirming them." If the left really wanted to get someone confirmed at that point they should have made it possible choice the right might have decided was a good bet for them. Instead of Merrick Garland, nominate someone who was like Kennedy. Someone who is a legitimate swing vote. Going from Scalia to another Kennedy would have been a swing in the favor of the Left, and it would have been something the right might have thought, this is the best we can hope for now, so why don't we confirm them and not take the risk of us having to win the presidential election and retrain the senate to truly get who we want.
Says the guy who caused the bank run and subsequent failure of largest bank to collapse in our history. Fuck Chuck.
Ethics bullshit.
PFFFT! This is the Chucky Schumer Show.
This nomination has been 'by the book'
What's next? Throwing toys from his pram?
Schumer voted to end the filibuster for nominations of judges below the Supreme Court.
Later, Schumer voted to filibuster the nomination of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
As a consequence of those two votes, the Senate has eliminated filibusters for Supreme Court judges.
When Joe Biden becomes the US President, he will restore normalcy and civility to our country's politics.
Suck it up, Chuckie. Y'all lost this one.
Thank heaven Schumer isn't fomenting hatred, distrust, and division in the nation!
I don't see how the Schumer wins by delegitimizing the judiciary, unless it's all a play for Roberts. If the courts truly become seen
as an illegitimate institution, then presidents and governors will be free to tell them to pound sand when they tell them what to do. I don't see a lot of history of the courts telling the left it can't do what it wants. Usually it's the courts telling the right what to do, especially the social right for things like abortion and gays.
Democrats will not lend a single ounce of legitimacy to this awful, awful hearing.
Since Dems don't have any legitimacy I'm reminded of the kindergartner who stomps home from the playground.
By this standard, would Schumer agree that the Obamacare is equally illegitimate?
He and Feinstein might need to get on the same page.
The only thing I have seen that is illegitimate about the process is the Democratic Senators making posturing political speeches rather than actually questioning the nominee as they are supposed to be doing. The vacancy occurred, a nomination was made, and the Senate Judiciary has forwarded the nomination to the full Senate, all in accordance with the US Constitution.
Right. The nomination was a sham, and therefore you are going to protest by replacing all the Democrats on the committee with cardboard cutouts.
FWIW, the amount of time it took to confirm RBG, 27 years ago, was almost exactly what it is going to take to confirm ACB today. But what evs.
Like they wouldn't have done the same thing if the roles were reversed.
More Projection - the Bork and Kavanaugh hearings with all their lies represented even greater illegitimate process that had dire consequences. What exactly is illegitimate about the ABC nomination and what is the resulting dire consequence ?
The only consequence will be that if a future president has a Court opening while having control of the Senate, they will push the nomination through and shouldn't get any flack from the opposing party and media. Would Schumer sign an oath that a Democrat President and Senate would not do that ? Of course not - if he had been in the majority the last year of Obama - he would have pushed it through.
Fuck Chuck.
"this awful, awful hearing"
ACB was poised, clear, responsive, and professional.
She acted like the top law student, professor, and judge she is.
That is "awful" only to prog hacks who measure qualifications by political results.
Still abstaining, Althouse?
Anyone know how to say "FUCKWAD" in yiddish?
Weeks before an election, 3 months remaining in the President's term, and without any reason to oppose her...
The whipping mob of democrats has now institutionalized that they will alter the institution and rules if they don't get their way. That that's the acceptable way to operate, even with slim majorities.
THAT is the dire consequences. That the duopoly of power is no longer about building moderate consensus to govern, but instead about wielding ~51% majorities to make major changes to the STRUCTURE of government. In this case, Republicans are literally following the existing structures of government.
unpersuasive and unpleasant rhetoric
It's like Schumer is channeling the LLR-leftists/marxists at The Bulwark or The Dispatch.
Ah! The good memories of following a link to Althouse during the Democrats scurrying away like rats during the the Walker admin. Thanks for the reminder, Chuckie.
A life changing experience.
The dems did not attend the meeting because their vile diarrhea from the mouth would be countered by pleasantries and accolades from Republican participants.
They chose, like toothless meth addicts on Market Street, to scream maskless inanities and wildly gesticulate at innocent passerby out doors.
A day that will live in infamy!
Illegitimate process? It followed the Constitution to the letter. What is illegitimate is demanding they wait till an election is held. Nothing in the Constitution said to do that.
"Politics ain't beanbag"
When a Democrat said that, it was clever and insightful. Perhaps it will be the rallying cry as the Party extracts its revenge on the country and the people.
Now we know why Schumer took DiFi to the woodshed for being "collegial" with Lindsey Graham after the ACB hearings.
In his defense, Schumer is a lying fetid POS.
So.
There's that.
Of course, Sen. Schumer, if the shoe were on a Democratic foot you'd jump for joy. Just another worthless propoganda speech by a crooked politician!
Call me a nihilist, but I would welcome Democrat court-packing. nothing would delegitimize centralized government quicker.
Dj'ever notice that Guy Schumer just never has anything nice to say? Must really suck to be him.
There's a longstanding joke that the most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a camera.
Possibly also a microphone.
The day Mitch McConnell (the true hero of the "Trump era") announced they were going forward with the confirmation process, I was able to sleep well that night and every night thereafter.
Chuckie can call it illegitimate as much as he wants (and 35% of the population will believe it for the rest of their lives) but Chuckie - payback's a bitch and this is payback for Judge Bork, Miguel Estrada, Clarence Thomas. And each step of the way, the Dems dug their own grave by changing the rules, eliminating the filibuster, turning hearings into inquisitions.
F**k you Chuckie. F**k you to hell and back.
Do you ever wonder if there are any Democrat federal electeds to admire and feel good about? I can’t think of any. Maybe Tulsi, but I think she voted with the schlubs to impeach Trump.
They are despicable crybabies!
Do you ever wonder if there are any Democrat federal electeds to admire and feel good about? I can’t think of any. Maybe Tulsi, but I think she voted with the schlubs to impeach Trump.
They are despicable crybabies!
Supposedly, Schumer's proclamation is "red meat" for the Democrat base, but it's really more like a hallucinogen.
If the courts truly become seen as an illegitimate institution, then presidents and governors will be free to tell them to pound sand when they tell them what to do. I don't see a lot of history of the courts telling the left it can't do what it wants. Usually it's the courts telling the right what to do, especially the social right for things like abortion and gays.
Yep. The silliest bit of, for example, the court-packing plans is that it's the surest way to make toothless all the precedents that the left is worried about preserving.
Just imagine the scenario if:
1) Republicans, by and large, have decided the Supreme Court is illegitimate.
2) A Republican has become President, but the House is blocking any counter-packing.
3) The people of Alabama have elected a state Supreme Court that rules that Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell, and, oh, every ruling limiting the death penalty, "ignored the Constitution of the United States and accordingly fell outside the judicial power, and accordingly are null and void."
Who's going to enforce those rulings in Alabama? The packed SC can declare "Our rulings are too binding!" all they damn well please; if the President (again, a Republican nominated by a Republican Party that believes the SC is illegitimate) doesn't send in the armed forces to uphold them, nothing stops Alabama from ignoring 'em.
What's the Democratic response? "Oh, joy, with the Supreme Court delegitimized, we can force government employees to pay union dues!"?
There is no good reason the confirmation has to go through before November 3. There is plenty of time between then and the end of the Congress to hold a vote. But the Republicans fear the politics of holding a vote on Trump's nominee if he loses. So instead they keep endangered incumbents in DC and off the campaign trail. We'll see what happens.
There is no good reason the confirmation has to go through before November 3. There is plenty of time between then and the end of the Congress to hold a vote. But the Republicans fear the politics of holding a vote on Trump's nominee if he loses. So instead they keep endangered incumbents in DC and off the campaign trail. We'll see what happens.
Republicans supported RBG nearly unanimously when she was confirmed, back when there was that kind of charity and cooperation. But no more. Trump has accelerated the decline, but he is also simply a response to the ugliness Democrats have shown to Republicans (and their SC nominees) for decades.
Everything goes to 11, if you're a democrat; and the resources you'll involve are as unlimited.
Women like it, though.
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said..
I would welcome Democrat court-packing. nothing would delegitimize centralized government quicker.
Why would that be a good exchange? Government is further delegitimized every year. Obamacare passed via "Reconciliation", a legislative maneuver only available for budget bills. It's completely illegitimate but it effects everything about our healthcare anyway.
Sure court packing would show a large number of people our government is controlled by a tiny fraction of unaccountable people. But those people would then be able to control more of our lives. Knowledge does not translate to ending the facts.
Also perfectly constitutional to increase the size of the Court, which started at 6 (so 2 thirds majority required for decisions), was supposed to go down to 5, went as high as 10 in the Civil War, and is now at 9. The increased number of justices generally followed the increase in the number of circuits. (Justices get assigned to circuits.) Currently, there are 12 circuits (2 in DC), and the 9th is long overdue a split. So a modest increase makes perfect sense. I'd favor going to 11, leaving the GOP majority (50 years!) at 6-5, but I can see splitting the Ninth Circuit and going to 13. Alternatively, a couple of patriotic retirements by Alito and Thomas would be welcomed.
I thought Chuckie always claimed to have made 1600 on the SAT. He doesn't seem to know much. I guess he never studied John Marshall's nomination to Chief Justice by John Adams. Or Eisenhower nominating Brennan in 1956 in mid-Oct just before the election using a recess appointment. Or Wilson having to replace Charles Evans Hughes in 1916 before the election because Hughes had gotten the GOP nomination to run for the Presidency against him. Lots of interesting SCOTUS nomination stories in our history. But ACB's will not be one of them.
"The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is the most illegitimate process I have ever witnessed in the Senate and her potential confirmation will have dire, dire consequences..."
"... for the Senate, for the Supreme Court and our entire country for generations to come...."
Hmm. Should I file this under H next to hyperbole or hysteria? Maybe, Horseshit.
Let's break this down for Chuck.
1. An 87-year old Supreme Court Justice died -- thereby ending her life tenure under Art 3.
2. The duly elected President nominated a Justice to fill the open seat under Art 2.
3. The duly constituted Senate is currently exercising its "advise and consent" power under Art 1? Hmm, maybe it's a penumbra of Art. 2, too.
4. The first Senatorial hurdle - the majority vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee -- has been met.
5. The second Senatorial hurdle -- the majority vote in the full Senate -- is set for 10.26. Maybe she will be voted up, or maybe down - let's see.
So, some say Constitutional procedures, and some say sham proceeding.
Some are smart and logically-minded, and some are irritating doofuses.
Res Ipsa, Baby!
Even if DJT loses re-election (which he won't), the greatest thing he did (and cannot be changed by a new administration) is the nomination of ACB.
The awfulness of the Democrats has never been more starkly transparent. I have run out of adjectives to describe what despicable horrible people these animals really are.
He should probably look up the meaning of unprecedented
This is quite precedented. Multi precedents
Nuttin.
said...
Isn't this Schumer creature the same filthy piece of human shit that stood in front of the Supreme Court building and openly threatened the justices?
Yup.
To be fair on the subject of shoes and feet, when the whole Garland controversy was in progress, Cocaine Mitch and his friends did not simply say, “We have the power, and we mean to use it.” They pretended to be acting on principles involving respect for democracy and an approaching Presidential election. Yes, the circumstances were different because the incumbent President and the Senate majority were from opposing parties then, but that’s a “we have the power” argument. The appeals to principle then were as much a sham as the the Dems’ appeals now. There has been nothing the least bit illegitimate about ACB’s nomination or confirmation, but the Republicans have brought all this ridiculous rhetoric upon themselves.
Cryin' Chuck Schumer.
Trump has a way with nicknames.
In 2010, Republicans succeeded in getting a Republican elected to replace the Democrat of Democrats, Ted Kennedy, as Senator for Massachusetts. The sole, galvanizing purpose for his election was to ensure that Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate for the vote on the Affordable Care Act.
In December 2009, the Senate, on a straight party-line vote, had passed a version of the ACA, and sent it back to the House with amendments. It was expected that the House would not fully accept the amendments, and thus there would be a conference committee to work out the differences, and then a final vote in each chamber of Congress on the bill. When Brown won in Jan. 2010, the Democrats knew that the Republicans could filibuster the bill when it came back to the Senate in that fashion.
So the Democrats switched gears and had the House simply concur in the Senate bill exactly as it had been passed by the Senate, with a handshake deal to make the House's desired amendments later. All because they KNEW that the election in Massachusetts meant that the ACA would not be able to pass the Senate a second time.
So spare me Schumer's lamenting the lack of respect for elections. It's absurd on its face.
And that's not even to bring up large swatches of the American people BEGGING that there be a delay in the initial Senate vote on the ACA to give us time to actually read the bill. Remember how "it's important that we vote on the bill so we can see what's in it?"
Mendacity!
The biggest piece of shit in the Senate complains about the smell.
Chief Justice Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court on March 4,1801 on John Adams last day in office. Schumer does not know history.
Court packing will lose the dems the house in the mid-terms. Illegitimate? She was immaculately conceptualized.
In his defense, Schumer is a lying fetid POS.
So.
There's that.
10/22/20, 1:57 PM
Lurve, lurve, LURVE the application of fetid here!
Ah widdle Chuck You Schumer is having a tantrum. Guess I better pay attention. Nah, I think I'll go read something riveting--like the instructions on a box of Cracker Jacks.
And if Schumer had any sense of history he'd know that President Adams nominated John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after voting had started and all the electors of the Electoral College had been selected. Marshall was seated on the Supreme Court just a couple of weeks before Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated. This was in the contest of a bitterly contested election between Adams and Jefferson.
Ah widdle Chuck You Schumer is having a tantrum. Guess I better pay attention. Nah, I think I'll go read something riveting--like the instructions on a box of Cracker Jacks.
And if Schumer had any sense of history he'd know that President Adams nominated John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after voting had started and all the electors of the Electoral College had been selected. Marshall was seated on the Supreme Court just a couple of weeks before Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated. This was in the contest of a bitterly contested election between Adams and Jefferson.
"Blah, blah, blah"
Translated, "We lost the 2016 election and with it the power of a president to nominate and the power of the Senate to advise and consent, and we're unhappy with these chain of events"
And to which all Trump's people said, "Tight sneakers, pal"
Leland said... This reminds when the Republicans didn't add any input to Obamacare; except then, the Democrats actually locked them out of the committee rather than Republicans boycotting it.
Big Mike added... After he and Reid rammed through Obamacare on a parliamentary maneuver he has no right to complain.
Both correct. Let's also remember that the Dems rammed Obamacare through on a parliamentary maneuver after Scott Brown from Massachusetts had been elected to fill Ted Kennedy's seat but before he could be seated. The Senate passed their ACA bill while a democrat appointed by the Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, occupied the seat but just weeks before the special election to fill it. Scott Brown ran in no small part on a pledge to vote against Obamacare, and won (as a Republican in Massachusetts!) 52%-47% over challenger Martha Coakley (D). When the House Dems wanted to make changes to suit their particular needs and desires, they realized that they could not alter the bill or it would go back to the Senate for a new vote, which (with Brown in place) they would lose. So instead they voted on these changes as a separate bill, which the Senate rammed through as a "reconciliation" that did not require a Senatorial vote - they effectively denied Brown, and Massachusetts, from having its fair say.
Judicial Committee Democrats boycotted the vote and instead went home to watch each other masturbate on Zoom.
Summary of Obama administration in two words: "I won."
Trump won, too. Elections have consequences.
YOU FILIBUSTERED A DOG CATCHER!!
Let me get this straight. Even though a U.S. President's term of office is 48 months, they are supposed to not do anything of consequence during the last 4 months? Ok. Then, if we apply that to Senators, they should recuse themselves from all consequential Senate business the last 5 months of their terms (i.e., paralleling the new 1/12 "legitimacy rule"?).
I can assure you that when Schumer is not in front of the cameras, he thinks what he just said is nonsense.
The problem is I doubt he will consider himself restrained at this point to not do nonsense.
No love from me for Uncle Mitch, but at least he doesn't overdramatize everything.
I do not and will not read The Bulwark. What have they written about ACB and her nomination?
Elections have consequences.
When you hear the patter of voting feet its the donky faced army in full retreat, they're a moving on. Moving on.
They're burning gas, calling Trump an ass, they're moving on.
Schumer is not wise enough to know that dumping on ACB will re-elect Trump. It's after the convention, man, move right for the independents.
Chuck has won over Althouse before, maybe this is what that tribe covets in their representatives*? The more blatant the lies, the more opposite truth, the higher the rush?
Althouse certainly liked Balls Deep Ford and the anti-decency, murder** Brett Kavanaugh narrative more than anything-other-than tribalism (blonde) accounts (or could ever account?) for.
*Senate Leader has national implications not just state-wide.
**Character murder
The problem with having a history of bullsh!t is that no one takes you seriously. Schumer should have saved it for special occasions.
Tough titty, Chuck U.
I noted this hyperventilating garbage from Chuck Schumer is posted by Althouse without comment.
Well, if Chucky says it’s illegitimate, it’s either really, really, really bad, or is promoted by Republicans.
And apparently the committee vote was UNANIMOUS in support of ACB.
I missed that WaPo headline.
Chuck knows all about maneuvers like this.
There's a longstanding joke that the most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a camera.
A reputation he inherited when Maverick McCain croaked.
Possibly also a microphone
Howard: "Court packing will lose the dems the house in the mid-terms."
No, it won't.
Because if the democraticals and their house broken LLR-lefty lap poodles win the House, Senate and White House, the first thing they will do is dump the legislative filibuster in the Senate, then move immediately to legalize the 20 Million+ illegal aliens already present within the US, make ballot harvesting legal across the nation and move to immediate vote by mail on a nationwide basis. That will be followed by making Puerto Rico and DC and probably Guam as well states, giving them 6 more Senate seats.
They will throw open the borders and create a rapid process of citizenship for anyone that can get to our shores so that by 2022, there will be zero chance of any significant republican victories again in our lifetime, if ever.
And it will be after those actions that the Democraticals will feel quite secure in their position as they move to pack the circuit courts as well as the SC.
The American Republic experiment will be over at that moment and in the not too distant future the democraticals and LLR-lefties will get their dream come true opportunity: A constitutional convention to rewrite everything.
It's tantalizing close for Team Dem, isn't it LLR-lefty Chuck? You can almost taste it....
readering: "There is no good reason the confirmation has to go through before November 3."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
There is no good reason why the confirmation should wait until after the election. None.
Which is why Noted And Interestingly Ahistorical Ignoramus readering failed to produce any.
Not even the craziest Democrat wacko actually believes this.
Alice's queen believed only 6 impossible things before breakfast. She simply didn't have what it takes to be a modern Democrat.
When Trump wins reelection and gets to appoint oh....I'll go with 2 more Justices...at least...Cryin' Chuck will turn into Pissin' Chuck.
"The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is the most illegitimate process I have ever witnessed in the Senate"
The most illegitimate process that happened in the Senate in Schumer's entire life was the filibustering of Miguel Estrada for teh crime of being Hispanic
Said filibustering led by Chuck Schumer
So he can FOAD
Charlie Eklund said...
This is the bat-signal for Democrat Senators to imitate Texas and Wisconsin Democrat state legislators in the 1990s and early 2000s and flee their jurisdiction (DC, in this case) to deny the Senate a quorum on Barrett’s confirmation vote.
They can't.
Or, rather:
1: You need someone to be there to request a "quorum call", otherwise a quorum is assumed
2: A quorum requires fewer Senators than the GOP has
3: I don't think Manchin could get away with doing that
4: It would be really awesome for ACB to be confirmed by voice vote, which they can do if the Dems all leave
readering said...
There is no good reason the confirmation has to go through before November 3.
Sure there is:
1: The Democrats are using the Courts to try to steal this election. Giving one more honest vote to stop them could be critical
2: Confirming before can election has a lot more moral legitimacy than confirming after, if you've lost. Constitutionally, they could still do it, but it would be a big slap in the face to voters
3: Confirming before the election gives GOP voters more reason to support Trump, the GOP Senate, and the GOP House, since it takes GOP control over one or more of those to block Dem attempts to Pack the Court
So, it sucks for you Democrats, but that's a benefit. For America and for republicans, it's a win - win
PJ said...
To be fair on the subject of shoes and feet, when the whole Garland controversy was in progress, Cocaine Mitch and his friends did not simply say, “We have the power, and we mean to use it.” They pretended to be acting on principles involving respect for democracy and an approaching Presidential election.
Ah, PJ, allow me to point out some history you seem to have forgotten:
1: 2012: US Voters re-elect Obama as President, and give him a Dem Senate
2: 2014: US Voters give GOP control of the Senate, so they can block Obama appointments
3: 2016: Scalia dies. Garland nominated by Obama. GOP Senate does what the voters sent them to do, and blocks Obama's nominee
4: 2016: US Voters elect Trump as President, and give him a GOP Senate
5: 2018: After watching the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, US Voters give GOP a bigger majority in the US Senate, to make it easier for Trump's nominees to be confirmed
6: 2020: RGB dies. ACB nominated by Trump. GOP Senate does what the voters sent them to do, and confirms Trump's nominee
Now, what part of that do you not understand? The part where "what the voters do" matters?
So, here's a thought:
I think the filibuster for nominations would have died in 2017, anyway.
Even if teh Democrats had not nuked the filibuster in 2013, I think they would have filibustered Gorsuch in 2017. I don't believe their base would have given them any choice on that.
And a newly elected GOP Senate majority, dealing with the SC nomination by a newly elected GOP President who mainly won because of the promises he made on the SC nomination, promises that he actually kept, could NOT have allowed the Democrats to block it.
It might have been 50 - 50 with Pence breaking the tie, rather than 52-48, but the filibuster would have been nuked anyway.
As it was, the GOP just got to laugh at the Dems, and point out how it was all their fault
I agree with readering.
The court should move to 13 justices.
And the president who is sworn in on January 20, 2021 should do so.
But why is readering in favor of giving DJT four more choices?
GTCT: Nice condescension. But my whole point was that McConnell and the other Republicans based their “principled” arguments on the approaching Presidential election instead of the previous Senatorial election. Remember that?
I;m down with Schumer being, like, TOTALLY bummed.
PJ said...
GTCT: Nice condescension. But my whole point was that McConnell and the other Republicans based their “principled” arguments on the approaching Presidential election instead of the previous Senatorial election. Remember that?
Yes, I do.
You still don't apparently understand what I wrote.
In 2012 the voters made one choice: Obama
In 2014, the voters made a different choice: GOP
So in 2016, the voters were going to get to resolve the situation with best 2 out of 3.
In 2016 the voters made a choice: Trump
In 2018, the voters reinforced that choice by increasing the GOP margin in the Senate
There's no competing choice here for the voters to resolve.
In 2016 each side did what their voters wanted, so no one was confirmed
In 2020 each side (President and Senate) is doing what their voters wanted, so ACB will be confirmed
Other than because you're stuck in motivated reasoning, how hard is this to understand?
@GTCT: Now I’m just repeating myself, but my original comment was not about whether the Senate was in fact justified in rejecting Garland and confirming Barrett. Both actions were completely justified based on who had been elected to various offices by the voters and therefore had the legal authority to do what they did. That is the “We have the power and we mean to use it” justification to which I referred. And concerning your incorrect assertion that I am guilty of motivated reasoning, I supported both of those Senate actions. Your repeated history lesson did not add to my store of recalled knowledge.
My point is that McConnell’s public statements about the principles he was purporting to be guided by in refusing to consider Garland were not based on the previous Senatorial election (the 2014 election to which you refer) but on the impending (2016) Presidential election. He argued that the new President should get to pick the nominee, and that that was the best way to honor the voters’ preference. The Dems now can fairly accuse the Republicans of hypocrisy, Not because they wouldn’t consider Garland but approved Barrett (they had perfectly legitimate authority to do both), but because they purported to be adhering to a particular principle in 2016 that they reject as soon as it becomes convenient in 2020.
If you still don’t get it, for heaven’s sake don’t reprint the history lesson again.
Schumer sounds like David Koresh, where is Janet Reno?
My point is that McConnell’s public statements about the principles he was purporting to be guided by in refusing to consider Garland were not based on the previous Senatorial election (the 2014 election to which you refer) but on the impending (2016) Presidential election.
Keep on lying, I'll keep on calling you out on it
The upcoming Presidential election mattered BECAUSE the GOP had won the Senate in 2014.
The upcoming Presidential election does not matter here BECAUSE the GOP kept Senate in 2018.
There was a split decision going into the 2016 election, so the voters needed to break teh tie. And they did, for the good guys.
There's no split decision here. So there's no tie to break.
You are free to play stupid, and ignore the obvious. But I'm free to call you out on it, and so I will
Post a Comment