Remove this ad

Lead

Mar 21 17 3:36 AM

Tags : :

Neil Gorsuch Faces the Senate - The New York Times

Here’s a good question for Judge Neil Gorsuch, who sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday for the first day of his confirmation hearings to be a Supreme Court justice: Why are you here?

There’s only one honest answer: “I shouldn’t be.”

Under other circumstances Judge Gorsuch would be a legitimate nominee by a Republican president. The problem is how he got to this point in the first place.

Judge Gorsuch became President Trump’s nominee only after Senate Republicans’ outrageous and unprecedented blockade of Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama picked to fill the same seat more than a year ago and who by all rights should long ago have been sitting where Judge Gorsuch is now — introducing his family, smiling for the flashbulbs and listening patiently as senators lecture him about the Constitution. But Senate Republicans made sure that would never happen, refusing even to meet with Judge Garland — the chief of the federal appeals court in Washington and one of the most widely respected judges in the country — let alone give him a hearing or a vote.

On Monday, they mostly acted as though they did nothing wrong and couldn’t understand why Democrats were so upset.

One exception was Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, who lamented the growing politicization of the confirmation process and warned that “what we’re doing is going to destroy the judiciary over time.” In that spirit, Mr. Graham admitted that he thought long and hard about whether the Republicans’ blockade was justified. It was, he decided, because he was sure Democrats would have behaved the same way if the situation had been reversed.

Mr. Graham is right that both Democrats and Republicans bear responsibility for the degradation of the process, but their responsibility is not equal. Senate Republicans’ behavior last year set a new standard for bad faith. The question, as the constitutional law scholar Peter Shane wrote last week, is “whether there remains any institutional penalty for sabotaging constitutional norms.”

The short answer is no. With the Senate remaining in Republican hands, Democrats have no power to block Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation. If they attempt to filibuster — which would be an understandable reaction — it’s highly likely the Republicans will eliminate that tool, as the Democrats did in 2013 for lower-court nominations, and Judge Gorsuch will sail through.

Neil Gorsuch may be qualified for the Supreme Court, but there’s little doubt that he would be among the most conservative justices in the court’s modern history, with negative consequences for workers’ rights, women’s reproductive freedom, politics uncorrupted by vast sums of dark money, the separation of church and state, the health of the environment and the protection of the most vulnerable members of society. If Judge Gorsuch is confirmed, his views will be driving decisions into the middle of the 21st century.
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#2 [url]

Mar 21 17 2:05 PM

liberationpoet wrote:
Republicans were derilict by not even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland!

Republicans merely followed the advice and logic of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, lp.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

The current confirmation hearing for Judge Gorsuch is a waste of time--Gorsuch is a shoo in; there is not the slightest chance that he will be rejected.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Mar 21 17 3:46 PM

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:
Republicans were derilict by not even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland!

Republicans merely followed the advice and logic of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, lp.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

The current confirmation hearing for Judge Gorsuch is a waste of time--Gorsuch is a shoo in; there is not the slightest chance that he will be rejected.

There is a difference between rejecting confirmation and refusing to hold hearings!
 

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Mar 21 17 3:59 PM

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:
Republicans were derilict by not even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland!

Republicans merely followed the advice and logic of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, lp.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

The current confirmation hearing for Judge Gorsuch is a waste of time--Gorsuch is a shoo in; there is not the slightest chance that he will be rejected.

There is a difference between rejecting confirmation and refusing to hold hearings!
 

Not much difference, lp.   Here's a reminder of what your Democrat Senator ......and later VP.....Biden said about prospective Supreme Court nominees by President GHW Bush:
 
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Mar 21 17 4:56 PM

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:
Republicans were derilict by not even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland!

Republicans merely followed the advice and logic of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, lp.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

The current confirmation hearing for Judge Gorsuch is a waste of time--Gorsuch is a shoo in; there is not the slightest chance that he will be rejected.

There is a difference between rejecting confirmation and refusing to hold hearings!
 

Not much difference, lp.   Here's a reminder of what your Democrat Senator ......and later VP.....Biden said about prospective Supreme Court nominees by President GHW Bush:
 
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

 
No Senate ever refused to hold Supreme Court hearings before 2016!

 

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Mar 21 17 5:50 PM

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:
Republicans were derilict by not even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland!

Republicans merely followed the advice and logic of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, lp.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

The current confirmation hearing for Judge Gorsuch is a waste of time--Gorsuch is a shoo in; there is not the slightest chance that he will be rejected.

There is a difference between rejecting confirmation and refusing to hold hearings!
 

Not much difference, lp.   Here's a reminder of what your Democrat Senator ......and later VP.....Biden said about prospective Supreme Court nominees by President GHW Bush:
 
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

 
No Senate ever refused to hold Supreme Court hearings before 2016!


 

That's not true, lp.    Here is the link to a document you should read carefully.    Table 1 shows the Senate disposition of nominees going back to the nation's birth.    
 
https://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS-SupremeCourtNominations1789-2009.pdf

You also disregard Senator Biden's intentions in 1992 at the link I earlier provided.

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Mar 21 17 7:22 PM

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:
Republicans were derilict by not even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland!

Republicans merely followed the advice and logic of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, lp.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

The current confirmation hearing for Judge Gorsuch is a waste of time--Gorsuch is a shoo in; there is not the slightest chance that he will be rejected.

There is a difference between rejecting confirmation and refusing to hold hearings!
 

Not much difference, lp.   Here's a reminder of what your Democrat Senator ......and later VP.....Biden said about prospective Supreme Court nominees by President GHW Bush:
 
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

 
No Senate ever refused to hold Supreme Court hearings before 2016!



 

That's not true, lp.    Here is the link to a document you should read carefully.    Table 1 shows the Senate disposition of nominees going back to the nation's birth.    
 
https://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS-SupremeCourtNominations1789-2009.pdf

You also disregard Senator Biden's intentions in 1992 at the link I earlier provided.

 
I looked over the list and find no nominee rejected under circumstances similar to that of Merrick Garland!

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Mar 22 17 8:11 AM

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

[quote="liberationpoet"]Republicans were derilict by not even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland!

Republicans merely followed the advice and logic of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, lp.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

The current confirmation hearing for Judge Gorsuch is a waste of time--Gorsuch is a shoo in; there is not the slightest chance that he will be rejected.

There is a difference between rejecting confirmation and refusing to hold hearings!
 

Not much difference, lp.   Here's a reminder of what your Democrat Senator ......and later VP.....Biden said about prospective Supreme Court nominees by President GHW Bush:
 
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

 
No Senate ever refused to hold Supreme Court hearings before 2016!




 

That's not true, lp.    Here is the link to a document you should read carefully.    Table 1 shows the Senate disposition of nominees going back to the nation's birth.    
 
https://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS-SupremeCourtNominations1789-2009.pdf

You also disregard Senator Biden's intentions in 1992 at the link I earlier provided.

 
I looked over the list and find no nominee rejected under circumstances similar to that of Merrick Garland![/quote]
Nevertheless there were nominees who were not confirmed and who did not receive a committee hearing.    AND what happened with the Garland nomination tracked very closely to Senator/later VP Biden's 1992 proposal.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Mar 22 17 10:51 AM

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

 
No Senate ever refused to hold Supreme Court hearings before 2016!




 

That's not true, lp.    Here is the link to a document you should read carefully.    Table 1 shows the Senate disposition of nominees going back to the nation's birth.    
 
https://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS-SupremeCourtNominations1789-2009.pdf

You also disregard Senator Biden's intentions in 1992 at the link I earlier provided.

 
I looked over the list and find no nominee rejected under circumstances similar to that of Merrick Garland!

Nevertheless there were nominees who were not confirmed and who did not receive a committee hearing.    AND what happened with the Garland nomination tracked very closely to Senator/later VP Biden's 1992 proposal.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

No proposal is the same as refusal to hold hearings!
 

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Mar 22 17 11:42 AM

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

 
No Senate ever refused to hold Supreme Court hearings before 2016!




 

That's not true, lp.    Here is the link to a document you should read carefully.    Table 1 shows the Senate disposition of nominees going back to the nation's birth.    
 
https://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS-SupremeCourtNominations1789-2009.pdf

You also disregard Senator Biden's intentions in 1992 at the link I earlier provided.

 
I looked over the list and find no nominee rejected under circumstances similar to that of Merrick Garland!

Nevertheless there were nominees who were not confirmed and who did not receive a committee hearing.    AND what happened with the Garland nomination tracked very closely to Senator/later VP Biden's 1992 proposal.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

No proposal is the same as refusal to hold hearings!

You're scratching and stretching, lp.    You can't dismiss so easily the fact that Senator/later VP Biden did indeed advocate doing just that.   Let me extract from the above link his relevant comments:


*****************


It hardly requires mention at this point how much the Democrats and their mouthpieces have invested in the storyline that Republicans are being historically evil in a totally unprecedented way over Obama appointing someone to fill Justice Scalia’s now-vacant seat.


Yet here is Obama’s own Vice President making the case for us. Indeed, making the case for America. It can scarcely be better said. And the best part? He doesn’t just say there should be no nomination. He goes right to the heart of what the Dems are sanctimoniously bleating about every day. “The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings.”



**********

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#11 [url]

Mar 22 17 1:11 PM

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

 
No Senate ever refused to hold Supreme Court hearings before 2016!




 

That's not true, lp.    Here is the link to a document you should read carefully.    Table 1 shows the Senate disposition of nominees going back to the nation's birth.    
 
https://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS-SupremeCourtNominations1789-2009.pdf

You also disregard Senator Biden's intentions in 1992 at the link I earlier provided.

 
I looked over the list and find no nominee rejected under circumstances similar to that of Merrick Garland!

Nevertheless there were nominees who were not confirmed and who did not receive a committee hearing.    AND what happened with the Garland nomination tracked very closely to Senator/later VP Biden's 1992 proposal.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

No proposal is the same as refusal to hold hearings!

You're scratching and stretching, lp.    You can't dismiss so easily the fact that Senator/later VP Biden did indeed advocate doing just that.   Let me extract from the above link his relevant comments:


*****************


It hardly requires mention at this point how much the Democrats and their mouthpieces have invested in the storyline that Republicans are being historically evil in a totally unprecedented way over Obama appointing someone to fill Justice Scalia’s now-vacant seat.


Yet here is Obama’s own Vice President making the case for us. Indeed, making the case for America. It can scarcely be better said. And the best part? He doesn’t just say there should be no nomination. He goes right to the heart of what the Dems are sanctimoniously bleating about every day. “The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings.”



**********

 
Historically evil is if the party is conplicit in withholding hearings!

 

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Mar 22 17 1:17 PM

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

 
No Senate ever refused to hold Supreme Court hearings before 2016!




 

That's not true, lp.    Here is the link to a document you should read carefully.    Table 1 shows the Senate disposition of nominees going back to the nation's birth.    
 
https://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS-SupremeCourtNominations1789-2009.pdf

You also disregard Senator Biden's intentions in 1992 at the link I earlier provided.

 
I looked over the list and find no nominee rejected under circumstances similar to that of Merrick Garland!

Nevertheless there were nominees who were not confirmed and who did not receive a committee hearing.    AND what happened with the Garland nomination tracked very closely to Senator/later VP Biden's 1992 proposal.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

No proposal is the same as refusal to hold hearings!

You're scratching and stretching, lp.    You can't dismiss so easily the fact that Senator/later VP Biden did indeed advocate doing just that.   Let me extract from the above link his relevant comments:


*****************


It hardly requires mention at this point how much the Democrats and their mouthpieces have invested in the storyline that Republicans are being historically evil in a totally unprecedented way over Obama appointing someone to fill Justice Scalia’s now-vacant seat.


Yet here is Obama’s own Vice President making the case for us. Indeed, making the case for America. It can scarcely be better said. And the best part? He doesn’t just say there should be no nomination. He goes right to the heart of what the Dems are sanctimoniously bleating about every day. “The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings.”



**********

 
Historically evil is if the party is conplicit in withholding hearings!
 

Now you're just prattling nonsense, lp.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Mar 22 17 2:30 PM

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:



 
I looked over the list and find no nominee rejected under circumstances similar to that of Merrick Garland!

Nevertheless there were nominees who were not confirmed and who did not receive a committee hearing.    AND what happened with the Garland nomination tracked very closely to Senator/later VP Biden's 1992 proposal.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

No proposal is the same as refusal to hold hearings!

You're scratching and stretching, lp.    You can't dismiss so easily the fact that Senator/later VP Biden did indeed advocate doing just that.   Let me extract from the above link his relevant comments:


*****************


It hardly requires mention at this point how much the Democrats and their mouthpieces have invested in the storyline that Republicans are being historically evil in a totally unprecedented way over Obama appointing someone to fill Justice Scalia’s now-vacant seat.


Yet here is Obama’s own Vice President making the case for us. Indeed, making the case for America. It can scarcely be better said. And the best part? He doesn’t just say there should be no nomination. He goes right to the heart of what the Dems are sanctimoniously bleating about every day. “The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings.”



**********

 
Historically evil is if the party is conplicit in withholding hearings!

 

Now you're just prattling nonsense, lp.

 
What happened with historically evil when Republicans in the Senate withheld hearings for Garland.  Never before in history was a candidate short circuited in that way in order to steal the Supreme Court seat!

 

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Mar 22 17 4:29 PM

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:



 
I looked over the list and find no nominee rejected under circumstances similar to that of Merrick Garland!

Nevertheless there were nominees who were not confirmed and who did not receive a committee hearing.    AND what happened with the Garland nomination tracked very closely to Senator/later VP Biden's 1992 proposal.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/02/22/busted-video-biden-92-saying-senate-refuse-hold-hearings-bush-scotus-nominee-due-election/

No proposal is the same as refusal to hold hearings!

You're scratching and stretching, lp.    You can't dismiss so easily the fact that Senator/later VP Biden did indeed advocate doing just that.   Let me extract from the above link his relevant comments:


*****************


It hardly requires mention at this point how much the Democrats and their mouthpieces have invested in the storyline that Republicans are being historically evil in a totally unprecedented way over Obama appointing someone to fill Justice Scalia’s now-vacant seat.


Yet here is Obama’s own Vice President making the case for us. Indeed, making the case for America. It can scarcely be better said. And the best part? He doesn’t just say there should be no nomination. He goes right to the heart of what the Dems are sanctimoniously bleating about every day. “The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings.”



**********

 
Historically evil is if the party is conplicit in withholding hearings!


 

Now you're just prattling nonsense, lp.

 
What happened with historically evil when Republicans in the Senate withheld hearings for Garland.  Never before in history was a candidate short circuited in that way in order to steal the Supreme Court seat!
 

the Republicans only followed Democrat Schumer's blueprint from 1992.

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Mar 22 17 5:36 PM

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:




It hardly requires mention at this point how much the Democrats and their mouthpieces have invested in the storyline that Republicans are being historically evil in a totally unprecedented way over Obama appointing someone to fill Justice Scalia’s now-vacant seat.


Yet here is Obama’s own Vice President making the case for us. Indeed, making the case for America. It can scarcely be better said. And the best part? He doesn’t just say there should be no nomination. He goes right to the heart of what the Dems are sanctimoniously bleating about every day. “The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings.”



**********

 
Historically evil is if the party is conplicit in withholding hearings!


 

Now you're just prattling nonsense, lp.

 
What happened was historically evil when Republicans in the Senate withheld hearings for Garland.  Never before in history was a candidate short circuited in that way in order to steal the Supreme Court seat!

 

the Republicans only followed Democrat Schumer's blueprint from 1992.

 
You are being ridiculous if you think that Repubicans imitate Democrats when it was the opinion of only one Democratic Senator that a Republican's confirmation should be withheld!

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Mar 22 17 5:40 PM

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:




It hardly requires mention at this point how much the Democrats and their mouthpieces have invested in the storyline that Republicans are being historically evil in a totally unprecedented way over Obama appointing someone to fill Justice Scalia’s now-vacant seat.


Yet here is Obama’s own Vice President making the case for us. Indeed, making the case for America. It can scarcely be better said. And the best part? He doesn’t just say there should be no nomination. He goes right to the heart of what the Dems are sanctimoniously bleating about every day. “The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings.”



**********

 
Historically evil is if the party is conplicit in withholding hearings!


 

Now you're just prattling nonsense, lp.

 
What happened was historically evil when Republicans in the Senate withheld hearings for Garland.  Never before in history was a candidate short circuited in that way in order to steal the Supreme Court seat!


 

the Republicans only followed Democrat Schumer's blueprint from 1992.

 
You are being ridiculous if you think that Repubicans imitate Democrats when it was the opinion of only one Democratic Senator that a Republican's confirmation should be withheld!

You're a hypocrite, lp.   You fault Senate Republicans for doing precisely what Democrat Senator Schumer advocated doing in 1992 had the same situation arisen.

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Mar 22 17 5:55 PM

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

l wrote:
What happened was historically evil when Republicans in the Senate withheld hearings for Garland.  Never before in history was a candidate short circuited in that way in order to steal the Supreme Court seat!



 

the Republicans only followed Democrat Schumer's blueprint from 1992.

 
You are being ridiculous if you think that Repubicans imitate Democrats when it was the opinion of only one Democratic Senator that a Republican's confirmation should be withheld!

You're a hypocrite, lp.   You fault Senate Republicans for doing precisely what Democrat Senator Schumer advocated doing in 1992 had the same situation arisen.

 
The Democrats would have been harshly and justifiably criticized if they tried to steal a Supreme Court seat by withholding hearings.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Mar 22 17 5:59 PM

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

l wrote:
What happened was historically evil when Republicans in the Senate withheld hearings for Garland.  Never before in history was a candidate short circuited in that way in order to steal the Supreme Court seat!




 

the Republicans only followed Democrat Schumer's blueprint from 1992.

 
You are being ridiculous if you think that Repubicans imitate Democrats when it was the opinion of only one Democratic Senator that a Republican's confirmation should be withheld!

You're a hypocrite, lp.   You fault Senate Republicans for doing precisely what Democrat Senator Schumer advocated doing in 1992 had the same situation arisen.

 
The Democrats would have been harshly and justifiably criticized if they tried to steal a Supreme Court seat by withholding hearings.

The Democrats were all set to do just that had President GHW Bush been in a position to make a Supreme Court nomination in the last years of his term.

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Mar 22 17 7:25 PM

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

liberationpoet wrote:

harrymerr23 wrote:

l wrote:
What happened was historically evil when Republicans in the Senate withheld hearings for Garland.  Never before in history was a candidate short circuited in that way in order to steal the Supreme Court seat!





 

the Republicans only followed Democrat Schumer's blueprint from 1992.

 
You are being ridiculous if you think that Repubicans imitate Democrats when it was the opinion of only one Democratic Senator that a Republican's confirmation should be withheld!

You're a hypocrite, lp.   You fault Senate Republicans for doing precisely what Democrat Senator Schumer advocated doing in 1992 had the same situation arisen.

 
The Democrats would have been harshly and justifiably criticized if they tried to steal a Supreme Court seat by withholding hearings.

The Democrats were all set to do just that had President GHW Bush been in a position to make a Supreme Court nomination in the last years of his term.

 
The Democrats were not set to do that, especially since the appointment was hypothetical and never made!

 

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Mar 22 17 8:20 PM

harrymerr23 wrote:
liberationpoet wrote:
Republicans were derilict by not even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland!

Republicans merely followed the advice and logic of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, lp.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

The current confirmation hearing for Judge Gorsuch is a waste of time--Gorsuch is a shoo in; there is not the slightest chance that he will be rejected.

President Trump to hold rally in Nashville next week - The Tennessean
www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/03/09/president-trump-speak.../98948898/
1 day ago - President Donald Trump plans to hold a Nashville rally on Wednesday at downtown's Municipal Auditorium,...

Trump draws 9,000 for campaign-like rally in Florida - USA Today
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/.../trump...like-rally-florida/98116448/
Feb 18, 2017 - MELBOURNE, Fla. —

"I can now confidently say the view shared by virtually everybody in my conference, is that the nomination should be made by the president the people elect in the election that's underway right now," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Feb. 13, 2016

Now that Snowflake Minority President Trump is in 2020 campaign mode, may be McConnell should stick to his pledge and let the people choose in 2021.
Cool02

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” - Edmund Burke

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help