Right and Wrong in 2020

[ICU 812]

Is It Wrong?

Before the election in2016, there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court when Justice Scalia passed away. Then-president Obama nominated someone for the position, I do not now remember who that was. The Senate Majority leader, Sen. McConnell refused to bring that nomination to a vote before the whole senate. Then-senate Minority Leader, Sen. Reed practically beged McConnell to allow the vote. This was flatly refused. At the time, McConnell took much criticism over that.

It was, back then, considered a tradition or unwritten rule in the Senate to not confirm supreme court nominations during an election year. The thinking was that the next president should have that privlege. After Scalia's death, the Supreme Court went through an entire session with only eight justices. Again, McConnell took a lot of criticism for that.

And now some four years later, Associate Justice Ginsberg has passed away leaving a vacancy during an election yar. Sen. McConnell was quick to announce that the Senate would move forward to confirm President Trump's nominee as soon as possible prior to the election. He has taken heated criticism for that; mostly from those that pushed for a pre-election confirmation in 2016.

Was it wrong to delay the confirmation till after the election back in 2016? Is it now also wrong to push forward to confirm a nominee prior to the election this year?

What is right?

[Grace Preston]

Both sides are hypocrites in regards to this. Its not a question of morality-- its a question of.. well, you took this grand stand in 2016, where are your principles now? (that goes for both sides, just to be clear).

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Is It Wrong?

Before the election in2016, there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court when Justice Scalia passed away. Then-president Obama nominated someone for the position, I do not now remember who that was. The Senate Majority leader, Sen. McConnell refused to bring that nomination to a vote before the whole senate. Then-senate Minority Leader, Sen. Reed practically beged McConnell to allow the vote. This was flatly refused. At the time, McConnell took much criticism over that.

It was, back then, considered a tradition or unwritten rule in the Senate to not confirm supreme court nominations during an election year. The thinking was that the next president should have that privlege. After Scalia's death, the Supreme Court went through an entire session with only eight justices. Again, McConnell took a lot of criticism for that.

And now some four years later, Associate Justice Ginsberg has passed away leaving a vacancy during an election yar. Sen. McConnell was quick to announce that the Senate would move forward to confirm President Trump's nominee as soon as possible prior to the election. He has taken heated criticism for that; mostly from those that pushed for a pre-election confirmation in 2016.

Was it wrong to delay the confirmation till after the election back in 2016? Is it now also wrong to push forward to confirm a nominee prior to the election this year?

What is right?

Your assessment and characterization of the so-called "rule" or "custom" and Grace's conclusion thereupon are incorrect.

When Obaminable made his appointment (with VP Bitten on board!) the Senate was not controlled by the Democrats. The philosophy is that if the White House and the Senate are controlled by the same party then a nomination is in order, because the voters of the occupying Party had an opportunity to vote on the people who were making the decision before hand, which, BTW, was a serious issue in 2016.

"The Rule" is the United States Constitution, and the difference to party occupation of the decision making bodies was an exception that was intended to be mutually respected.

Obaminable in is self-centered, ignorant fashion ignored it.

Since different Parties controlled the White House & Senate during Obaminable's effort to sneak in the nomination (he wasn't going to be the next President and neither was Bitten!) before he left office .... to provide cover for HillariousNoMore who was the "heir apparent" .... then the rule was to wait until after the inauguration ... so the new person could nominate.

Today the White House and Senate are controlled by the same Party!

There is no hypocrisy with a logical justification for the distinction, unless someone wants to redefine "hypocrisy" to fit their prejudice, narrative, or agenda.

There are several overused and incorrectly applied words when trashing people that have been so worn and misused over the past several years that they no longer have much use.

"Hypocrisy" happens to be one of them. The other two that come to mind most frequently are "lie" and "racism"!

[ICU 812]

LexusLover:

So the Constitution says that SCOTUS nominations may be confirmed in the year prior to an election if the party controlling the Senate also controlees the Presidency?

And if the Party controlling the Senate does not also control the Presidency, then no nomination may be confirmed until the election is over?

As I understand your post; The Constitution sets that out . . . Do I have that correct?

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

LexusLover:

So the Constitution says that SCOTUS nominations may be confirmed in the year prior to an election if the party controlling the Senate also controlees the Presidency?

And if the Party controlling the Senate does not also control the Presidency, then no nomination may be confirmed until the election is over?

As I understand your post; The Constitution sets that out . . . Do I have that correct?

That's not how I read what he said.

However, in the end the Constitution is the "rule" as he said. And it very clearly lays out that the POTUS nominates and the Senate confirms.

And if you want to call politics hypocritical, then I also absolutely agree.

For Obama he had a Senate of the opposite party who could ultimately control his nomination through the next election. Trump has a Senate of the same party control so it will be easier for him to proceed with a nomination.

Any "unwritten" and/or "philosophical" rule is just that, "unwritten" and/or "philosophical". Both sides have tried to play that hypocritical game for many things from supermajority rule changes to a simple majority, delaying nominations, etc. etc.

We will just have to see how the politics of it play out. I personally hope Trump fills the seat, the SCOTUS composition(and judiciary in general) is one of the main reasons I voted for him in the first place

[mrmxmr]

let me put it in very simple terms for you who cannot understand simple logic that has existed for over 200 years.

lets call it SCOTUS for dummies !


the senate, house and the presidency are the voices of us the people .

the senate and the presidency are the voice of us and we decide by voting for them, and then through them who sits on the supreme court.

in a case where 2 factions disagree(senate & prez) with compromise nonexistent the only option is then wait for agreement through the voting process. in other words two sides forcing what they want on the other does not represent us equally. When our voice is one in both the senate and the presidency then the country as a whole has spoken its desire, and thats what happened in the election of 2016 and why we waited.

prior to the election in 2016 , the people represented by obama expressed one voice and nominated merritt garland

also in 2016 the the people represented by another voice didnt want a nominee and expressed that through mcconnell ,when both voices agree the process should take place.

the answer !

very simple in the election of 2016 democrats keep the presidency and win the senate to proceed

republicans lose the senate and the presidency to proceed

then the people will have spoken from both sides and there will be a consensus to proceed

the voters knew very well that the supreme court nominee was very much at the center of the election of 2016 and voted knowing that their vote was also a vote for the supreme court process.

the results spoke loudly the country as one voice winning the presidency wanted one party to decide a nominee when a vacancy opens up and that same party as the senate to further the process and vote

in 2018 after 2 justices were confirmed the people had the opportunity to change their voice in the senate . If they did so and won the senate they would have every fair right to do what mconnell did in 2016 , refuse a vote for a supreme court nominee. THey would have been the voice of the people in declining a vote that the other voice wanted . BUT the voters actually affirmed who they want to represent their voice concerning SCOTUS votes. They increased their representation in the senate in the election of 2018

to sum it up


there are generally 2 voices when dealing with the supreme court and each voice has a say through the presidency and the senate . when the voices
are in agreement it works when the voices disagree it doesnt .

the voices are us and we decide who we want to represent us on the supreme court . the presidency and the senate are the vehicle we decide through

those who disagree , either vote to change who represents their voice in this process or find another country, dont destroy this country and the process because you disagree.


therefore a nominee and a vote should take place ASAP , both the senate and the presidency are the voice of the country as a whole not 2 seperate voices.

that is what is logical
that is what is fair
that is what is constitutional
and that is what makes this country work where all others have failed

and if you dont understand or want to accept it then you want our system and country to fail only because you want something you have no right to want.

[oeb11]

In response to 'm' above:

Below is a reproduction of Articles 2 and 3 from the Constitution - for those of the marxist left to actually READ - which they won't!


"let me put it in very simple terms for you who cannot understand simple logic that has existed for over 200 years. "




Article 2 of the Constitution (referring to powers of the President) -

• Clause 2
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article 3 of the Constitution;
Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office


Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...ices-not-much/
What does the Constitution say about picking Supreme Court justices? Not much



How does a new justice get appointed and confirmed? The Constitution provides only a little guidance:
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
That’s the only thing the Constitution says. It doesn’t say, for example, that the Senate has to hold hearings to question the nominee. It doesn’t establish any threshold for what constitutes a quorum or even whether a justice can be confirmed by an absolute majority or a majority of those voting or even a supermajority, which the Constitution does require for other purposes, such as the two-thirds majority that is necessary to convict a president of an impeachable offense.
The Constitution also offers no standard for senators to apply in deciding whether to ratify a presidential nominee. Just to make this clear because it seems that the path ahead might come to this: Senators do not have to claim that a nominee is a bad person or an incompetent lawyer. (In fact, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says a justice has to be a lawyer.)
If a senator wants to vote no just because they think the nominee will not vote on issues of constitutionality the way the senator would like him to vote, the senator is fully entitled and allowed (at least by the Constitution) to vote against confirmation.
For much of our history there has been at least an implication that what I just wrote above is not true, that a Supreme Court confirmation process is limited to issues of character or maybe legal acumen. But during recent years, as more and more confirmation votes have broken down sharply on party lines, it has been harder and harder to preserve that fiction.


Quote - 'm' - " those who disagree , either vote to change who represents their voice in this process or find another country, dont destroy this country and the process because you disagree.

that is what is logical
that is what is fair
that is what is constitutional
and that is what makes this country work where all others have failed

and if you dont understand or want to accept it then you want our system and country to fail only because you want something you have no right to want. "



Well - 'm' - First of all - you have to understand that 'Rights" are devolved from the Constitution and Bill of Rights - not your DPST nnarrative marxist wish list. And NO -'m' does not decide what 'rights' are to be had or not to be had depending on the 'wants' of a given person.

'rights' are already decided - but you would not understand that as a victim of DPST propaganda.






let's reproduce m's complaint here:

"that is what is logical
that is what is fair
that is what is constitutional
and that is what makes this country work where all others have failed"


Guess what - the only applicable part of this under a Constitutional rule of law - is "That which is Constitutional" - and the rest is irrelevant .

The selection process conventions decided by the Senate are not dictated by the Constitution - but left to the legislative and administrative branches to work out the details. All the whining in the world won't change that - only a Constitutional Amendment may change the process.
harry reid set the convention , and the DPST's set the tone of the legislative branch with their complete exclusion of Republicans from their biased and pre-judged Impeachment hearings - which consisted of more Lies than have ever been spoken to the public by Schiff and nadler and pelosi and Schumer - than ever before in the legislative branch.

Democrats set the convention in the Senate - don't like it - too bad - complain hypocritically all 'm' wants .


Perhaps 'm' might want to READ the Constitution - and there are many internet references to help understand what it means to today's jurisprudence.



"and if you dont understand or want to accept it then you want our system and country to fail only because you want something you have no right to want. "



Thank You - DPST's - for the opportunity to present you with Reality - something sorely lacking in your propaganda narrative.

[ICU 812]

So none of that makes any restriction on when a president can or cannot nominate a candidate for the SCOTUS, or when .when not the Senate can confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

So what is the big deal here?

[oeb11]

The big deal is that the DPST's want to control the SC - and want to put in a radical agenda Justice when harris is elected.

They are desperate to preserve the courts as their method of 'ruling' by fiat - instead of the Rule of the Constitution.

trump should go ahead and push through a conservative SC justice - if harris becomes POTUS - in their hatred - they will nominate and push through a DPST Senate 12 or so radical marxist Justices to pack the court.

and display to America their real marxist agenda .
They will foment a Civil War in America in desperately trying to impose Marxism on teh peoples.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

So none of that makes any restriction on when a president can or cannot nominate a candidate for the SCOTUS, or when .when not the Senate can confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

So what is the big deal here?

The big deal is that Democrats want you to believe that Republicans would be hypocrites to nominate some one now. As it has been nicely explained in detail, though not expressed in the Constitution, if the President and Senate are of the same party, the nomination can proceed during an election season. If the President and Senate are of different parties, the President "should" by custom, wait for the election.


While all this is interesting and should be understood, the only thing that really matters is, would Republicans have the votes to pass a nomination and I believe the answer is no. At Best, Pence would have to break a tie and 23 Senators up for re-election could be putting the Senate in jeopardy of falling to the Democrats if enough of their Independent voters take offense at the President nominating someone under these conditions. Of course the opposite is also true, If a Republican refused to side with the President and a majority of his or her party, their seat could be in jeopardy. If Lindsey Graham thinks it's a bad idea, he doesn't hold the conformation process and puts his own seat in jeopardy.


Once again 2020 gives us one more thing to add to the list of most unusual year in modern history.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

One more little bugaboo, if the nominee has not been confirmed when the new Senate is sworn in the first week of January, the nomination is considered to have lapsed and we start over.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

LexusLover:

So the Constitution says that SCOTUS nominations may be confirmed in the year prior to an election if the party controlling the Senate also controlees the Presidency?

And if the Party controlling the Senate does not also control the Presidency, then no nomination may be confirmed until the election is over?

As I understand your post; The Constitution sets that out . . . Do I have that correct?

No, you don't. Have you read the U.S. Constitution?

And I don't mean the fantasy constitution that die-hards wish had been crafted upon which this country has done quite well for hundreds of years ....

.... what is not doing well is the CommunistSocialistLiberalBulls hit ... and up against THE U.S. CONSTITUTION .... it FAILS!

Isn't it time you grew up and accepted THE FACT you live in the USA?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

So what is the big deal here?

Originally Posted by oeb11

The big deal is that the DPST's want to control the SC -

They are desperate to preserve the courts as their method of 'ruling' by fiat - instead of the Rule of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

The big deal is that Democrats want you to believe that Republicans would be hypocrites to nominate some one now.

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

One more little bugaboo, if the nominee has not been confirmed when the new Senate is sworn in the first week of January, the nomination is considered to have lapsed and we start over.

"Elections have consequences"!

Applicable to either party and/or any party in any election.

Losers are usually the biggest whiners ... they even break shit.

It's a lack of emotional control and maturity.

[mrmxmr]

Originally Posted by oeb11

In response to 'm' above:

Below is a reproduction of Articles 2 and 3 from the Constitution - for those of the marxist left to actually READ - which they won't!


"let me put it in very simple terms for you who cannot understand simple logic that has existed for over 200 years. "




Article 2 of the Constitution (referring to powers of the President) -

• Clause 2
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article 3 of the Constitution;
Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office


Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...ices-not-much/
What does the Constitution say about picking Supreme Court justices? Not much



How does a new justice get appointed and confirmed? The Constitution provides only a little guidance:
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
That’s the only thing the Constitution says. It doesn’t say, for example, that the Senate has to hold hearings to question the nominee. It doesn’t establish any threshold for what constitutes a quorum or even whether a justice can be confirmed by an absolute majority or a majority of those voting or even a supermajority, which the Constitution does require for other purposes, such as the two-thirds majority that is necessary to convict a president of an impeachable offense.
The Constitution also offers no standard for senators to apply in deciding whether to ratify a presidential nominee. Just to make this clear because it seems that the path ahead might come to this: Senators do not have to claim that a nominee is a bad person or an incompetent lawyer. (In fact, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says a justice has to be a lawyer.)
If a senator wants to vote no just because they think the nominee will not vote on issues of constitutionality the way the senator would like him to vote, the senator is fully entitled and allowed (at least by the Constitution) to vote against confirmation.
For much of our history there has been at least an implication that what I just wrote above is not true, that a Supreme Court confirmation process is limited to issues of character or maybe legal acumen. But during recent years, as more and more confirmation votes have broken down sharply on party lines, it has been harder and harder to preserve that fiction.


Quote - 'm' - " those who disagree , either vote to change who represents their voice in this process or find another country, dont destroy this country and the process because you disagree.

that is what is logical
that is what is fair
that is what is constitutional
and that is what makes this country work where all others have failed

and if you dont understand or want to accept it then you want our system and country to fail only because you want something you have no right to want. "



Well - 'm' - First of all - you have to understand that 'Rights" are devolved from the Constitution and Bill of Rights - not your DPST nnarrative marxist wish list. And NO -'m' does not decide what 'rights' are to be had or not to be had depending on the 'wants' of a given person.

'rights' are already decided - but you would not understand that as a victim of DPST propaganda.






let's reproduce m's complaint here:

"that is what is logical
that is what is fair
that is what is constitutional
and that is what makes this country work where all others have failed"


Guess what - the only applicable part of this under a Constitutional rule of law - is "That which is Constitutional" - and the rest is irrelevant .

The selection process conventions decided by the Senate are not dictated by the Constitution - but left to the legislative and administrative branches to work out the details. All the whining in the world won't change that - only a Constitutional Amendment may change the process.
harry reid set the convention , and the DPST's set the tone of the legislative branch with their complete exclusion of Republicans from their biased and pre-judged Impeachment hearings - which consisted of more Lies than have ever been spoken to the public by Schiff and nadler and pelosi and Schumer - than ever before in the legislative branch.

Democrats set the convention in the Senate - don't like it - too bad - complain hypocritically all 'm' wants .


Perhaps 'm' might want to READ the Constitution - and there are many internet references to help understand what it means to today's jurisprudence.



"and if you dont understand or want to accept it then you want our system and country to fail only because you want something you have no right to want. "



Thank You - DPST's - for the opportunity to present you with Reality - something sorely lacking in your propaganda narrative.

therefore a nominee and a vote should take place ASAP , both the senate and the presidency are the voice of the country as a whole not 2 seperate voices.

better read my post a little better , we are actually in agreement

i was explaining the answer to the posters original question and the differences in the two situations and WHY this one is distinctly different relative to us the voters .

i do appreciate your fervor !! fight on !!


this is a great opportunity ! and its a go , any senator who votes against it is done !

[oeb11]

I did - if you have clarified - from teh verbiage - thank You,. good Sir!
At least a posted lesson for the DPST's - who don't comprehend - regardless - anything not of their narrative.