Dens Want to Delay SCOTUS Hearing

[Boxlicker101]

I don't know what their justification is, but I don't expect it to work. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-call-for-delaying-kavanaugh-hearings/

The hearings are scheduled to begin next week, and I expect that to happen, and for the justice to be confirmed.

 

[sharingfantasies]

They want to delay it until after the November elections in case the Dems get more seats.

 

[Boxlicker101]

They want to delay it until after the November elections in case the Dems get more seats.

That's their actual reason, but they wouldn't want to admit that. The new senators would be seated in Jan. anyhow.

 

[FEELINGLUCKYPUNK]

Trump will nominate Mad Max Waters if the Dems fuck with him.

 

[Tigersman]

The Dems are just applying the "McConnell Rule" to Trump's pick for SCOTUS.

 

[jaF0]

I don't know what their justification is, ...

'Member Mitch The Meddler's line 'The next President ....' ?

What justification did that worthless turd have?

 

[mark_j]

'Member Mitch The Meddler's line 'The next President ....' ?

What justification did that worthless turd have?

Harry Reid..

Presidential Election.

Senate Majority.

 

[KeithD]

Harry Reid..

Presidential Election.

Senate Majority.

That doesn't make a lick of sense re this thread. I don't know what you Trumpettes are so worried about on the Supremes pick process. Feeling a bit guilty, are you?

 

[Boxlicker101]

'Member Mitch The Meddler's line 'The next President ....' ?

What justification did that worthless turd have?

Yeah, but what about ......?

I do agree, though, there should have been a hearing on Obama's nomination. The good of the nation ought to be given preference over inter-party bickering. The situation is not exactly the same. The GOP, being in the majority, was in a position to delay the hearing. They are still in the majority and cannot be compelled to do what the Dems want. The hearings are scheduled to start next week and, barring the unexpected, will do so, and Trump's nominee will be approved.

This is the kind of thing, on the part of both parties, that causes people to despise politicians.

 

[phrodeau]

https://thinkprogress.org/the-unprecedented-illegitimacy-of-the-roberts-court-086dde8373bf/

Last year, for the first time in American history, “the United States Senate confirmed a nominee for the High Court appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes—indeed far fewer votes— in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition.”

The 45 senators who opposed Gorsuch, (Trinity College political science professor Kevin) McMahon writes, received nearly 20 million more votes than the 54 senators who supported him — 73,425,062 to 54,098,387. The 45 senators in the minority also represent more than 25 million more people than the senators who voted to confirm Gorsuch.

By contrast, when President Obama named Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that is currently occupied by Gorsuch, the 46 Senate Democrats represented about 20 million more people than the 54 Republicans. Also, President Obama won the popular vote. Twice.

Gorsuch is unique, in that he is the only person ever confirmed to the Supreme Court by a minority coalition after being nominated by a popular vote loser.

If Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, moreover, it is likely that he will join Gorsuch as the second member of the Court in American history to be nominated by a minority president and confirmed by a coalition of senators who represent less than half of the nation.

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4206&context=cklawreview

 

[mark_j]

That doesn't make a lick of sense re this thread. I don't know what you Trumpettes are so worried about on the Supremes pick process. Feeling a bit guilty, are you?

Makes perfect sense in relation to the question I answered. If you don't want to see it that way that is on you, pal.

As far as your 'Trumpettes' comment, that's your opinion, not mine.

 

[KeithD]

The GOP, being in the majority, was in a position to delay the hearing. They are still in the majority and cannot be compelled to do what the Dems want.

That's true. So, why did you even start this thread? Are you feeling guilty about the Republican's underhanded and unconstitutional dealings with the Supreme Court pick process? Opening a thread on what the Democrats want under these circumstances is disgusting, Box. They want fair play and for government processes to work out honorably and as intended. They haven't under Republican rule--in all sorts of ways. The Republicans in Congress thwart the American Spirit of fair and honorable play--and you support them in this.

Let's see the sort of crap you post if and when the Democrats take Congress and if and when they give back to the Republican what the Republicans did when they held Congress.

 

[KeithD]

Makes perfect sense in relation to the question I answered. If you don't want to see it that way that is on you, pal.

As far as your 'Trumpettes' comment, that's your opinion, not mine.

Obviously, since you are still with the sinking-boat slimebag.

 

[Gamine67]

I don't know what their justification is, but I don't expect it to work. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-call-for-delaying-kavanaugh-hearings/

The hearings are scheduled to begin next week, and I expect that to happen, and for the justice to be confirmed.

Justification:

Try these:

Corruption
Treason
Money Laundering
Mental incapacity
Sexual Assault
Illegitimate election

All legitimate questions that should be resolved before anything in this administration should go forward.

 

[Boxlicker101]

https://thinkprogress.org/the-unprecedented-illegitimacy-of-the-roberts-court-086dde8373bf/https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4206&context=cklawreview

Last year, for the first time in American history, “the United States Senate confirmed a nominee for the High Court appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes—indeed far fewer votes— in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition.”

The 45 senators who opposed Gorsuch, (Trinity College political science professor Kevin) McMahon writes, received nearly 20 million more votes than the 54 senators who supported him — 73,425,062 to 54,098,387. The 45 senators in the minority also represent more than 25 million more people than the senators who voted to confirm Gorsuch.

By contrast, when President Obama named Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that is currently occupied by Gorsuch, the 46 Senate Democrats represented about 20 million more people than the 54 Republicans. Also, President Obama won the popular vote. Twice.

Gorsuch is unique, in that he is the only person ever confirmed to the Supreme Court by a minority coalition after being nominated by a popular vote loser.

If Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, moreover, it is likely that he will join Gorsuch as the second member of the Court in American history to be nominated by a minority president and confirmed by a coalition of senators who represent less than half of the nation.

The statement is inaccurate in one part and irrelevant in another. First, presidents do not name Supreme justices; they nominate them and the Senate votes either aye or no. There have been five presidents who were elected without a plurality of the vote: John Q. Adams, who successfully nominated one SCOTUS member, Rutherford Hayes, who nominated two, Benjamin Harrison, who nominated four, W who nominated 2, and Trump.

Second, Large metropolitan areas, such as NY, L.A. and Chicago tend to vote Dem. Frequently, these large cities outvote the rest of the state and elect Dem senators. This is not as big a deal as it might have been, because all senators are equal and each has one vote. In other words, two GOP senators from MT or WY or other lightly populated states have the same number of votes as the two Dem senators from CA or NY. Therefore, when a nominee for SCOTUS is voted upon, the senators from MT, who represent maybe half a million voters, have the same say as the senators from CA, who represent about thirty million.

The Constitution was deliberately written to include this safeguard so the larger states would not be able to ride roughshod over the smaller ones.

 

[KeithD]

TThe Constitution was deliberately written to include this safeguard so the larger states would to be able to ride roughshod over the smaller ones.

...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Justification:

Try these:

Corruption
Treason
Money Laundering
Mental incapacity
Sexual Assault
Illegitimate election

All legitimate questions that should be resolved before anything in this administration should go forward.

As I have said, there are allegations, but nothing approaching proof of any of these things. Especially the last one, because Trump was elected in the manner called for in the US Constitution.

 

[jaF0]

As I have said, there are allegations, but nothing approaching proof of any of these things. Especially the last one, because (a hateful shitbag) was elected in the manner called for in the US Constitution.

You're assuming the process was impartial and unimpaired, which many of us believe was not the case.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You're assuming the process was impartial and unimpaired, which many of us believe was not the case.

I'm not sure what you mean by "impartial and unimpaired." If you mean there was fraud, you might be right, but it was mostly committed by Hillary and her minions, although your kind has always claimed there was none.

 

[Gamine67]

As I have said, there are allegations, but nothing approaching proof of any of these things. Especially the last one, because Trump was elected in the manner called for in the US Constitution.

Cohen’s guilty plea with respect to campaign violations as directed by YOU KNOW WHO, throws in to doubt the entire election result and the legitimacy of the administration.

The mere fact that the popular vote wasn’t even close cast doubt on the entire process itself.

Yes, there are many allegations but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is surrounded by ducks and those ducks keep pleading guilty or being convicted; what would a reasonable person assume?

 

[KeithD]

what would a reasonable person assume?

Indeed. It would be food for thought for the Trumpettes here--if they could/would make reasonable assumptions. (But if it were about Obama/Hillary they certainly could/would).

 

[Boxlicker101]

Cohen’s guilty plea with respect to campaign violations as directed by YOU KNOW WHO, throws in to doubt the entire election result and the legitimacy of the administration.

The mere fact that the popular vote wasn’t even close cast doubt on the entire process itself.

Yes, there are many allegations but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is surrounded by ducks and those ducks keep pleading guilty or being convicted; what would a reasonable person assume?

Trump was elected by a majority vote of the Electoral College, which was in keeping with the Constitution. The difference in popular vote has nothing to do with anything, especially since nobody won a majority. There is no doubt whatsoever about this.

The campaign violations were apparently payments of small amounts of hush money to two women in Trump's past. Either these payments were reported as campaign expenses and should not have been, or they were not so reported and should have been. Either way, it's no more than a technicality.

I described the payments as being small amounts because they were a drop in the bucket compared to the overall expenses.

 

[KeithD]

Trump was elected by a majority vote of the Electoral College, which was in keeping with the Constitution. The difference I popular vote has nothing to do with anything, especially since nobody won a majority. There is no doubt whatsoever about this.

I no longer accept that. Increasingly it's being shown that Trump won by fraud and illegal outside help. Not at all in the spirit of America or the Constitution.

You are painted by the same brush.

 

[JackLuis]

I no longer accept that. Increasingly it's being shown that Trump won by fraud and illegal outside help. Not at all in the spirit of America or the Constitution.

You are painted by the same brush.

KeithD, KeithD, KeithD, Box has a point. So far, no one has positively indited anyone for the Election Fuckery.

Now this may just be evidence of 'some persons ARE above the Law,' or just the 200 year old vestige of slow communications, and well and the remnants of landed aristocracy.

No one has quantified the number of votes swayed by Russian meddling, just as no one has quantified the effect of American election fuckery in , Oh Iran, Guatemala, and half a hundered other places we've meddled. Election fuckery is part of the "Great Game" played by Nations.

It is the responsibility of the Press and the Congress to protect the Nation against such threats. However, with lick spittle Congress and a complaint press, who thinks more about "Clicks" than truth, we get what we pay for.

Demos should have paid a hell of a lot more attention to the Senate races and less to the Princess if they were concerned about our nation.

 

[VeraBad]

I don't know what their justification is, but I don't expect it to work. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-call-for-delaying-kavanaugh-hearings/

The hearings are scheduled to begin next week, and I expect that to happen, and for the justice to be confirmed.

Den what?