prisonchaplain

Should POTUS/Senate push through SCOTUS judge?

Recommended Posts

I'm torn, but thinking that any semblance of decency, respect and cooperation between opposing sides is gone . Many religious leaders are expecting persecution, either following November's election, or a few years later. At least having one more judge in place will delay some of the trials/tribulations to come. :::sigh:::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good National Review article on the history of such things.  

Quote

Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.

 

Quote

No Supreme Court nominee was filibustered by a minority of Senators until 1968. Senate Democrats attempted filibusters of William Rehnquist twice, and launched the first formal filibuster of a new appointment to the Court on partisan lines against Samuel Alito in 2005. Joe Biden participated prominently in the Rehnquist and Alito filibusters.

 

Quote

Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful, the only failure being the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas as chief justice in 1968.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RBJ is also on record.  The Blaze: Here's what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about voting on Supreme Court nominations in election year

Quote

how did Ginsburg feel about election year Supreme Court nominations? Fortunately, she made it clear in 2016 when Republicans and Democrats fought over filling the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia's sudden death nine months before the election. When asked if the Senate should consider then-President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, Ginsburg said, "That's their job," the New York Times reported. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year," Ginsburg added.

Several months later, Ginsburg said having only eight justices on the Supreme Court is not good. "Eight is not a good number," she said, the Washington Post reported.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't represent the GOP, so I get to be more blunt. The secular fundamentalists hate America's undercurrent of Judeo-Christian morality with a passion. They desire to force our private colleges to house gay partners. They would use the force of law to compel us to provide professional services (cakes and flowers, etc.) for sacrilegious marriage sacraments. They would declare unfit for public office any who take their faith serious enough to be, for example, pro-life. The dogma lives loudly in us indeed. So...call us hypocrites all you want, we're putting as many of our judges in as we can, while we can. Your election term may be coming, but pardon us for defensively prepping.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Good National Review article on the history of such things.  

 

 

 

 

Dems are gonna dem.  But it sounds like several GOP senators spoke carelessly in 2016 during the Garland nomination process, and now those remarks are coming back to haunt them.  I know that on my Facebook feed a lot of my progressive friends are professing shock and horror that conservatives would have actually lied to them about their future agenda; and I’m just like “Hmm.  You mean, your opponents tried to get your buy-in by promising not to do something, and then they went ahead did it anyways the first chance they got?  Yeah, welcome to my world”.

Country’s still screwed, though.  The two most schadenfreudelicious scenarios are:

1). Trump tried to buy Romney’s support by nominating Mike Lee.

2). Within the next week, 3 or 4 more GOP squish-senators join Collins and Murkowski in refusing to confirm a successor for Ginsburg pre-election, whereupon Trump nominates . . . Merrick Garland, who is rejected in mid-October by a party-line vote with all Dems voting to confirm.  The Dem hypocracy having been fully exposed, Trump next nominates a solid conservative who is confirmed prior to Election Day.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
 
2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
 
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
 
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
 
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
 
2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
 
2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
 
2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
 
2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
 
2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
 
2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
 
Mitch McConnell, March 2016:  “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your point is that the Republicans are liars and hypocrites, then I grant your point. The fact (and it is a fact) that the Democrats are far worse doesn't justify the Republican hypocrisy. But this is nothing beyond political gamesmanship. You can bet that the Democrats, in this position, would do exactly the same thing. Their pearl clutching on this matter is political theater, nothing more.

Consider: The Supreme Court has had a leftist majority for the entirety of our lifetimes. The political left sees a leftist Supreme Court as their inherent right. And that is what is really at stake here. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court take a conservative bend? The Left sees this as unacceptable and will thus do everything in their power to prohibit it. Meanwhile, the Republicans are 100% within their right to nominate and confirm the justice of their choosing. How does the Left respond? With a threat to burn the entire house down by packing the court under a Biden presidency.

Rail all you want against Republican hypocrisy. I might even join you. But don't lose sight of what's really going on here. As is almost always the case, the real, deep evil being done here is being done by the Democrats. The Republicans are mostly garden-variety fools and jackasses. The Democrats are something far more sinister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vort said:

If your point is that the Republicans are liars and hypocrites, then I grant your point. The fact (and it is a fact) that the Democrats are far worse doesn't justify the Republican hypocrisy. But this is nothing beyond political gamesmanship. You can bet that the Democrats, in this position, would do exactly the same thing. Their pearl clutching on this matter is political theater, nothing more

100% agreed. For every quote someone lines up from a Republican saying we should only nominate someone after an election, I could post a quote from a Democrat, including Justice Ginsburg, saying it's the Senate's job to nominate someone when a vacancy occurs. If the question is "are politicians right and left hypocrites?" the answer is yes. But if the question is "do Republicans need to nominate someone who will protect what remains of our Republic?" the answer is also yes. I don't know if we have the votes to get it done, but we have to try. There are Democrats right now declaring that they will increase the size of the court and impeach any justices that don't meet their litmus test of who "should" be on the court if they get elected. This is unacceptable, we have the presidency and the senate for now, we have to try to oppose this argument.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Scott said:
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
 
2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
 
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
 
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
 
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
 
2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
 
2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
 
2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
 
2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
 
2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
 
2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
 
Mitch McConnell, March 2016:  “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
 

Hmm.  You mean, your opponents tried to get your buy-in by promising not to do something, and then they went ahead did it anyways the first chance they got?  

Yeah, welcome to my world.

For better and for worse:  the days where Democrats could flagrantly lie in their negotiations with Republicans (“gays just want to be left alone, they don’t want *marriage*!“ “gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to agree with it!” “gay marriage will certainly never have repercussions for free exercise of religion!” “just legalize the aliens who are already here and we *promise* we’ll get tough on border security!” “no, we’ll totally support the military while it goes after the SOBs who perpetrated 9/11!” “we want abortion to be safe, rare, and legal; we certainly don’t celebrate it!” “we just want to remove the statues of Confederates; of *course* we continue to revere Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Madison and Lincoln!” “We believe in treating people the same regardless of race” “We have no intention of nationalizing the health care industry!”) while simultaneously expecting Republicans to keep their own promises regardless of cost, are now over.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Scott said:
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): ...
...
 
Mitch McConnell, March 2016: ...

Once again, you've fallen for the media's penchant for taking things out of context.

While a few of them really did mean what you say, the great majority of them all included the condition: when the Senate majority and the Presidency were of opposite parties (or those quoted were speaking against the backdrop of such conversation).  

Think about NT's post above.  100% of the time when a vacancy occurred in an election year when the President and Senate majority were of the same party, the nominations went forth and were confirmed.  80% of those where opposing parties controlled their respective offices, the nominations did NOT go forward to confirmation.

Think about it.  100% of the time when they were of the same party (any party) they went forward,  And you think this is something worth getting into a stink about?  Check your facts before you jump on the bandwagon of "Demonize the Republicans."

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Vort said:

. You can bet that the Democrats, in this position, would do exactly the same thing. Their pearl clutching on this matter is political theater, nothing more.

 

Of course they would.  Look what they did with Obamacare.  

Put the judge on the bench

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2020 at 7:41 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I'm torn, but thinking that any semblance of decency, respect and cooperation between opposing sides is gone . Many religious leaders are expecting persecution, either following November's election, or a few years later. At least having one more judge in place will delay some of the trials/tribulations to come. :::sigh:::

I am of the opinion that we are taking another step (a very giant step) towards civil war.  I believe if Trump is reelected - things will happen sooner.  If Biden is elected - it will be postponed but when it come it will be worse.  I believe that the Book of Mormon is prophetic and for our day.  I would refer you to the last chapters of Helaman and the first chapters of 3Nephi

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  They should.

 

On 9/20/2020 at 8:21 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Dems are gonna dem.  But it sounds like several GOP senators spoke carelessly in 2016 during the Garland nomination process, and now those remarks are coming back to haunt them.  I know that on my Facebook feed a lot of my progressive friends are professing shock and horror that conservatives would have actually lied to them about their future agenda; and I’m just like “Hmm.  You mean, your opponents tried to get your buy-in by promising not to do something, and then they went ahead did it anyways the first chance they got?  Yeah, welcome to my world”.

The Hypocrisy is strong.  Much of what they said was to try to calm to reactions from those who did not agree with the politics of the time.  It was obvious the real reason they did not confirm a justice nomination from Obama was because of politics and the hope they would have a republican win the election.  Still, many of those comments have come back to haunt them as it indicates a rather large hypocritical slant to the whole thing, if their comments were accepted and taken at face value.

Still, in that way the situation now is very similar.  They have pressure to fill it because they do not have firm hopes that they will win the Presidential office in the coming election.  If the Republicans lose big this election, having a conservative court would be a way to balance out between conservative and liberal policies over the next few years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a fascinating Wall Street Journal article, the author said that the mistake of 2016 was that the GOP bothered trying to justify their actions. Obama's choice was not nominated because he did not have the votes. Now, Trump does. It really is pure politics, and always has been. Now the Democrats are threatening to pack SCOTUS, to make Washington DC and Puerto Rico states, etc. They will anyway. For them the Constitution is a living, breathing document--meant to be bent to their will. Personally, I remember when the SCOTUS nominations became nasty. Robert Bork was "borked" by the Democrats for his ideology. It was the first time. We've never recovered. There is no high ground left to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems likely that Trump will nominate a woman.   When he does we will see once again how the Dems truly feel about women, being strong, confident, and independent.  The moment they see a woman who does not toe their party line they will unleash hell upon her.   It is already starting just from Trumps short list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should POTUS select someone to fill that seat? YES!  I think that the Dems are having a fit because the GOP seems to have flip-flopped from 2016, but from what I remember that previous decision was based on the fact that Obama was finishing out his term limit. Trump is not finishing out his term limit- he is going into his second term. And thus, according to the Constitution, President Trump has a duty to do his job.   If this was his second term- the Dems might have a real argument, but it's not..... so they don't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lindy said:

..but from what I remember that previous decision was based on the fact that Obama was finishing out his term limit.

No, it wasn't.  Mitch McConnell explicitly said that it has never been done WHEN THE SENATE AND PRESIDENT WERE OF DIFFERENT PARTIES. And he was right.

Now that they are of the same party, what would be the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe that the Book of Mormon is prophetic and for our day. 

What I'm about to say may seem snarky or stating the obvious.  I'm not trying to be snarky when I say this, but quite serious.  And what I"m saying is not very obvious.

I believe it is prophetic for ANY day.   What I mean by that is...

  • The sequence of events indicated in the BoM are the signs that the Second Coming is near.
  • Whether we actually continue the sequence of events to their fruition depends on whether we are "ripe in iniquity".
    • If we are not, then we will be pulled back from the brink.
    • If we are, then we will complete the sequence of events.  And we will know that Armageddon is nigh at hand.

The fact that we still see a large population fighting against the tide tells me that we will not complete the sequence of events.  And as long as there remain enough to stem the tide, then we will continue another year, or another decade, or another generation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The fact that we still see a large population fighting against the tide tells me that we will not complete the sequence of events. 

I pray this continues and holds. I pray that more of the silent majority will no longer allow intimidation to keep them silent.
Pres. Hinckley - The Times in Which We Live

Quote

We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10).

Such an incredibly simple message...

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2020 at 3:40 PM, Carborendum said:

No, it wasn't.  Mitch McConnell explicitly said that it has never been done WHEN THE SENATE AND PRESIDENT WERE OF DIFFERENT PARTIES. And he was right.

Now that they are of the same party, what would be the point?

WHAT? are you telling me that a politician would lie to us? :)

I guess the lies depend on whose in power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lindy said:

WHAT? are you telling me that a politician would lie to us? :)

Actually, if you follow the context of the thread, it was the media that was lying to us. And they still do.

Just recently, they spread the lie that a medication that Trump took to treat COVID was experimental and extremely dangerous. So, Trump's condition had to be severe for them to risk that.Turns out that it has been around a long time and is used to treat a whole host of conditions from mild asthma to severe pneumonia.

Yes, the media lies to us all the time.

15 hours ago, Lindy said:

I guess the lies depend on whose in power?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.  But, yes, the media always lies in favor of liberal politicians and against conservative ones.  If people simply stopped listening to the media and researched stuff from independents then we'd have a much more conservative government and people.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If people simply stopped listening to the media and researched stuff from independents then we'd have a much more conservative government and people.

BINGO!

The mainstream media makes it so easy for people to become and remain 'low information voters'. The Left leaning mainstream media spoon-feeds people their same biased talking points and many folks, being generally lazy, take it at face value. They never bother to dig any deeper, learn more for themselves or investigate the other side of the story = hence 'low information voter'.

The far left loves 'low information voters'. They typically play to their emotions only.
Ex. "Trump is a racist!!!"
Most people strongly oppose racism. All the mainstream media needs to do is call Trump a racist over and over and over again... low information voters then believe he actually is a racist and thus oppose him.  Trump has repeatedly denounced white supremacist, yet the media repeatedly demands he do it again and again as evidenced once more in the last debate. 

Low information voters don't dig any further. Just like rioters that spawn up 'immediately' after an event. They don't dig, they don't wait for facts to be heard first... 100% emotional low information driven.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Actually, if you follow the context of the thread, it was the media that was lying to us. And they still do.

Just recently, they spread the lie that a medication that Trump took to treat COVID was experimental and extremely dangerous. So, Trump's condition had to be severe for them to risk that.Turns out that it has been around a long time and is used to treat a whole host of conditions from mild asthma to severe pneumonia.

Yes, the media lies to us all the time.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.  But, yes, the media always lies in favor of liberal politicians and against conservative ones.  If people simply stopped listening to the media and researched stuff from independents then we'd have a much more conservative government and people.

I was actually trying for a bit o humor :)

You don't have to tell me about the media lying to us...... well known fact to those that don't have blinders on. They tend to use their position to try to sway the public to the left side by "reporting" everything but factual truth. Yes, lies.  I don't watch liberal "news" shows for facts... actually I can't stomach the lies, hatred and venom they spew. They seem to instill fear and panic to those who believe what they are "reporting".

BBC is more factual than our countries mainstream media. 

I think that the hate filled, vindictive media have joined up with the Gadianton Robbers to destroy the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2020 at 10:36 AM, prisonchaplain said:

In a fascinating Wall Street Journal article, the author said that the mistake of 2016 was that the GOP bothered trying to justify their actions. Obama's choice was not nominated because he did not have the votes. Now, Trump does. It really is pure politics, and always has been. Now the Democrats are threatening to pack SCOTUS, to make Washington DC and Puerto Rico states, etc. They will anyway. For them the Constitution is a living, breathing document--meant to be bent to their will. Personally, I remember when the SCOTUS nominations became nasty. Robert Bork was "borked" by the Democrats for his ideology. It was the first time. We've never recovered. There is no high ground left to take.

Good post PC!

After some reading about making DC a state (sometime back) ..... it is written somewhere in the Constitution about the area of our nation's capitol (federal district?)  cannot belong to a state, it has to be it's own entity.  Not that it would stop the Dems for trying....it's like what you said "meant to be bent to their will".... they don't seem to take the Constitution seriously.  I'm sure that the rest of DC could incorporate into a state....  but I'm sure it would require a Constitutional Amendment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now