Basically. The people will have spoke. And so unless the nominee is Garland, the answer should be no.
All the red regions are GOP (((safe spaces))). If you squint real hard, you can almost see the snowflakes.
One of the illusion that Democrats is that if Garland had a hearing he would have been on the Supreme Court. I think there is virtually no chance that he would have gotten 50 votes in Republican control Senate. Now I believe he should have had a hearing, but he was too liberal to be confirmed.
The important precedent is Ronald Reagan and Justice Kennedy. Kennedy was Reagan 3rd nominee. The highly qualified but partisan Judge Bork was first Borked. Then the more moderate Judge Ginsburg was rejected because of smoking Marijuana. Finally Reagan nominated Kennedy who was widely viewed as being fair and a moderate. A reputation that he both deserved and has lived up to over the years often being the swing vote.
Now I highly doubt that President Trump is capable of nominating a moderate, and maybe not even President Pence. So I think it is perfectly reasonable for Democrats if they take the Senate to block the nomination of any very conservative justice.
I think it’s essential for Democrats to block any piece of legislation put forward by the Republicans from now to the end of all time, but yes, that’s a good start.
I’d be fine with it but not going past the duration of time the GOP refused the Garland hearing. What was that, about a year? Tit for tat is fair play but I don’t believe dems should ever up the stakes with that loathesome strategy.
Bork essentially disqualified himself by being the guy who caved to Nixon during the Saturday night massacre.
He was a tool for obstruction of Justice. You can’t do that and then serve on the supreme Court.
It wasn’t one year. It was “until we have a non-black, non-Democratic president”.
I’m not exaggerating. Senator Richard Burr said “If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the supreme court”
Edit: Cruz and McCain made similar remarks.
Yes. The GOP had already made this into a total war, scorched earth scenario. Pretending you can do anything but respond in kind and survive at this point is incredibly naive. They’re willing to do whatever it takes to cling to power and snuff the light of progress out from the world, and must be resisted utterly and eternally.
Probably not a fan of Mark Warner’s plan?
The time to reach out for bipartisan pushback is right god damn now, before it happens. Jesus.
McConnel will keep saying we don’t need a bill to protect Rosenstein and Mueller because they won’t be fired, right up until after it happens. Then, hey, what could we have done? Who could have predicted this?
If you’re so sure Trump won’t fire anyone, then the bill just sits there unused. Fine. But that’s no reason not to do it.
The refusal of the GOP to confirm Garland, or even give him a hearing, was one of the things that started pushing me away from the past, because they were straight up breaking the rules.
Refusal to obey the rules because doing so isn’t fun is an indicator of a lack of moral character.
We seriously need thousands more of you, Timex. Willing to separate from the bullshit that the party has become.
Right, so you’re left with the choice of:
- These are the rules now; you NEVER confirm a Supreme Court Judge appointed by a president of the opposing party, or
- Only Democrats have to follow the rules and Republicans don’t.
Not great choices.
I don’t think I’m naive. I think I have the right response, in theory anyway. You do it once in return, as equally as possible, then (hopefully) guide things back to decency and order. Sometimes it’s difficult being the only adults in the room but you still have to be adults.
Seems like a tactic that only works in the last year of a presidency so it might take a while before dems have to (or get a chance to) play that asshole card, but now it’s there.
This is where your response begins to fumble.
You have a senator stand in the senate and give a speech in where they quote every republican who refused to give Garland a hearing. And you have another senator give that speech, and another until the damn GOP understands what the fuck they did.
I’ve heard that rubbing dog’s faces in their shit-piles on the carpet is one of the less-useful means of housebreaking them.
Worked with my kids.
Now that the precedent has been set and NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER has occurred, the GOP will just keep obstructing in the future as much as possible.
Well yes, but now we’re expecting the average GOP Senator to possess the mental capacity and moral development of a toddler.
And you guys accuse me of pie-in-the-sky thinking!