- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:13 pm to WaveHog
quote:
the frick?
this is blatantly untrue. it's never happened until garland.
I think they're getting confused with the Thurmond "rule":
The Thurmond rule, in US politics, posits that at some point in a presidential election year, the US Senate will not confirm the president's nominees to the federal judiciary except under certain circumstances. The practice is not an actual "rule" and has not been followed in the past, with presidents continuing to appoint and the Senate continuing to confirm judicial nominees during election years.
Although described by experts as a myth, the "rule" has been inconsistently invoked by senators from both political parties, usually when politically advantageous to do so.
- wiki
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:14 pm to WaveHog
quote:Yes it has.
this is blatantly untrue. it's never happened until garland
It's not a "well-documented tradition" though.
But Garland was a government authority-loving enemy of the 2A, so I'm glad they blocked him. Personally, I don't think they needed to play the "tradition" angle. Just block him. Any "more liberal" justice appointed by Hillary would have gone left on all of the same major issues that Garland would have, so it wouldn't have made much of a difference.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:18 pm to DyeHardDylan
Unprecedented? You trying to pass off alternative facts
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:27 pm to DyeHardDylan
You have a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and POTUS. The pubs fought Obama over everything
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:35 pm to blueboy
quote:
this is blatantly untrue. it's never happened until garland
Yes it has.
name one other time that a scotus choice was not appointed late in a president's term.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:54 pm to WaveHog
It happened twice in 1968.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:01 pm to blueboy
quote:
It happened twice in 1968.
no it didn't.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:03 pm to blueboy
in 1968 Chief Justice Warren said he was going to retire, so LBJ nominated Abe Fortas - who was already a member of SCOTUS - to chief justice to replace warren.
his elevation (not nomination) was filibustered because ethical problems appeared after LBJ entered his name.
with his nomination filibustered, warren decided to stay on the bench and delay retiring, which meant there was no vacancy to fill so the nominee for that vacancy withdrew his name.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:03 pm to WaveHog
Yes it did. Here's the whole list. Some were confirmed. Most were not.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:04 pm to WaveHog
I disagree with the Repubs not bring Garland for a vote.
They should have straight up Bork'd his arse. And by that I mean, "Yup...Garland is eminently qualified to hold a seat in the SCOTUS...but frick you we're playing politics so denied."
Just like the Dems did to Bork.
They should have straight up Bork'd his arse. And by that I mean, "Yup...Garland is eminently qualified to hold a seat in the SCOTUS...but frick you we're playing politics so denied."
Just like the Dems did to Bork.
This post was edited on 2/17/17 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:11 pm to Centinel
Oh how I'm waiting for someone to defend what the Democrats did with Robert Bork...
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:11 pm to Centinel
quote:
I disagree with the Repubs not bring Garland for a vote.
They should have straight up Bork'd his arse. And by that I mean, "Yup...Garland is eminently qualified to hold a seat in the SCOTUS...but frick you we're playing politics so denied."
Just like the Dems did to Bork.
completely agree. it's unprecedented to keep a nominee from going to a vote just because it's late in the president's term.
it should have gone to a vote.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:12 pm to WaveHog
So you would have no problem with Republicans blocking Garland purely for political reasons, so long as it came to a vote?
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:12 pm to Centinel
quote:
So you would have no problem with Republicans blocking Garland purely for political reasons, so long as it came to a vote?
correct. the process is that the president nominates, then the senate debates.
This post was edited on 2/17/17 at 6:14 pm
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:13 pm to WaveHog
Well shite, can't really argue with you on that one.
Damnit.
ETA: Have an upvote. I'm an a-hole, but I try to be a consistent a-hole in my political beliefs.
Damnit.
ETA: Have an upvote. I'm an a-hole, but I try to be a consistent a-hole in my political beliefs.
This post was edited on 2/17/17 at 6:16 pm
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:15 pm to Centinel
obviously we would have wanted different outcomes on that vote, but one should've happened.This post was edited on 2/17/17 at 6:16 pm
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:18 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:
Unqualified people take longer to approve.
i.e., outsiders, nonpoliticians huh? We all know politicians past so you're correct. Unqualified politicians take longer because they're unknown.
Hope for you yet.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:20 pm to WaveHog
Agreed
I think it was a stupid move by the Republicans. They had the precedent set by Ted Kennedy to completely assassinate Garland's character and use that a reason to vote against him. Then bring it to a vote and deny him the seat.
I think it was a stupid move by the Republicans. They had the precedent set by Ted Kennedy to completely assassinate Garland's character and use that a reason to vote against him. Then bring it to a vote and deny him the seat.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News