SCOTUS Nomination Hearing

[baldo]

Garland was not going to get confirmed no matter what.

Why waste time on hearings?

And don't tell me they had a duty to give him a vote.  They have a duty to do productive things, not screw around with a no-win candidate.  

Garland was not a bad judge, except he didn't like the 2d Amendment (which is why he was nominated).  No hearing, no vote, no chance.  All good.  

The dems would do the exact same thing if they were in power at the time (and it was a Rep president appointment).  

Some Republicans voted on and allowed Kagan and Sotomeyor onto the Court.... to their everlasting shame.  It was not going to happen again.  It will take decades for then to die.

Are you serious?

What world do you live in?

 If you are commenting about his claim that republicans didn't vote for Sotomayor and Kagen. You would be wrong.. 9 republicans voted for Sotomayor and 5 voted for Kagen.

 Also when it comes to the law I would be more inclined to think Jess knows one hell if a lot more about the law then you do......

I was referring to his claim that:

"Garland was not going to get confirmed no matter what.

Why waste time on hearings?

And don't tell me they had a duty to give him a vote.  They have a duty to do productive things, not screw around with a no-win candidate."

Where is it written that they don't have to do 'stuff' they don't want to? 

And his assertion that "Some Republicans voted on and allowed Kagan and Sotomeyor onto the Court

" ??????

What the hell is that? They did it because they were being nice?

I'm sure he knows scads more about the law than I do. This is just common sense.

[f6john]

And why were there no repercussions for McConnell? Because the exact same tactic will be used by the Democrats when the opportunity presents itself and everybody knows it.

You guys keep saying that. It's an easy out.

Because I don't agree. What the Dems should have done is expelled him from the Senate for pulling that sh it. I'm pissed as hell at them for not doing something, anything to make that bastard held accountable.

Let’s see, Republicans controlled the Senate, all they could do is cry like little bitches on the playground. It was fun  saying that but truth is they, the senators, are all in the same club and the only thing that’s going to take one of them out is outside forces, something they did or appeared to do that was criminal or so morally reprehensible that they own party turns on them. Remember the Al Franken?

[Jess from VA]

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.

Seems readily apparent even to a dumb butcher that they failed their oath to uphold the Constitution.

I'd say the senate didn't Consent. Seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm just a humble computer geek.

The best way to deal with a divisive troll is to ignore them until they go away. That's what the senate did.

As a previous occupant of the White House once said "Elections have consequences."

Yes Brian that's the way it went.  Just because historically things may have often gone differently does not amend the constitution (actual amendments do).

0 made the appointment, and the advice and (non) consent of the Senate majority was to have no hearing, no discussion, and no vote.  You may not like it, but no rules were broken, no constitution was violated, and no oaths were violated. 

There was not an actual vote to have no hearing, and the Dems lacked the power to command such a vote.... which would have lost anyway.  The rules WERE followed, just not the way some would like them followed. 

Do not tell me the Dems would do any differently in the identical circumstances, because they would (and everyone knows it).

[The emperor has no clothes]

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.

Seems readily apparent even to a dumb butcher that they failed their oath to uphold the Constitution.

I'd say the senate didn't Consent. Seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm just a humble computer geek.

The best way to deal with a divisive troll is to ignore them until they go away. That's what the senate did.

As a previous occupant of the White House once said "Elections have consequences."

Yes Brian that's the way it went.  Just because historically things may have often gone differently does not amend the constitution (actual amendments do).

0 made the appointment, and the advice and (non) consent of the Senate majority was to have no hearing, no discussion, and no vote.  You may not like it, but no rules were broken, no constitution was violated, and no oaths were violated. 

There was not an actual vote to have no hearing, and the Dems lacked the power to command such a vote.... which would have lost anyway.  The rules WERE followed, just not the way some would like them followed. 

Do not tell me the Dems would do any differently in the identical circumstances, because they would (and everyone knows it).

Evidently they don’t teach Constitutional law in the Air Force 

[Jess from VA]

Actually they don't, they teach Constitutional Law in law school (before the Air Force).

I took Con Law I and II in undergrad with law school texts, with a gifted attorney instructor.  Then I took Con Law I, II and III, and Criminal Procedure I and II (which is mostly Con law) in law school. Some of my best grades too.  

[scooperhsd]

I'm not saying the Republicans had to  approve Garland. But they were derelect in  not even holding hearings.

As far as time wasting - why are we even bothering to pay these people ? They (were)  are not getting anything done.

[MAD6Gun]

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.

Seems readily apparent even to a dumb butcher that they failed their oath to uphold the Constitution.

I'd say the senate didn't Consent. Seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm just a humble computer geek.

The best way to deal with a divisive troll is to ignore them until they go away. That's what the senate did.

As a previous occupant of the White House once said "Elections have consequences."

Yes Brian that's the way it went.  Just because historically things may have often gone differently does not amend the constitution (actual amendments do).

0 made the appointment, and the advice and (non) consent of the Senate majority was to have no hearing, no discussion, and no vote.  You may not like it, but no rules were broken, no constitution was violated, and no oaths were violated. 

There was not an actual vote to have no hearing, and the Dems lacked the power to command such a vote.... which would have lost anyway.  The rules WERE followed, just not the way some would like them followed. 

Do not tell me the Dems would do any differently in the identical circumstances, because they would (and everyone knows it).

Evidently they don’t teach Constitutional law in the Air Force 

 Evedently you are questioning Jess's ability to interpret the law.  You're just a dumb butcher (your words not mine). What makes you an expert? Did you stay in a holiday Inn last night?