Brett Kavanaugh Will Be on the Supreme Court; Merrick Garland Will Not

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
https://apple.news/AZaCoLXbARhaZYhN-HFiBoA

One of the most striking things about the age of Trump is that Democrats have convinced themselves all the misogynists, racists, anti-Semites and moral cretins are on the right and everyone on the left is either pure as the driven snow or their motives can be explained away. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Les Moonves and Harvey Weinstein keep getting exposed. The left attacks white nationalists and excuses their kissing cousins in antifa. They attack conservatives such as David Horowitz and give progressives such as Linda Sarsour a podium. They are convinced they have a monopoly on truth while Republicans believe lies.


Barack Obama nominated Garland to the United States Supreme Court, but he had no power to put Garland on the Court unilaterally. Doing so required both the advice and consent of the Senate. The Republican Party advised Obama not to nominate Garland and refused to give consent. While Democrats have a legitimate grievance that Garland should have at least been considered, Joe Biden, in a prior role as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had established the precedent of not filling judicial vacancies in the run up to presidential elections.
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
While Democrats have a legitimate grievance that Garland should have at least been considered, Joe Biden, in a prior role as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had established the precedent of not filling judicial vacancies in the run up to presidential elections.
To be honest, it IS a fair argument that he should have been considered. It was politically expedient that Vice President (at the time) Joe Biden was stupid enough to provide the GOP with an "out", conservatives (well, anyone really. But, I only hold conservatives to standards, as others have proven they have no standards) should not base their actions on the advice of Joe Biden unless they want to take his advice on so many other things (namely, virtually all) about which Mr. Biden is wrong. We conservatives should hold ourselves to good standards, not the standards of Mr. Biden. And, using Biden as the prop of stupidity in the left, then following his lead only makes US look stupid.

MG should have gotten a vote based on his merits. I suspect he would have failed to be seated on that alone.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
This is a good "What if?" study. Assume that Garland's confirmation would have been voted down, and then Hillary had indeed won the election. Chances are very good that her nomination would have been far more left leaning than the moderate Garland.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
They should have at least given him a vote, even if they were going to vote him down. I'm not happy that they stymied that for almost a year.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
This is a good "What if?" study. Assume that Garland's confirmation would have been voted down, and then Hillary had indeed won the election. Chances are very good that her nomination would have been far more left leaning than the moderate Garland.
Ok....and? IF the people would have voted for HRC when a huge part of the election discussion was "who will each candidate nominate for the SCOTUS", shouldn't (under that hypothetical situation) the nomination have been more left?
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
Ok....and? IF the people would have voted for HRC when a huge part of the election discussion was "who will each candidate nominate for the SCOTUS", shouldn't (under that hypothetical situation) the nomination have been more left?
Absolutely. And in that case the Rep Senate (assuming it stayed Rep), they would have shot themselves in the foot voting down the moderate Garland. They likely would have then faced a possibly long line of left nominees, or Hillary sneaking in one as a recess appointment.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
To be honest, it IS a fair argument that he should have been considered. It was politically expedient that Vice President (at the time) Joe Biden was stupid enough to provide the GOP with an "out", conservatives (well, anyone really. But, I only hold conservatives to standards, as others have proven they have no standards) should not base their actions on the advice of Joe Biden unless they want to take his advice on so many other things (namely, virtually all) about which Mr. Biden is wrong. We conservatives should hold ourselves to good standards, not the standards of Mr. Biden. And, using Biden as the prop of stupidity in the left, then following his lead only makes US look stupid.

MG should have gotten a vote based on his merits. I suspect he would have failed to be seated on that alone.
It's amazing how many of the tactics the Dems used against the GOP have come full circle and bit them in the ass.......
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
They should have at least given him a vote, even if they were going to vote him down. I'm not happy that they stymied that for almost a year.


Naa it was a good poke into Mr 'I have a Pen and a Phone' s left eye ...
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Absolutely. And in that case the Rep Senate (assuming it stayed Rep), they would have shot themselves in the foot voting down the moderate Garland. They likely would have then faced a possibly long line of left nominees, or Hillary sneaking in one as a recess appointment.
I agree - that is absolutely how elections work.

IF HRC won, and the GOP maintained the Senate, they could easily have continued on with "no" votes (as is their prerogative) on even-more-left nominations. LOTS of "ifs" in there.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It's amazing how many of the tactics the Dems used against the GOP have come full circle and bit them in the ass.......
True. My point is that we, conservatives, should go by how things should be done, not precedent of people we said were wrong when they did something.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
HOWEVER -

I would have agreed with it, had it happened after say, Labor Day. I do agree that you don't push through a SCOTUS nomination late in a Presidential election year - but in the spring? He should have been voted on.
I think Jan 25, after the election, is the absolute last day a nominee should be nominated. Almost as if the pres is the pres until relieved.

That does NOT mean the Senate must vote yes. But, the pres is the pres until relieved, and should be given the ability to be the pres until relieved.
 

transporter

Active Member
There is only one right answer.

The "what ifs" are BS comments for the dumbed down. The "Biden gave them an out" is a point for the dumbed down.

The President IS the President until the inauguration. Garland should have been given a vote.

The man who duly nominated and therefore should have been given a vote. Just like every other judge that is nominated.

That is how it is supposed to work. That is how it should work.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
There is only one right answer.

The "what ifs" are BS comments for the dumbed down. The "Biden gave them an out" is a point for the dumbed down.

The President IS the President until the inauguration. Garland should have been given a vote.

The man who duly nominated and therefore should have been given a vote. Just like every other judge that is nominated.

That is how it is supposed to work. That is how it should work.
If you ever get in charge of how it works then you can write the rules.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
There is only one right answer.

The President IS the President until the inauguration. Garland should have been given a vote.

The man who duly nominated and therefore should have been given a vote. Just like every other judge that is nominated.

That is how it is supposed to work. That is how it should work.
Well, not every judge that is nominated gets a vote. That's kind of what Biden said.

But, we agree they should. That doesn't mean they should get an up-vote, just a vote.
 
Top