Jump to content

Senate confirms Justice Handmaid One


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
Just now, mclumber1 said:

This is a failure that can be put at the feet of both Obama and Ginsburg herself.  

 

Because the republicans would TOTALLY have held confirmation hearings for an equally liberal justice nominee and not at all stonewalled it like they did with a moderate centrist like Merrick fucking Garland.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CayceG said:

Because the republicans would TOTALLY have held confirmation hearings for an equally liberal justice nominee and not at all stonewalled it like they did with a moderate centrist like Merrick fucking Garland.

 

Democrats still controlled the Senate at the start of Obama's second term. Kagan (63-37) and Sotomayor (68-31) got through. And replacing a liberal with a liberal would not have gotten the same pusbhack as replacing a conservative with a moderate--although of course the real problem was McConnell refusing to hold hearings at all.

 

But yes, it's so naive to say that Ginsburg should have stepped down at the start of Obama's second term. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CayceG said:

 

Because the republicans would TOTALLY have held confirmation hearings for an equally liberal justice nominee and not at all stonewalled it like they did with a moderate centrist like Merrick fucking Garland.

 

2009 and 2010 called:  Democrats had a comfortable majority in the Senate.  If the worry was filibuster, consider that the Democrats ended up nuking the rule a few years later to ensure lower court nominees could be confirmed.  They should have gone for broke and gotten rid of the filibuster if the GOP tried to block a replacement for Ginsburg. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

2009 and 2010 called:  Democrats had a comfortable majority in the Senate.  If the worry was filibuster, consider that the Democrats ended up nuking the rule a few years later to ensure lower court nominees could be confirmed.  They should have gone for broke and gotten rid of the filibuster if the GOP tried to block a replacement for Ginsburg. 

That was back when almost the whole party was stuck in the past. Now most have wisened up to turtle's tricks. Not Chuck though. He's hopelessly stuck in the past

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2019 at 3:13 PM, RedSoxFan9 said:

Oral arguments are terrible, and she should skip more.

 

You can’t vote on cases in which you don’t participate in the oral argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anathema- said:

 

Except the courts have already been packed. Expanding the size of the court is not synonymous with packing. 

 

Yes it is. That is precisely what the court-packing plan was :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...