I'm very happy that the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago. It was a pathetic banana republic move and it's the very thing that has energized both the independent AND Republican voters to oust democrats nationwide.
The [Wall Street] Journal, in its article published on Wednesday, reported that an informant told investigators that Trump still had classified documents at Mar-a-Lago beyond the 15 boxes the National Archives took in February. The former president at that point had also told authorities that he had no more classified materials in his possession.
That's exactly what the Democrats would have done, and will do when the situation arises. Joe Biden even said so as Senate Majority Leader.
I'd be very surprised. But that's not what I'm asking.
Do you think such an action would be fine and appropriate governance by the senate?
Garland was never going to be confirmed, the senate didn’t haven’t the numbers to get it done. Obama nominated Garland, as was his right to do so. The Republican led senate considered his nomination and chose not to confirm him. A Supreme Court nomination doesn’t equal automatic confirmation as 1 in 5 nominations do not get confirmed based on historical data.
The only gripe is that the senate didn’t hold the customary hearings, but the outcome was already obvious. He wouldn’t have been confirmed even if they held the hearings.
If a Republican President nominates a justice and a democratic led senate chooses not to confirm the nomination without a hearing, then that’s fair game at this point. McConnell set a precedent and it will eventually come around and the other side can benefit from it. When republicans cry about it, dems can point to McConnell and say “deal with it”.
The idea that the garland seat was stolen is just wrong, though. He wasn’t getting confirmed with the senate makeup.
I'd be very surprised. But that's not what I'm asking.
Do you think such an action would be fine and appropriate governance by the senate?
Garland was never going to be confirmed, the senate didn’t haven’t the numbers to get it done. Obama nominated Garland, as was his right to do so. The Republican led senate considered his nomination and chose not to confirm him. A Supreme Court nomination doesn’t equal automatic confirmation as 1 in 5 nominations do not get confirmed based on historical data.
The only gripe is that the senate didn’t hold the customary hearings, but the outcome was already obvious. He wouldn’t have been confirmed even if they held the hearings.
If a Republican President nominates a justice and a democratic led senate chooses not to confirm the nomination without a hearing, then that’s fair game at this point. McConnell set a precedent and it will eventually come around and the other side can benefit from it. When republicans cry about it, dems can point to McConnell and say “deal with it”.
The idea that the garland seat was stolen is just wrong, though. He wasn’t getting confirmed with the senate makeup.
you are calling for something not normal or good - scorched earth warfare in the senate.
there are hardly any precedents to the sort of thing McConnell did. He drove a giant wedge into the nation and he says he is proud of doing it.
Use your BS filter. It's just not appropriate for the senate to refuse to have hearings or vote on presidential appointments. It's just not right and you know it. It's not normal politics so don't pretend it is.
I'd be very surprised. But that's not what I'm asking.
Do you think such an action would be fine and appropriate governance by the senate?
Garland was never going to be confirmed, the senate didn’t haven’t the numbers to get it done. Obama nominated Garland, as was his right to do so. The Republican led senate considered his nomination and chose not to confirm him. A Supreme Court nomination doesn’t equal automatic confirmation as 1 in 5 nominations do not get confirmed based on historical data.
The only gripe is that the senate didn’t hold the customary hearings, but the outcome was already obvious. He wouldn’t have been confirmed even if they held the hearings.
If a Republican President nominates a justice and a democratic led senate chooses not to confirm the nomination without a hearing, then that’s fair game at this point. McConnell set a precedent and it will eventually come around and the other side can benefit from it. When republicans cry about it, dems can point to McConnell and say “deal with it”.
The idea that the garland seat was stolen is just wrong, though. He wasn’t getting confirmed with the senate makeup.
The move was unprecedented. Garland is widely seen as a moderate and McConnell stopped them from voting on it so they didn’t have to vote against a moderate candidate on record. I’m not sure that’s ever been done before but it has now set the precedent that you need a senate majority and presidency to confirm a justice. Guess which party has an advantage in the senate. Enjoy your minority rule while it lasts.
I'd be very surprised. But that's not what I'm asking.
Do you think such an action would be fine and appropriate governance by the senate?
Garland was never going to be confirmed, the senate didn’t haven’t the numbers to get it done. Obama nominated Garland, as was his right to do so. The Republican led senate considered his nomination and chose not to confirm him. A Supreme Court nomination doesn’t equal automatic confirmation as 1 in 5 nominations do not get confirmed based on historical data.
The only gripe is that the senate didn’t hold the customary hearings, but the outcome was already obvious. He wouldn’t have been confirmed even if they held the hearings.
If a Republican President nominates a justice and a democratic led senate chooses not to confirm the nomination without a hearing, then that’s fair game at this point. McConnell set a precedent and it will eventually come around and the other side can benefit from it. When republicans cry about it, dems can point to McConnell and say “deal with it”.
The idea that the garland seat was stolen is just wrong, though. He wasn’t getting confirmed with the senate makeup.
At least, a voice of reason. Garland's seat wasn't stolen, the last election wasn't stolen, Bush's elections weren't stolen, etc. They were all orchestrated within the rules of law. That being said, Garland is on the war path for his alleged slight (and I think it has only intensified since the repeal of Roe). You could see the suppressed anger in his statement to the press today.
Garland was never going to be confirmed, the senate didn’t haven’t the numbers to get it done. Obama nominated Garland, as was his right to do so. The Republican led senate considered his nomination and chose not to confirm him. A Supreme Court nomination doesn’t equal automatic confirmation as 1 in 5 nominations do not get confirmed based on historical data.
The only gripe is that the senate didn’t hold the customary hearings, but the outcome was already obvious. He wouldn’t have been confirmed even if they held the hearings.
If a Republican President nominates a justice and a democratic led senate chooses not to confirm the nomination without a hearing, then that’s fair game at this point. McConnell set a precedent and it will eventually come around and the other side can benefit from it. When republicans cry about it, dems can point to McConnell and say “deal with it”.
The idea that the garland seat was stolen is just wrong, though. He wasn’t getting confirmed with the senate makeup.
The move was unprecedented. Garland is widely seen as a moderate and McConnell stopped them from voting on it so they didn’t have to vote against a moderate candidate on record. I’m not sure that’s ever been done before but it has now set the precedent that you need a senate majority and presidency to confirm a justice. Guess which party has an advantage in the senate. Enjoy your minority rule while it lasts.
Unprecedented but not outside the realm of what is technically allowed. The FBI raid of a former POTUS’ home is what some might say is unprecedented but also technically permissible.
The precedent isn’t that you NEED a senate majority, but that it doesn’t hurt. As I said earlier, 1 in 5 Supreme Court nominees have failed to be confirmed. It isn’t unheard of and one of the reasons they fail confirmation is that there is ambivalence towards the sitting POTUS.
The only thing outside the norm for Garland was the lack of a hearing. Senators told McConnell that he didn’t have the votes, so they skipped going through the hearings when the outcome was already known.
Wrong again. If people wanted Obama’s picks to be appointed, they would have voted in more democratic senators. Clearly the country was less enthusiastic about his picks than you think. In the same vein, the country gave trump a majority in the senate so he got to put his picks on. Not stolen, the word you want is “won”
and personally I look at those who use football analogies as brain dead because that’s what you have to be to watch the “sport”
So you'd be 100% fine if a D senate never let a R president put any judges on SCOTUS or the Federal Bench.
You'd in fact be fine if the Senate never let a president have a cabinet.
is that your view on this? You would nod sagely and say 'well we should have elected more R senators!'
Garland was never going to be confirmed, the senate didn’t haven’t the numbers to get it done. Obama nominated Garland, as was his right to do so. The Republican led senate considered his nomination and chose not to confirm him. A Supreme Court nomination doesn’t equal automatic confirmation as 1 in 5 nominations do not get confirmed based on historical data.
The only gripe is that the senate didn’t hold the customary hearings, but the outcome was already obvious. He wouldn’t have been confirmed even if they held the hearings.
If a Republican President nominates a justice and a democratic led senate chooses not to confirm the nomination without a hearing, then that’s fair game at this point. McConnell set a precedent and it will eventually come around and the other side can benefit from it. When republicans cry about it, dems can point to McConnell and say “deal with it”.
The idea that the garland seat was stolen is just wrong, though. He wasn’t getting confirmed with the senate makeup.
you are calling for something not normal or good - scorched earth warfare in the senate.
there are hardly any precedents to the sort of thing McConnell did. He drove a giant wedge into the nation and he says he is proud of doing it.
Use your BS filter. It's just not appropriate for the senate to refuse to have hearings or vote on presidential appointments. It's just not right and you know it. It's not normal politics so don't pretend it is.
There is plenty of precedent seeing as how that’s how it’s been done for many years now. The senate has the final say. What do you not understand here?
I know your brain simply can't handle this complexity, but it's not my team. I've spent my life preferring conservatives justices (and much more so before Trumpism). I wish Obama would have lost both his elections. But the people wanted him, and a big part of that is wanting his justices. So yeah, that justice selection WAS, for all intents and purposes, "stolen" from him and the voters. And the way McConnell then handled Trump's last minute nomination was one of the greatest shows of hypocrisy in my lifetime. You know this, but pretend that it's just about better game playing. And simply pasting on a massively subjective and self-serving "radical" to a nominee doesn't change any of this.
Let me guess, you're like the majority of Americans who sees their DB clearly interfere with a receiver and cheers the no-call. And the very next play watches an opposing DB do EXACTLY the same thing to your receiver and you want to murder the referee for the no-call.
I've watched that my whole life. Found it awfully disappointing. But hoped it mostly just applied to sports. Trumpism has shown me that I was very wrong.
Wrong again. If people wanted Obama’s picks to be appointed, they would have voted in more democratic senators. Clearly the country was less enthusiastic about his picks than you think. In the same vein, the country gave trump a majority in the senate so he got to put his picks on. Not stolen, the word you want is “won”
and personally I look at those who use football analogies as brain dead because that’s what you have to be to watch the “sport”
“Brain dead” from the guy who doesn’t understand what is and isn’t an analogy. Hint: Moronic tribalism displayed as both as sports fans and as citizens is not analogous behavior, it’s the same behavior. More importantly, you “McConnell is fine guys” conveniently pretend that he was honest about the situation. Of course, he wasn’t. His BS justification blamed the (non) proximity of the election, not simple majority power. And then had no concern whatsoever for the proximity of an election. Hy-po-cri-sy, plain and simple. Lastly, none of you have answered agip’s question: If it’s fine and dandy for an opposition Senate to oppose everything, reflexively, are you also fine with empty cabinets? I don’t know if there’s a work around for that, but if there isn’t, I’m sure that a hell of a lot of Rs won’t care.
Gotta love how you guys are confidently rushing towards an utterly tribal society and utterly dysfunctional government.
Wrong again. If people wanted Obama’s picks to be appointed, they would have voted in more democratic senators. Clearly the country was less enthusiastic about his picks than you think. In the same vein, the country gave trump a majority in the senate so he got to put his picks on. Not stolen, the word you want is “won”
and personally I look at those who use football analogies as brain dead because that’s what you have to be to watch the “sport”
“Brain dead” from the guy who doesn’t understand what is and isn’t an analogy. Hint: Moronic tribalism displayed as both as sports fans and as citizens is not analogous behavior, it’s the same behavior. More importantly, you “McConnell is fine guys” conveniently pretend that he was honest about the situation. Of course, he wasn’t. His BS justification blamed the (non) proximity of the election, not simple majority power. And then had no concern whatsoever for the proximity of an election. Hy-po-cri-sy, plain and simple. Lastly, none of you have answered agip’s question: If it’s fine and dandy for an opposition Senate to oppose everything, reflexively, are you also fine with empty cabinets? I don’t know if there’s a work around for that, but if there isn’t, I’m sure that a hell of a lot of Rs won’t care.
Gotta love how you guys are confidently rushing towards an utterly tribal society and utterly dysfunctional government.
