Should Scalia's seat be vacated?

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit and have concluded that the Republicans went way too far with the blocking of Merrick Garland's hearings for SCOTUS. They didn't vote down the moderate nominee to replace Scalia, but they blocked him completely. Obama took the middle road, and the Republicans blockaded the road. While technically the bare letter of the law does not prevent this, the spirit of the law was raped.

So now we have Donald Trump and Gorsuch. In general, Gorsuch is qualified. My main beef with him is saying, against SCOTUS precedence, that pieces of paper can find religion. This unfounded opinion was later upheld by SCOTUS, so ultimately, this massive strike isn't much of a strike. So Gorsuch can take a seat. However, not Scalia's seat. He can take the next open seat and Scalia's seat can be put into the closet and we go to an 8 member court.

What the Republicans did was unfounded, unprecedented, and unethical towards democracy and separation of powers and should not be rewarded. Now, if they put Garland before Gorsuch and vote him down, that'd be fine, but to pretend the nomination never happened, that can't stand.

 

[untermensche]

The duty of the Senate is to provide advice and consent on presidential nominees.

That is their Constitutional duty.

Blocking even a hearing on the nominee was a clear example of putting petty party politics over the Constitution.

A shirking of Constitutional duties.

Basically treason.

 

[Derec]

What do you mean? Scalia seat is already vacant. What you mean is should it remain vacant?
Well, Republicans had the upper hand in 2016 because they had the majority in the US Senate. They still do, so Democrats are up the creek with no paddle.

 

[Elixir]

What do you mean? Scalia seat is already vacant. What you mean is should it remain vacant?
Well, Republicans had the upper hand in 2016 because they had the majority in the US Senate. They still do, so Democrats are up the creek with no paddle.

Oh, they have a paddle all right. It's name is Donald, and in 2018 it will come down with a resounding thud on all the pug cowards who are hiding their un-American activities behind the facade of "loyalty" to the empty head of their political party.
Chances are this is the last year of the Trump presidency, so why should Gorsuch even be given a hearing?

 

[Harry Bosch]

What do you mean? Scalia seat is already vacant. What you mean is should it remain vacant?
Well, Republicans had the upper hand in 2016 because they had the majority in the US Senate. They still do, so Democrats are up the creek with no paddle.

Agreed. However, payback will be sweet in two of four years when dems are in power. And the republican nominee gets blocked. The reps monopoly on power won't last too long.

 

[untermensche]

What do you mean? Scalia seat is already vacant. What you mean is should it remain vacant?
Well, Republicans had the upper hand in 2016 because they had the majority in the US Senate. They still do, so Democrats are up the creek with no paddle.

You're defending the deliberate shirking of Constitutional duties.

You're defending treason.

You're basically saying the Senate is free to not follow the Constitution at its whim. An incredibly dangerous precedent.

What person in government should perform their duty if the Senate is free to shirk theirs? This is the recipe for anarchy.

Yet people still defend it as if having a majority in the Senate means you can shirk clear duties.

 

[laughing dog]

What the Republicans did to Garland was wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. IMO, it is wrong for either party to hold up judicial nominees for partisan reasons.

 

[Derec]

You're defending the deliberate shirking of Constitutional duties.

No. I think it was wrong for the Senate to not vote on Garland. That does not change the fact that Dems cannot effectively do the same to Gorsuch even if they wanted to because they lack a majority.

You're defending treason.

How does this amount to treason?

 

[laughing dog]

No. I think it was wrong for the Senate to not vote on Garland. That does not change the fact that Dems cannot effectively do the same to Gorsuch even if they wanted to because they lack a majority.

They can filibuster.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No. I think it was wrong for the Senate to not vote on Garland. That does not change the fact that Dems cannot effectively do the same to Gorsuch even if they wanted to because they lack a majority.

They can filibuster.

They can. But the republicans have greatly reduced the power of the minority to filibuster. But again, that's okay in my book. Paybacks be coming!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What the Republicans did to Garland was wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. IMO, it is wrong for either party to hold up judicial nominees for partisan reasons.

I'm not saying to hold up on the seat, I'm saying no nominee unless Garland gets a hearing and vote. In other words, we go down to an 8-person SCOTUS.

 

[untermensche]

No. I think it was wrong for the Senate to not vote on Garland. That does not change the fact that Dems cannot effectively do the same to Gorsuch even if they wanted to because they lack a majority.

You're defending treason.

How does this amount to treason?

How is deliberately refusing to perform duties outlined in the Constitution treason?

It is putting petty party interests over the needs of the nation.

 

[fromderinside]

No problem with letting the USSC population decrease for a while. Nothing really magical about an odd number or the number nine. If Congress continues to be as dysfunctional as is seems to be right now there is no gain by shifting change through the courts. Every move will be countered by a counter move. We need to get things straightened out. Are we a tribal meritocricy which considers money people and white entitled, or are we a universalist society where everybody is actually equal in the eyes of the law and state.

Let me suggest we are neither. So what's the rush to get this way or that way. Until we figure out an alternative which actually get a majority of heads nodding no gains will be made.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What the Republicans did to Garland was wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. IMO, it is wrong for either party to hold up judicial nominees for partisan reasons.

I assume that you'll agree with me that long term, the reps will control the presidency and the senate about 50% of the time, the democrats the other 580% of the time. If democratic judges are only filled when the dems control the presidency and the senate; while republican judges are filled whenever there is a republican president regardless of the senate; the republicans will forever control the supreme court. We would have the moral high ground, there would have the power.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How is deliberately refusing to perform duties outlined in the Constitution treason?

It is putting petty party interests over the needs of the nation.

That same constitution does define treason. They did it because King George had the right to define treason any damned way he wanted.

Being a flaming fucktard does not qualify in and of itself.

 

[Derec]

No. I think it was wrong for the Senate to not vote on Garland. That does not change the fact that Dems cannot effectively do the same to Gorsuch even if they wanted to because they lack a majority.

They can filibuster.

And then McConnell can go nuclear. In any case, that gambit would be better kept for the case another SCOTUS seat is comes up if Trump nominates somebody really outside the judicial mainstream. Gorsuch is a conservative, but he is not that.

 

[Derec]

How is deliberately refusing to perform duties outlined in the Constitution treason?

Because the constitution also outlines what constitutes treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Says nothing about not bringing SCOTUS nominees to vote.

It is putting petty party interests over the needs of the nation.

Not treason either. See above.

 

[Elixir]

They can filibuster.

And then McConnell can go nuclear.

Bombs away then. Payback is truly a bitch.

 

[Derec]

Bombs away then. Payback is truly a bitch.

As I said, that's the gambit best kept for another time. Gorsuch nomination is not it. Since he is well-qualified there is no reason to filibuster him and GOP would gain by Dems doing it anyway.
Trigger the possibility of the nuclear option if and when there is a nominee that actually deserves the filibuster.

 

[blastula]

What the Republicans did to Garland was wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. IMO, it is wrong for either party to hold up judicial nominees for partisan reasons.

I'm not saying to hold up on the seat, I'm saying no nominee unless Garland gets a hearing and vote. In other words, we go down to an 8-person SCOTUS.

Yes, if Trump wanted to do something unifying and be a decent person (lol), he should re-nominate Garland. If anybody but Garland gets confirmed, that seat will have the taint of illegitimacy.

All other judges who care about the integrity of the judiciary should not accept a nomination from Trump. Gorsuch should withdraw if he had integrity. He was expressing dismay over Trumps comments about the courts after his nomination, but that was nothing new from Trump. He already knew that.

Obama and Congressional Dems really should have made a bigger issue out of this last year.