keepthefaith Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, joesixpack said: If it means putting control of the process into the Democratic party's hands come November, yes. At that point, it would be grandstanding and promotion of their own self-interest. Don't forget, Collins is on record saying she won't vote for anyone who'd overturn Roe. So if the woman judge (can't remember her name) was the candidate that Cruz and Paul wanted, she wouldn't pass the senate anyway...due to McCain being incapacitated. McCain made positive remarks about the pick last night. Maybe he'll be well enough and motivated enough to try and get to Washington and vote.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, keepthefaith said: McCain made positive remarks about the pick last night. Maybe he'll be well enough and motivated enough to try and get to Washington and vote. If he could get two democrats to flip on the pick and make cruz and paul irrelevant, it'd be lovely. Let them have their soapbox moment, and move on.
Bray Wyatt Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: If he could get two democrats to flip on the pick and make cruz and paul irrelevant, it'd be lovely. Let them have their soapbox moment, and move on. Ultimately I think they are just posturing, and are using this to try and get something that they want passed later down the line. Not sure what that may be but just what I think.
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: If he could get two democrats to flip on the pick and make cruz and paul irrelevant, it'd be lovely. Let them have their soapbox moment, and move on. No Democrat is flipping to support Trump in anything. Democrats right now are 100% doctrinaire, incapable of thinking for themselves.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: No Democrat is flipping to support Trump in anything. Democrats right now are 100% doctrinaire, incapable of thinking for themselves. And therein lies the problem. Or, if you're tasker, the feature.
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, joesixpack said: And therein lies the problem. Or, if you're tasker, the feature. It's the feature. The problem is that you want to abandon that feature in the interest of "getting things done." That makes you...a Democrat, arbitrarily changing cloture rules to get your way, or legislating from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone...
LeviF Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 33 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: It is the President's responsibility to nominate someone whom the Senate will confirm; and if we're being intellectually honest, no President in history has ever had an easier path to having their nominees confirmed now that the nuclear option is in play. In theory, this is true. In practice, this is obviously not the case. As the USSC has become more political, the confirmation process has as well. Candidates rated well by the ABA often sailed through Senate confirmation. Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg all received 90+ votes at confirmation. As recently as the early 1900's many justices were confirmed by voice vote. This will likely never be the case again. 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 16 minutes ago, joesixpack said: If it means putting control of the process into the Democratic party's hands come November, yes. At that point, it would be grandstanding and promotion of their own self-interest. Don't forget, Collins is on record saying she won't vote for anyone who'd overturn Roe. So if the woman judge (can't remember her name) was the candidate that Cruz and Paul wanted, she wouldn't pass the senate anyway...due to McCain being incapacitated. Stop protecting President Obama's legacy. The Senate is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the Executive. It is incumbent on the President to nominate someone whom the Senate will confirm. If the President cannot nominate someone who can win the votes of 50 Republican Senators, then he does not deserve to have his Court. This is a legitimate Constitutional check on the power of the Executive.
TH3 Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: It's the feature. The problem is that you want to abandon that feature in the interest of "getting things done." That makes you...a Democrat, arbitrarily changing cloture rules to get your way, or legislating from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone... WTF are you talking about....do you hear yourself? Arbitrarily changing rules?...executive orders? Not thinking for yourself? GOP acts the exact same way....
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: It's the feature. The problem is that you want to abandon that feature in the interest of "getting things done." That makes you...a Democrat, arbitrarily changing cloture rules to get your way, or legislating from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone... I would have been perfectly happy to have kept the cloture rules in place. But the fact is, they're no longer applicable, thanks to the Democrats. Again, I'm not saying that the senate shouldn't have a vote on it. They absolutely should, it's their JOB. Problem is, they haven't actually done their job in recent memory, at least not effectively.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: In theory, this is true. In practice, this is obviously not the case. As the USSC has become more political, the confirmation process has as well. Candidates rated well by the ABA often sailed through Senate confirmation. Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg all received 90+ votes at confirmation. As recently as the early 1900's many justices were confirmed by voice vote. This will likely never be the case again. Fair point. I should have said modern political history. This includes those justices you mentioned. While they were confirmed by a wide bi-partisan margin, their confirmations required bi-partisanship. President Trump's nominees do not.
whatdrought Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, joesixpack said: You're always consistent in your idealism. You understand of course that Cruz and Paul want someone who will NEVER get past the process, right? So, Trump could nominate a half-dozen conservative choices, and if they're not what Cruz and Paul want then the opportunity is likely wasted. REMEMBER: keeping control of the senate is no sure thing. In a few short months, it could be LITERALLY impossible to get a SC pick past the senate. Not to wander aimlessly into a A, B conversation, But it seems to me that the issues facing our current government structure is that for years people have sacrificed their ideals and beliefs on the alters of power, control, and party. Agree or disagree with Paul and Cruz, but they are fairly consistent in their desire to walk out their principles. I for one applaud that, and while it's hard in this instance, it is still nice to see government being done the way that it was supposed to be done- with conviction. 2
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, joesixpack said: If it means putting control of the process into the Democratic party's hands come November, yes. At that point, it would be grandstanding and promotion of their own self-interest. Don't forget, Collins is on record saying she won't vote for anyone who'd overturn Roe. So if the woman judge (can't remember her name) was the candidate that Cruz and Paul wanted, she wouldn't pass the senate anyway...due to McCain being incapacitated. I wish I had thought to add this earlier, and added to my prior response, but why wouldn't it be considered grandstanding by the President to nominate someone he knows Paul and Cruz wouldn't vote to confirm? Why would you lay the blame at the fault of the men who said they would not do a thing, and not at the fault of the man who knew they would not do the thing, and proceeded anyway? Why do you feel it is both prudent, and good governance, for an Executive to attempt to bully through his rubber stamp desires instead of working with members of his own party in the Senate to achieve an accord? Edited July 10, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 51 minutes ago, baskin said: WTF are you talking about....do you hear yourself? Arbitrarily changing rules?...executive orders? Not thinking for yourself? GOP acts the exact same way.... Whataboutism.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I wish I had thought to add this earlier, and added to my prior response, but why wouldn't it be considered grandstanding by the President to nominate someone he knows Paul and Cruz wouldn't vote to confirm? Why would you lay the blame at the fault of the men who said they would not do a thing, and not at the fault of the man who knew they would not do the thing, and proceeded anyway? Why do you feel it is both prudent, and good governance, for an Executive to attempt to bully through his rubber stamp desires instead of working with members of his own party in the Senate to achieve an accord? I think my objection is that I don't see Cruz and Paul as having some sort of a moral driver here. Their motivation, in my opinion, is more out of a dislike for trump (especially for Cruz) than it is some high-minded idealism. Don't get me wrong, Trump isn't blameless in this process. That being said, I'm sure there's reason he chose the nominee he did, in spite of the objections of Cruz and Paul. Like, perhaps, other members of his own party who objected to the nomination of someone more palatable to those two. Trump is in a no-win situation here. Like Tom said, no matter who he nominates, getting even a single democratic vote is a non-starter. As a result, he needs unity from his own party. Which is also something he can't reasonably be expected to have. So, I suppose, we'll just have to trust that someone can be found who is palatable to all the spoiled children on capitol hill in time to prevent the democrats from having complete control over the process. Being the pessimist that I am, I have my doubts that this can happen. So, in the end, your process will survive. Edited July 10, 2018 by joesixpack
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 11 minutes ago, joesixpack said: I think my objection is that I don't see Cruz and Paul as having some sort of a moral driver here. Their motivation, in my opinion, is more out of a dislike for trump (especially for Cruz) than it is some high-minded idealism. Don't get me wrong, Trump isn't blameless in this process. That being said, I'm sure there's reason he chose the nominee he did, in spite of the objections of Cruz and Paul. Like, perhaps, other members of his own party who objected to the nomination of someone more palatable to those two. Trump is in a no-win situation here. Like Tom said, no matter who he nominates, getting even a single democratic vote is a non-starter. As a result, he needs unity from his own party. Which is also something he can't reasonably be expected to have. So, I suppose, we'll just have to trust that someone can be found who is palatable to all the spoiled children on capitol hill in time to prevent the democrats from having complete control over the process. Being the pessimist that I am, I have my doubts that this can happen. So, in the end, your process will survive. I'd offer that the fact that the President has already seen his first nominee pass this same Senate's confirmation hearing throws water on your objection. The President knows what sort of nominee will pass.
outsidethebox Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: It's the feature. The problem is that you want to abandon that feature in the interest of "getting things done." That makes you...a Democrat, arbitrarily changing cloture rules to get your way, or legislating from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone... When they take the low road, we'll take the high road!!!
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Bear in mind that the Cruz/Paul stuff is all entirely speculative. Senator Paul has never voiced anything that could be construed as objection to Kavanaugh's nomination. Mitch McConnell reportedly told the White House that Kavanaugh might have a harder time getting through Paul; though Paul himself has said "I look forward to the upcoming hearings, reviewing the record, and meeting personally with Judge Kavanaugh, with an open mind." on his twitter account. While Senator Cruz released the following statement on his official Congressional website: "By any measure, Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most respected federal judges in the country and I look forward to supporting his nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. For over a decade, Judge Kavanaugh has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often referred to as the second highest court in the land. He has over 300 published opinions, with a strong record of defending the Second Amendment, safeguarding the separation of powers, reining in the unchecked power of federal agencies, and preserving our precious religious liberties. "Senate Democrats, sadly, will try to demagogue this nomination, but their efforts will not be successful. I am confident that the Senate will take up his nomination quickly, and I fully expect that he will be confirmed before the first Monday in October, the beginning of the Supreme Court's Term. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I look forward to his confirmation hearing, where Judge Kavanaugh will have the opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that he will uphold the rule of law and interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning." Edited July 10, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker 1 2
Recommended Posts