What's the point of Democrats Obstructing Neil Gorsuch confirmations?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

I submit John Tyler's history with SCOTUS appointments for you edification.

John Tyler[edit]
John Tyler experienced difficulty in obtaining approval of his nominees due to his lack of political support in the Senate. Tyler took office in 1841 after the death of Whig President William Henry Harrison. Tyler had been Harrison's running mate in the 1840 election, but Tyler clashed with the Congressional Whigs over issues such as the national bank, and these clashes extended to judicial nominees.[8]

John C. Spencer was nominated on January 9, 1844, and his nomination was defeated by a vote of 21–26 on January 31, 1844. Reuben H. Walworth was nominated on March 13, 1844, and a resolution to table the nomination passed on a 27–20 vote on June 15, 1844. The nomination was withdrawn from the Senate on June 17, 1844. Edward King was nominated on June 5, 1844. A resolution to table the nomination passed by a vote of 29–18 on June 15, 1844. No other action was taken on this nomination.[8]

The same day that Walworth's nomination was withdrawn, Spencer was re-submitted, but there is no record of debate and a letter from the President withdrawing the nomination was received on the same day. Walworth was then re-nominated later that same day, but the motion to act on the nomination in the Senate was objected to, and no further action was taken.[8]

Walworth and King were re-nominated on December 10, 1844, but both nominations were tabled on January 21, 1845. Walworth's nomination was withdrawn on February 6, 1845, and King's two days later. John M. Read was nominated on February 8, 1845, and there was a motion to consider the nomination in the Senate on January 21, 1845, but the motion was unsuccessful and no other action was taken.[8]

The only potential point you have here is Walworth, which the Federal Judicial Center says:

Walworth, Reuben H. Supreme Court March 13, 1844 withdrawn by president June 17, 1844

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Arizonaguy

How dare you bring facts into any discussion about political temper tantrums and partisan one-upmanship?

I'm sorry you don't like my facts.

I guess you prefer alternate facts instead?

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Greven

Duh...Tyler Nominated people...so did Nixon.

And they all.... what's that... were withdrawn, or confirmation hearings were held on them?

Bit of a difference.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Arizonaguy

How dare you bring facts into any discussion about political temper tantrums and partisan one-upmanship?

I'm sorry you don't like my facts.

I guess you prefer alternate facts instead?

No, I appreciated the SOURCE historical facts Arizonaguy presented over "Here, I picked these from my ass fresh this morning" unsourced imaginary nonsense others frequently bring to the table.


Keep on keepin' on, proud warrior.

a reply to: Greven

I'm not sure what you're getting at here but in my opinion you're making yourself look pretty foolish. Fact is that Obama was told you might as well not nominate anyone because we're not going to hold a vote anyway. Some Republican Senate members were even on record saying they wouldn't vote on his nominee because they didn't want to do that to him meaning the nominee. In case you haven't noticed you're smack dab in the middle of a conspiracy site and there's still some conspiracy talk about how Scalia died. I wouldn't bet for a minute that even some Republican Senators have their doubts that it was completely natural. Obama was playing politics nominating someone knowing full well it was never going to happen. Republicans easily could have just voted no and been done with it. But they didn't do that because they like the nominee. They just didn't like him at that time for that position. This entire controversy is a political Ploy manufactured by Obama and the Democrats to make themselves seem like victims.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Originalist rulings - Rule by plain text

I don't understand all the love the right has had recently for originalist rulings. It goes against the very concept (that the right used to also support) that says the Constitution is a living breathing document that reflects the values of the times. Instead it seeks to make the Constitution unchanging and rigid. For example, originalist rulings is where we get the concept that because the founders didn't have any concept of digital information, that it's perfectly fine for the protections in the Constitution to not apply to electronic information.

Originalists come across to me as people who think the Constitution is some sort of divine scripture handed down from God with universal truths and ways for living that should never be questioned. Yet, the vibe I've always gotten from the Constitution is that those who wrote it did the best they could with what they had, and they always intended for it to be questioned and improved over time rather than forcing the nation to adhere to ideas that we would later figure out are deeply flawed, of which the Constitution includes at least four (electronic information, voting district shapes, 1:20000 representation, and the implementation of the power of the purse).

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Arizonaguy

How dare you bring facts into any discussion about political temper tantrums and partisan one-upmanship?

I'm sorry you don't like my facts.

I guess you prefer alternate facts instead?

No, I appreciated the SOURCE historical facts Arizonaguy presented over "Here, I picked these from my ass fresh this morning" unsourced imaginary nonsense others frequently bring to the table.

Keep on keepin' on, proud warrior.

We're talking confirmation delays (someone nominated, delay, confirmation hearing).

He's talking vacancy delays (someone died/retired, delay, someone fills the vacant seat).

Again, alternate facts.

It seems that Democrats have become the 'Party of No'.
Remember a few short months ago they called the Republicans by that name?

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Greven

I'm not sure what you're getting at here but in my opinion you're making yourself look pretty foolish. Fact is that Obama was told you might as well not nominate anyone because we're not going to hold a vote anyway. Some Republican Senate members were even on record saying they wouldn't vote on his nominee because they didn't want to do that to him meaning the nominee. In case you haven't noticed you're smack dab in the middle of a conspiracy site and there's still some conspiracy talk about how Scalia died. I wouldn't bet for a minute that even some Republican Senators have their doubts that it was completely natural. Obama was playing politics nominating someone knowing full well it was never going to happen. Republicans easily could have just voted no and been done with it. But they didn't do that because they like the nominee. They just didn't like him at that time for that position. This entire controversy is a political Ploy manufactured by Obama and the Democrats to make themselves seem like victims.

Sorry, but I'm not ashamed of speaking facts.

OH good let's just inject assassination into this topic, that surely will keep it on topic.

Yes, that's the entire point: they could have held a hearing, then voted no. Fin. Done. They picked this albatross instead.

originally posted by: butcherguy
It seems that Democrats have become the 'Party of No'.
Remember a few short months ago they called the Republicans by that name?

Party of no power, maybe.

What can they realistically do?

They haven't really been blocking any other appointments.

a reply to: Greven

Don't like to entertain the possibility of a conspiracy for assassination? Perhaps you can join others with your sensibilities in this echo chamber....

www.twitter.com

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Arizonaguy

How dare you bring facts into any discussion about political temper tantrums and partisan one-upmanship?

I'm sorry you don't like my facts.

I guess you prefer alternate facts instead?

No, I appreciated the SOURCE historical facts Arizonaguy presented over "Here, I picked these from my ass fresh this morning" unsourced imaginary nonsense others frequently bring to the table.

Keep on keepin' on, proud warrior.

We're talking confirmation delays (someone nominated, delay, confirmation hearing).

He's talking vacancy delays (someone died/retired, delay, someone fills the vacant seat).

Again, alternate facts.

Lotta occurrences of "nominated" in the actual historical facts of what really happened through past incidents of SCOTUS confirmation/nomination/vacancy delays... www.yahoo.com... Justices were nominated, not confirmed, and vacancies drug out. De ja vu, ya?

a reply to: Aazadan

There is a process to make the COTUS breath. It's called Amendment. The reason why the left doesn't like it is that it means they would have to actually convince over half the country to buy into their schemes. Right now, the right is much closer to getting an Amendment passed through than the left.

The left just likes living and breathing because it means they can find all kinds of excuses to pretend the document says whatever it's convenient for them to pretend it does. In fact, I've had a leftist friend who swears it's constitutional for the government to step in a declare a complete command economy (think either fascism or communism).

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Stevemagegod

GOP really needs to just nuclear option this and get past this era of childish lawmaker temper tantrums preventing government business from occurring. It's time to be the adults in the room.

I've been saying the same thing lately. The GOP controls everything but these liberal district judges from Congress, state governments, to SCOTUS and POTUS, and yet they continue to allow these children, I mean democratic congressmen, to cause so much interference, and for no real reason other than pouting in their defeat. It's unreal what our country has become. Go with the nuclear option already and let's get on with making America great again. Dems are never going to stop this whiney BS, so let them whine and let's get on with getting things done.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Arizonaguy

How dare you bring facts into any discussion about political temper tantrums and partisan one-upmanship?

I'm sorry you don't like my facts.

I guess you prefer alternate facts instead?

No, I appreciated the SOURCE historical facts Arizonaguy presented over "Here, I picked these from my ass fresh this morning" unsourced imaginary nonsense others frequently bring to the table.

Keep on keepin' on, proud warrior.

We're talking confirmation delays (someone nominated, delay, confirmation hearing).

He's talking vacancy delays (someone died/retired, delay, someone fills the vacant seat).

Again, alternate facts.

Lotta occurrences of "nominated" in the actual historical facts of what really happened through past incidents of SCOTUS confirmation/nomination/vacancy delays... www.yahoo.com... Justices were nominated, not confirmed, and vacancies drug out. De ja vu, ya?

Oh good quote a Yahoo article that cites the article Arizonaguy already provided.

Great job. Wonderful investigation.

Go find a preemptive 'not-gonna-vote-on-it' that exceeds this one, and good luck in finding it.

Also, since we''ve talked about the made-up Biden rule and not confirming in an election year bull#. in case you wanted to try that one too:
A SCOTUS nominee was confirmed on 2/3/1988 - know who it was?

originally posted by: Greven
A SCOTUS nominee was confirmed on 2/3/1988 - know who it was?

I know who it wasn't: Robert Bork... who was nominated the previous summer and who was the target of childish antics and tantrums from Democrats who were outraged that he would serve as a shift in the court, replacing swing vote justice Lewis Powell.

Thank you for providing yet another example of the Democrat's history of obstructing replacement justices nominated by conservative presidents while falsely complaining of unprecedented butthurt when the tables are reversed on them.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Stevemagegod

He was still well within the time to put a judge in there. The republicans just opposed it because they're power mad and opposed everything Obama did for 8 years.

There was no reason to deny him the position when it came up, but they did it because they don't give a sh*t about the rules.

Something like Obama's appointments , huh ? Only Barry was much , much worse.
Still feels good to say ex when speaking of Obama , and say Hillary who ?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven
A SCOTUS nominee was confirmed on 2/3/1988 - know who it was?

I know who it wasn't: Robert Bork... who was nominated the previous summer and who was the target of childish antics and tantrums from Democrats who were outraged that he would serve as a shift in the court, replacing swing vote justice Lewis Powell.

Thank you for providing yet another example of the Democrat's history of obstructing replacement justices nominated by conservative presidents while falsely complaining of unprecedented butthurt when the tables are reversed on them.

You still seem to be unclear on the whole confirmation thing.

Burk had a confirmation - he was rejected, with 6 Republican senators voting against confirmation, and 2 Democrats voting for.

Try again - harder.

a reply to: Stevemagegod

Seriously? Isn't that exactly what the Repub's did for over a year? So it's cool when your party does it but not cool if anyone else does it?

Stop being a partisan hack.

a reply to: Aazadan

You guys are priceless. So it's Obama's fault that the Republicans refused to do something.

That's just Conservatives mean by claiming they take responsibility huh????

That's what I figured.