Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Kavanaugh Hearing

Discussion in 'GC Hall of Fame' started by ursidman, Sep 4, 2018.

  1. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy

    Apr 3, 2007
    I don't think it's a "travesty" either, but I do think the Senate better serves the public by doing their jobs, including advise and consent. There was no reason other then petty politics for them not to hold hearings and take a vote.

    And now the Dems are just going to do the same crap at the next opportunity they get. Neither group are serving the people with that mess.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  2. fubar1

    fubar1 Premium Member

    5,821
    533
    1,168
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jacksonville, FL
    Again, I don’t have an issue with it under this specific scenario as long as the court isn’t crippled and can still function effectively. 8 Justices is far from crippled.
     
  3. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy

    Apr 3, 2007
    I am not concerned about the court being "crippled". The court doesn't have some magic number to work. There can be fewer still.

    I just don't like to see petty politics overrule doing their jobs. And that's all that was. And what is going to happen in retaliation the next time the Dems get the chance to do so.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. GatorNorth

    GatorNorth Premium Member Premium Member

    16,532
    7,882
    3,203
    Apr 3, 2007
    Atlanta
    I'm just tired of both sides applying different rules as fits their agenda.

    For Kagan, the Pubs on the judiciary committee wanted all of her archived papers before a hearing. For Kavanaugh, they've given the Dems the finger on that issue.

    On the flip side the Dems want to selectively apply the "Biden rule" (although there were some factual nuances between the Garland nomination and 1992).

    Putting aside Kav's position on executive power one way or the other, the game should be played straight up with both parties playing by the same rules.

    Until they do all we are going to have is insulting partisan rancor and vapid distinctions that the American public finds vomitous and our Congress a vomitorium.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Like Like x 1
  5. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    15,130
    5,281
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. fubar1

    fubar1 Premium Member

    5,821
    533
    1,168
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jacksonville, FL
    So back in 2010 under a completely different scenario, both from a Senate composition (56 Dems) and not the last year of a President’s 2nd term. And I don’t put quite as much stock in one Senator’s pre-vote confidence as I do in actual votes.
     
  7. fubar1

    fubar1 Premium Member

    5,821
    533
    1,168
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jacksonville, FL
    I don’t see it as petty in this scenario and wouldn’t think it petty in the same scenario if the parties are reversed. I wouldn’t want Trump installing another Justice with 3 months left in his 2nd term and I presume neither would you, and not just from just a purely partisan perspective. That close to a new Presidential election just isn’t the right, although constitutional, time to seat a new justice.
     
  8. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy

    Apr 3, 2007
    But we weren't talking about three months. Scalia died Feb 2016 and Garland was nominated by early March I think.

    We're talking ten months until the next POTUS takes over.

    They should do their jobs. Hold hearings and vote. If they wanted to make it a political statement, they could still do that and just vote him down.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. BobK89

    BobK89 GC Hall of Fame

    12,071
    435
    818
    Apr 9, 2007
    Tampa, FL
    I agree with that premise, but Scalia died in February, 11 months before the next POTUS took office.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    8,140
    1,374
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    Plus, if I recall, McConnell seemed open to blocking a vote during the entire next president’s tenure, if she happened to be a democrat.
     
  11. Bazza

    Bazza Moderator

    36,484
    13,895
    3,803
    Jan 2, 2009
    New Smyrna Beach
    I thought Sen. Graham did a good job with his segment. Especially discussing previous nominations that received 90 plus votes, and asking how we have gotten to this point.

    Salient point that everyone can agree and (maybe even) reflect on.
     
  12. ursidman

    ursidman VIP Member

    13,117
    22,309
    3,348
    Sep 27, 2007
    Bug Tussle NC
    • Like Like x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  13. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Guardian of the GC Galaxy

    Apr 3, 2007
    That's definitely the bigger issue.

    And if somehow the Dems get lucky enough to take control of the Senate, what is to keep them from doing the same thing for the remainder of Trump's term?

    Why wouldn't they?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. ursidman

    ursidman VIP Member

    13,117
    22,309
    3,348
    Sep 27, 2007
    Bug Tussle NC
    Exactly. Tit for tat until no more tits nor tats remain. Party over country. Where are the statesmen? Answer: they can't get elected anymore.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  15. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    29,247
    11,471
    3,443
    Aug 26, 2008
    Go Team..it's that mentality that has this country so f'd up right now and you seem to be a big proponent of it. Both parties are just opposite sides of the same coin, they are both more interested in preserving their power than in doing what is right. If you can't see that then you are just another go team member lying to yourself
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  16. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    29,247
    11,471
    3,443
    Aug 26, 2008
    and that is due to the Go Team voters.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    15,130
    5,281
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    Yes, back when the Republicans weren't able to block it, they were pushing Garland hard because they recognized him as a fair-minded moderate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,674
    807
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    How many months are left in Trump’s first term, again?
     
  19. fubar1

    fubar1 Premium Member

    5,821
    533
    1,168
    Apr 3, 2007
    Jacksonville, FL
    Understand. But both are within the final year of the President’s 2nd term. And by the time Garland would have been seated he would have missed the majority of argument days for that year.
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  20. gtr2x

    gtr2x GC Hall of Fame

    15,672
    1,316
    1,193
    Aug 21, 2007
    At this point trump could nominate his personal attorney and all the lemmings would fall in line to approve . All the hearings are just posturing. Conversely the Dems will oppose even the most qualified nominees as payback for McConnell stealing obamas nominee.

    Personally, I think McConnell actions verged on being unconstitutional, but it worked for the pubs so you can expect the left to do the same if they ever get the chance. Kind of an "ends justifies the means" mentality. The days of a good candidate getting overwhelming support are over. Sad, but that is the current environment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1