HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Remember when McConnell d...

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 09:54 PM

 

Remember when McConnell denied Marrick Garland his constitutional right to be on the Supreme Court

and all the Democratic Senators said he should resign?

YEAH, ME NEITHER!

11 replies, 1095 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Remember when McConnell denied Marrick Garland his constitutional right to be on the Supreme Court (Original post)
Chasstev365 Dec 2017 OP
still_one Dec 2017 #1
FBaggins Dec 2017 #2
lame54 Dec 2017 #3
kelly1mm Dec 2017 #5
lame54 Dec 2017 #7
kelly1mm Dec 2017 #8
PoliticAverse Dec 2017 #11
Chasstev365 Dec 2017 #6
FBaggins Dec 2017 #9
kelly1mm Dec 2017 #10
kelly1mm Dec 2017 #4

Response to Chasstev365 (Original post)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 09:55 PM

1. SC Court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Original post)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 10:24 PM

2. He had a constitutional right to be on the SC?

That's a new one.

One could reasonably claim that he had a right to a vote... or at least a hearing. He didn't have a right to win the vote.

And Democrats didn't fuss at the time, because we expected to win the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 10:24 PM

3. I think we all know what he means

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 10:28 PM

5. I think the op meant what he wrote. Why would you think differently? Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelly1mm (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 10:31 PM

7. Because i give him the benefit...

Of the doubt that he understands that a vote takes place before the seating

I'm very sure he thinks he has a right to a vote and not the right to a yes vote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 10:36 PM

8. Then the op should have wrote that. I think it unlikely that the Republican

Controlled Senate would have confirmed him even if somehow the vote was forced upon them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelly1mm (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 11:47 PM

11. As Ruth Bader Ginsberg put it on the issue of the courts forcing the Senate to consider Garland

“If the Senate is not acting, what can be done about it?” Ginsburg asked rhetorically. “Even if you could conceive of a testing lawsuit, what would the response be? ‘Well, you want us to vote, so we’ll vote no.’ 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 10:29 PM

6. Oh, OK: Let's be technical:

 

President Obama had the constitutional right to nominate Garland and the Senate has no valid reason to to have hearings and a vote!

Are you satisfied now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 10:37 PM

9. Still no

Nobody expected Garland to get past the Senate, including President Obama. He was nominated so that Republicans would have to own voting him down.

Democratic senators didn't want him to be confirmed, because they expected Hillary to win the White House and Democrats to retake the Senate. We would therefore have a far more progressive supreme court nominee who we could confirm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 10:38 PM

10. No, because the Senate even if it had a vote could have voted no. It is not like

They have to explain why they vote how they do ......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Original post)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 10:26 PM

4. No, because no one has a constitutional right to be on the SC. He may have

Had a right to a vote on his appointment but not to the actual seat. Technically, I think it may be the Presidents right to have his nominee voted on, not the appointee themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread