This is bothering me

[pat_k]

Merrick Garland's nomination should not have been blocked. And now we are calling for the principle they invoked to block him to be applied.

Does this bother anyone else?

What principle should Dems endorse/apply in the coming years? No confirmation of a SCOTUS nomination within 2 months of an election? 3? 6? Or as they claimed with Garland, any time in an election year?

What length of time is just/fair?

[mzmolly]

1. We are calling for them to accept the pinciple

they invoked.

[Hstch05]

6. And that would be great

if they cared. If they cared about appearances, or hypocrisy. But. They. Don't.

McConnell will say that he kept Garland out because Obama was at the end of his 2nd term and would be a lame duck. Trump is only at the end of his 1st term, and still may get re-elected. It's a completely different scenario.

It's BS. But. They. Don't. Care. Their "principle" is power. It's a power play to tie up SCOTUS with an arch conservative majority for at least another 20 years.

[mzmolly]

12. I

agree. But we can ask that they live up to the measures they laid out. As little integrity as they have, we can point out they should all be fired or live by their own rules.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

39. There's a better than average possibility that Trump WON'T be re-elected as well

[pat_k]

8. If we call on them to follow "their" principle, we are accepting that principle.

I think we need to be a little clearer, else we shall be the ones labeled hypocrite when we seek to fill a seat in the last year of a democratic presidency.

What principle should be applied, regardless of party in power? No vacancy that occurs after the conventions to be filled until inauguration? Or "their" principle of no vacancy in the last year of a presidency to be filled?

[mzmolly]

11. Ok.

We can't be any clearer than to say in an 'election year' as they did. 2020 is an election year. Let's go with that for now.

[pat_k]

14. I guess my problem is that I believe they were wrong on Garland. . .

. . .so I don't think we should go "all in" on a "principle" we fought hard against.

But if you think the entire election should be "off limits" for filling a SCOTUS vacancy, that's fine.

[mzmolly]

18. I don't get your point. You tell me, what

is acceptable to you?

[pat_k]

31. For me. . .

. . .we should definitely not be seeking to fill a vacancy that occurs after the conventions, when the GE is in "full swing."

Or perhaps not after the last primary, when nominees are clear.

I guess the only thing I object to is endorsing/calling for application of a principle that concedes that our fight for Garland was wrong.

[mzmolly]

32. Gotcha.

I agree.

[Bev54]

23. Also other presidents who had a seat open

this close to an election left it for after the election to be decided.

[mzmolly]

26. Good

point.

[Jim__]

2. Whatever the principle is, it has to be applied consistently.

There is nothing contradictory in asking McConnell (sp) to apply the principle consistently.

[AlexSFCA]

3. not there is requirement to follow through

principle is not a law, gop made it clear, the only words that matter are those said under oath. Everything else can be a lie. Elections have consequences. In case of Obama, senate elections had consequences.

[pat_k]

5. We should be better than that. I think we need to be clearer. . .

. . . about the principle we believe is right -- not just invoke "their" principle and call on them to follow it.

Let's not be the hypocrites they are. For example, no seat that becomes vacant after the conventions should be filled until inauguration day.

Of course that is not a law, but let's decide where we stand, regardless of who is in power.

[AlexSFCA]

13. we are better than them. But let's be prepared to lose because the playing field is not even

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. They did us dirty in 2016 by creating the "principle" in the first place and blocking Garland.

They really owe us a SCOTUS seat but at the very least they shouldn't be able to fill this one until or unless Trump *gulps* wins in November. Now, I know we can't obviously make anything happen but we can and should sure fight for it IMHO.

[pat_k]

4. And that's a principle we want to now follow? Even though clearly wrong with Garland?

So, Feb 2024, last year of Biden's term, a justices passes / retires. Biden shouldn't be the one to nominate someone to fill the seat?

For our own sakes, and the sake of principle, I think we need to be clearer about where we stand on this. Otherwise, we'll be the hypocrites. Perhaps no vacancy after the conventions to be filled until after inauguration day.

[Jim__]

7. McConnell stated a principle when Obama nominated Garland.

March 16, 2016, with Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, McConnell stood his ground: It is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

- USA Today

We should ask him to uphold that principle now.

At a time of cooler heads, we can negotiate a principle that both parties can adhere to.

[pat_k]

9. If we say "apply that principle" we are saying. . .

. . . "that is the principle that should be applied." In other words, we are accepting their principle. So, Biden seeks to fill a vacancy that comes in Feb 2024, we become the hypocrites.

I'm just saying we need to be clearer about what we believe is right.

Perhaps, no vacancy that comes up after the conventions should be filled until inauguration day?

Or no vacancy that comes up after the last primaries?

Or?

[Jim__]

10. We are saying: apply the same principle you applied last time. Nothing has changed.

Otherwise, we are saying, appointments to the Supreme Court are merely political appointments and should be treated accordingly. That implies that the interpretation of the Constitution is just a political game.

[mzmolly]

20. I think we can iron out future agreements after this

election. For now, we hold them to their own words.

[Demsrule86]

27. We will never fix this...as soon as the GOP has the Senate, they would block our judges. They

said so. No more of this crap.

"...But several Republicans have said if the voters elect Clinton, they’ll block her nominees, effectively abandoning their advice and consent role for her entire term.

“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court,” North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said in an audio recording of his meeting with GOP volunteers on Saturday. CNN obtained a copy of the audio.

GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Ted Cruz of Texas have also suggested blocking any Clinton nominees. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a debate Monday night that he “can’t imagine” voting for any Clinton nominee though he stopped short of vowing to block a pick from a Democratic president..."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court

[Demsrule86]

28. If we have the Senate, we approve no GOP judges at anytime.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court

"...but several Republicans have said if the voters elect Clinton, they’ll block her nominees, effectively abandoning their advice and consent role for her entire term.

“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court,” North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said in an audio recording of his meeting with GOP volunteers on Saturday. CNN obtained a copy of the audio..."

[mzmolly]

30. They have set

the precedent.

[Demsrule86]

34. Exactly...what we give them judges and they give us nothing? NO.

[JHB]

15. We're calling on them to stick to what they claimed about a thousand times...

It was bullshit then, but since that's what they said we're not letting them add more bullshit to say it doesn't apply now.

That's it. We're calling it out for the same reason Bill Clinton's approval rating went up even when he was being impeached: it was such an obvious politically-motivated power play. So would seating a new SCJ now despite what they said before.


If you want to go back to Biden's original suggestion, the long-forgotten one Mitch unearthed and glued all sorts of elaborations onto to block an Obama pick, merely called for a "pause button" during the heated environment of campaign season (roughly mid-late July through election day) and then get back to normal.

But that assumed both sides would act like senators, not that one side would act like an impenetrable phalanx of zealots. There is no 'normal' now.

[pat_k]

17. Yes. "Pause" in "heated environment of campaign season"

makes sense.

I just hope Dems are clear about this -- that we are not buying into the notion that the entire election year is "off limits" for filling a SCOTUS vacancy. We fought hard against their bullshit on Garland. We need to be consistent with that.

[Demsrule86]

24. I will say this. No judges will be approved unless the party in the White House has the Senate.

It can never go back to the way it was. We can't allow the GOP to pack the courts while denying our judges...McConnell said not one Hillary judge would be approved at any time during her tenure as president. It is bad for the country but there is no other way.

[Demsrule86]

25. You can't make agreements with liars and Republicans are liars thus no Senate no judges at

anytime. That is what the GOP is on record as saying they would do.

[JHB]

29. As I said, there is no 'normal' now.

[Demsrule86]

35. No, and Schumer says that nothing is off the table...code for end filibuster and

add justices to SCOTUS.

[mzmolly]

41. Thank goodness!

[Leith]

16. What principle?

It's their blatant, vicious hypocrisy that's being called out.

[malaise]

19. If it's not OK to give a nominee a hearing in February of an election year

then it cannot be OK to nominate one six weeks from said election when voting has already started.

MoscowMitch is not a man of his word. There are words that describe people like him.

[Demsrule86]

21. No, our nominee was stolen... And Mitch said it was because it was too close to an election.

So absolutely not. If we had the Senate, we should make Sure Trump got no justices. I don't care if it was the day after he was sworn in. And remember the GOP said if Hillary won, they would not approve her justices.

[lunatica]

22. Wouldn't it be nice if they played by the same set of rules?

Standing on principle is admirable. Except if your country is turning into a fascist dictatorship through Trump’s lack of action and has become the COVID 19 capital of the world led by a sadistic malignant narcissist bent on doing the country’s worst enemy’s wishes.

Principle is meaningless if you’re going to allow death and destruction and mayhem to reign over it. Life and the law and equality take a higher priority.

[dameatball]

33. To be blunt, it doesn't bother me whatsoever. I get your point, but.....nope.

[OnDoutside]

36. Principle... right..,..

[rufus dog]

37. ROFLMAO

[not_the_one]

38. So you want democrats to commit to play on a level playing field,

KNOWING the republicans have NO intention of doing the same.

The damage done by allowing them to get away with it would be far greater, in effect, possibly destroying the country. That "high road" taken would lead us off a cliff.

They set the precedent, they should be forced to live by it.

AFTER the election, THE NEW CONGRESS, under the NEW president, should address it through legislation so that NO ONE PERSON EVER HAS THAT KIND OF POWER AGAIN, be they republican OR democrat.

[VOX]

42. Good luck trying to play fair with Republicans as they destroy democracy.

Might as well invite burglars into your home to share some tea and biscuits. Just to be nice, and all.

[Hekate]

43. We're drowning here. Your concern for those using long poles to shove us under is touching.

But thanks for your thoughts anyway.