General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHonestly, Garland should have been nominated for SCOTUS early this year.
I know it doesn't matter now, but the country got screwed by Mitch and the GOP.
They would have cried, but it would have been just and the fact that it would be Garland, the nominee who Mitch wouldn't even allow a vote for, is bring that point home. Every conversation would go back to what Mitch did.
Yeah, I am saying this now as we all wonder if Garland is who we need right now as AG, but I did feel this then and I know that I am not alone.
Again, this won't change. It doesn't appear that what Mitch did (twice) will be remedied and now I worry that we won't even get to replace the next open seat... but I am so frustrated.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)there are no openings, hence there are no nominations to the court.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)The court has not been expanded, there are no openings.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Decides the size of the Supreme Court????
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)you apparently missed Civics class.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)There are no openings on the court and all the wishful thinking in the world will not make it so.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Expanding the size of the Supreme Court requires an act of Congress - including the Senate - before anyone can be appointed.
Biden could not have appointed anyone to the Supreme Court during his term thus far.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)I didn't realize that would be the fixation.
Amishman
(5,541 posts)There is no clear cut legal argument to undercut the legitimacy of the replacement, and the country (and world) has accepted that the seat is filled.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Amishman
(5,541 posts)I feel screwed by Mitch, but I wouldn't view a replacement as legitimate and wouldn't support trying.
DU is not representative of the country.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)gab13by13
(20,864 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)have the votes. Also, we need to nominate someone younger.
dutch777
(2,871 posts)I realize Repugs stand in the way but getting hurt by our own friendly fire is not an insignificant factor. 2022 midterms are already on Congressional minds and increasing the worry exponentially.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)and the Senate. That is the reality of our situation.
Polybius
(15,238 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 22, 2021, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)
You can't nominate someone unless there's an opening.
Amishman
(5,541 posts)It's a silly idea and not remotely helpful.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Polybius
(15,238 posts)Ever.
mcar
(42,210 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)he was already too old when Obama nominated him in 2016.
They need to nominate somebody late 40s/early 50s.
Democrats also need to come up with a system like the GOP - if the judge is 75 or older and the president is Republican, the judge retires and the GOP president nominates somebody younger to replace him or her (Kennedy recently, for one, O'Connor when Bush was president for another) RBG would have been replaced in Obama's first term when he had a large majority, and Breyer in Obama's 2nd term before Dems lost the majority.
Celerity
(42,666 posts)Celerity
(42,666 posts)approved and then seated in the history of the SCOTUS. The next person we put on the court (if we even get a chance again, barring expansion, which is dead in the water atm) needs to be able to serve for decades. He also was a compromise (one that failed due to McTurtle) nominee at the time, and is too moderate.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)Celerity
(42,666 posts)based up a factually invalid framing.