Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Polybius

(15,423 posts)

12. That makes no sense

Reply to themaguffin (Original post)

Thu Oct 21, 2021, 01:13 PM

Oct 2021

Last edited Fri Oct 22, 2021, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

You can't nominate someone unless there's an opening.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Honestly, Garland should have been nominated for SCOTUS early this year. [View all] themaguffin Oct 2021 OP

Was there an opening that I missed? Sherman A1 Oct 2021 #1

Scalia themaguffin Oct 2021 #3

That was in 2016 Effete Snob Oct 2021 #6

And? themaguffin Oct 2021 #7

The court is currently filled Sherman A1 Oct 2021 #8

That's arbitrary. themaguffin Oct 2021 #9

And it remains a fact Sherman A1 Oct 2021 #10

You're missing the point. Biden could have appointed him. themaguffin Oct 2021 #13

How? Sherman A1 Oct 2021 #15

The number is arbitrary. SCOTUS #s have changed over the years. themaguffin Oct 2021 #16

Yes, and what branch of government Sherman A1 Oct 2021 #20

You've totally missed the point. themaguffin Oct 2021 #21

No I get the point Sherman A1 Oct 2021 #22

No, my point wasn't about the process. jfc themaguffin Oct 2021 #23

Your point is moot Sherman A1 Oct 2021 #24

Yeah, I referenced my wishful thinking in my post. themaguffin Oct 2021 #25

Biden cannot appoint Garland to an office which does not exist Effete Snob Oct 2021 #29

Yes, I know. I skipped over that part in my post, to focus on the broader point. themaguffin Oct 2021 #30

Not really Amishman Oct 2021 #11

A large segment of the country feels screwed by Mitch and would support the appointment. themaguffin Oct 2021 #14

The former does not mean the latter Amishman Oct 2021 #17

I'm not referring to DU themaguffin Oct 2021 #18

Adding justices is not a radical idea. gab13by13 Oct 2021 #2

It is a radical idea today...not so much in years gone by. But it doesn't matter as we don't Demsrule86 Oct 2021 #4

Younger is a smart idea. We are just not moving fast enough on ANYTHING. dutch777 Oct 2021 #5

We have a very small majority both in the House Demsrule86 Oct 2021 #38

That makes no sense Polybius Oct 2021 #12

He's envisioning nullifying Gorsuch's appointment somehow Amishman Oct 2021 #19

No, not nullifying themaguffin Oct 2021 #26

Seats can be added. themaguffin Oct 2021 #27

But they won't Polybius Oct 2021 #32

How? Be specific mcar Oct 2021 #28

Hell no on Garland NewJeffCT Oct 2021 #31

he would now be the oldest nominee who was approved and then seated in the history of the SCOTUS Celerity Oct 2021 #34

There was and is no vacancy, and Garland is too old, he would now be the oldest nominee who was Celerity Oct 2021 #33

Missed my point, but ok. themaguffin Oct 2021 #35

I fail to see how an effective point can be gleaned when a foundational part of the construct is Celerity Oct 2021 #36

ok themaguffin Oct 2021 #37