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
Showing Original Post only (View all)The Stolen Supreme Court Seat [View all]
The Stolen Supreme Court SeatNew York Times Editorial Board
New York Times
Soon after his inauguration next month, President-elect Donald Trump will nominate someone to the Supreme Court, which has been hamstrung by a vacancy since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. There will be public debates about the nominees credentials, past record, judicial philosophy and temperament. There will be Senate hearings and a vote.
No matter how it plays out, Americans must remember one thing above all: The person who gets confirmed will sit in a stolen seat.
The Republican party line that it was an election year, so the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next justice was a patent lie. The people spoke when they re-elected Mr. Obama in 2012, entrusting him to choose new members for the court. And the Senate has had no problem considering, and usually confirming, election-year nominees in the past.
The slope is both slippery and steep. If Republicans could justify an election-year blockade, whats to stop Democrats in the future from doing the same? For that matter, why should the party controlling the Senate ever allow a president of the opposing party to choose a justice? Indeed, in the weeks before the election, Senate Republicans were threatening, with the encouragement of leading conservative thinkers, never to confirm anyone to fill the vacancy if Hillary Clinton won.
No matter how it plays out, Americans must remember one thing above all: The person who gets confirmed will sit in a stolen seat.
The Republican party line that it was an election year, so the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next justice was a patent lie. The people spoke when they re-elected Mr. Obama in 2012, entrusting him to choose new members for the court. And the Senate has had no problem considering, and usually confirming, election-year nominees in the past.
The slope is both slippery and steep. If Republicans could justify an election-year blockade, whats to stop Democrats in the future from doing the same? For that matter, why should the party controlling the Senate ever allow a president of the opposing party to choose a justice? Indeed, in the weeks before the election, Senate Republicans were threatening, with the encouragement of leading conservative thinkers, never to confirm anyone to fill the vacancy if Hillary Clinton won.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
65 replies, 8865 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (62)
ReplyReply to this post
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Same here - but not before the full extent of his crimes is known to the public.
tenorly
Dec 2016
#12
Yes, mysteriously silent throughout all this mess. I hope there was no "accident."
JudyM
Dec 2016
#15
Democrats need to start fighting Republicans the way Republicans fight Democrats.
TeamPooka
Dec 2016
#6
The first way is by obstructing. They have spent 8 years teaching America that obstructing
TeamPooka
Dec 2016
#31
Lol no. This bad cop worse cop act between the Ds and Rs works just fine for them.
elehhhhna
Dec 2016
#49
It is stunning that there are no Constitutional scholars who can figure out how to work around this.
JudyM
Dec 2016
#8
More voters disagreed with your assessment of Hillary as a "bad candidate" than agreed.
maddiemom
Dec 2016
#44
Maybe with Trump taking office, you might be inclined to embrace a definition of treason
tritsofme
Dec 2016
#47
Scorched Earth. No Rethug nominee for SCOTUS. No reward for stealing the seat. Ever.
kairos12
Dec 2016
#21
"Stolen" is the right word. Dems should respond in kind... block the Fuhrer-Elect's pick indefinitely. (It's only fair!)
InAbLuEsTaTe
Dec 2016
#30
There is only one way that Democrats could fight back within the scope of the Constitution
BzaDem
Dec 2016
#34
The President should have both Eletoral and popular vote majorities to nomiate
rickford66
Dec 2016
#35