The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Uncle Ted]

How about the attacks on inter-racial adoption?

Yeah, what a 'white colonizer'... she is just using her kids as 'props'!

[USUC]

How much of what we're seeing now is karma for Harry Reid? Karma is a never ending cycle, to be sure. And I have no doubt that the GOP will one day pay their due.





This is dumb. I've heard the argument before, and it's weak. Have the balls to make the senators either vote yes or no - and answer for those votes. This whole "voted not to vote" thing is silly. That works for legislation just fine - and I'll accept it. Not for appointments that need to be confirmed or rejected.

For the record - I thought Garland should have gotten a vote too. And I think it's Trump's role to nominate a supreme court replacement for RBG - who should also get a vote.

Mitch couldn't let Garland come up for a vote because he knew that there were enough Republicans who would have voted to confirm, Hatch being one of them.

[Eddie]

Mitch couldn't let Garland come up for a vote because he knew that there were enough Republicans who would have voted to confirm, Hatch being one of them.

Which is why the "he got a vote. They voted not to vote" is such a BS explanation. I shared my opinion with someone that Garland should've gotten a vote, and was sent this article in response, quoting Mike Lee: https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...lee-supported/

“In 2016, President Obama nominated a replacement for Justice [Antonin] Scalia and my Senate colleagues and I gave our advice and consent on the nominee, consistent with the Constitution, by rejecting him," by refusing to hold a confirmation hearing, Lee said in a statement Monday.

“This year, President Trump will nominate a replacement for Justice Ginsburg and, consistent with the Constitution, we will again give our advice and consent," he added. “If we like the nominee, we will confirm her. If we don’t, we won’t. It’s that simple.”

For the record, I'm not so sure Hatch would've confirmed Garland - though I agree Garland was likely to get some GOP senator votes and may have been confirmed. An article from that time: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ancy/81856428/

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said, "I think highly of Judge Garland."

"But his nomination doesn’t in any way change current circumstances," Hatch said

I read that as Hatch saying current circumstances - he agreed with not confirming Garland. Maybe he agreed with not holding hearings and voting, but would've voted to confirm if it came to that? I don't know.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Mitch couldn't let Garland come up for a vote because he knew that there were enough Republicans who would have voted to confirm, Hatch being one of them.

I just finished an evening class about the current election, with Bill Clinton as this evening's guest. He discussed, among other things, how GOP judicial confirmation strategy has shifted in recent years. He mentioned Hatch specifically who, when asked to confirm multiple Dem-sponsored nominees, would counter with a GOP-sponsored candidate. As long as the GOP-nominee was qualified and honest (and they usually were) Cllnton was happy to do some horse trading to get most of his nominations through. That changed with McConnell, whose stated goal was to block as many Circuit Court and Supreme Court nominees as possible (that's why Trump has been able to nominate so many more than Obama was able to get through).

Lots of other interesting thoughts presented tonight, including "We've had to deal with lots of bigotries in our history, but perhaps the biggest bigotry is not wanting to be around people who disagree with us."

[USUC]

I just finished an evening class about the current election, with Bill Clinton as this evening's guest. He discussed, among other things, how GOP judicial confirmation strategy has shifted in recent years. He mentioned Hatch specifically who, when asked to confirm multiple Dem-sponsored nominees, would counter with a GOP-sponsored candidate. As long as the GOP-nominee was qualified and honest (and they usually were) Cllnton was happy to do some horse trading to get most of his nominations through. That changed with McConnell, whose stated goal was to block as many Circuit Court and Supreme Court nominees as possible (that's why Trump has been able to nominate so many more than Obama was able to get through).

Lots of other interesting thoughts presented tonight, including "We've had to deal with lots of bigotries in our history, but perhaps the biggest bigotry is not wanting to be around people who disagree with us."

I'm sure that was interesting and all but Bill is full of shit. I worked in Hatch's office in 2002. Leahy blocked a ton of qualified GOP judicial nominees. This was a distinct departure from the what had been done the previous decades. Schumer was one of the architects of the new strategy as well. McConnell may be playing nasty games as well, but this didn't start with Mitch and to argue as such is nothing but partisan revisionist history.

[Uncle Ted]

I just finished an evening class about the current election, with Bill Clinton as this evening's guest. He discussed, among other things, how GOP judicial confirmation strategy has shifted in recent years. He mentioned Hatch specifically who, when asked to confirm multiple Dem-sponsored nominees, would counter with a GOP-sponsored candidate. As long as the GOP-nominee was qualified and honest (and they usually were) Cllnton was happy to do some horse trading to get most of his nominations through. That changed with McConnell, whose stated goal was to block as many Circuit Court and Supreme Court nominees as possible (that's why Trump has been able to nominate so many more than Obama was able to get through).

Lots of other interesting thoughts presented tonight, including "We've had to deal with lots of bigotries in our history, but perhaps the biggest bigotry is not wanting to be around people who disagree with us."

Cool... Did you ask Slick Willie how many times he flew on his buddy's airplane?

[Uncle Ted]

I'm sure that was interesting and all but Bill is full of shit. I worked in Hatch's office in 2002. Leahy blocked a ton of qualified GOP judicial nominees. This was a distinct departure from the what had been done the previous decades. Schumer was one of the architects of the new strategy as well. McConnell may be playing nasty games as well, but this didn't start with Mitch and to argue as such is nothing but partisan revisionist history.

Maybe PAC forgot that this is coming from a guy that lied under oath.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I'm sure that was interesting and all but Bill is full of shit. I worked in Hatch's office in 2002. Leahy blocked a ton of qualified GOP judicial nominees. This was a distinct departure from the what had been done the previous decades. Schumer was one of the architects of the new strategy as well. McConnell may be playing nasty games as well, but this didn't start with Mitch and to argue as such is nothing but partisan revisionist history.

Technically, that's not inconsistent with what Clinton said--he simply overlooked the premise that GOP strategy shifted because the Dems starting blocking nominations during W's tenure (post-Clinton). I'm curious if the Dems blocked more of W's nominees than the GOP did of Obama's.

I was also amused by Clinton's pre-class chit chat in which he and the the instructors were talking about Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), a holiday Bill likes "one day and you clean it all off." Or so he hopes, presumably.

[USUC]

Technically, that's not inconsistent with what Clinton said--he simply overlooked the premise that GOP strategy shifted because the Dems starting blocking nominations during W's tenure (post-Clinton). I'm curious if the Dems blocked more of W's nominees than the GOP did of Obama's.

I was also amused by Clinton's pre-class chit chat in which he and the the instructors were talking about Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), a holiday Bill likes "one day and you clean it all off." Or so he hopes, presumably.

Not sure how they compare. This lasted from 2001 to 2003 when the GOP took back the Senate.

I genuinely bet Bill is interesting. I like that he doesn't appear to be an advocate for the woke, illiberal left.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Not sure how they compare. This lasted from 2001 to 2003 when the GOP took back the Senate.

I genuinely bet Bill is interesting. I like that he doesn't appear to be an advocate for the woke, illiberal left.

He was interesting, and he said he disagrees with at least some of the positions being taken by the more liberal wing of his party. He also talked about the process of hammering out a balanced budget and other bills back in the 90s, and the compromises both sides made to get there. Not much of that nowadays....

[Jeff Lebowski]

He was interesting, and he said he disagrees with at least some of the positions being taken by the more liberal wing of his party. He also talked about the process of hammering out a balanced budget and other bills back in the 90s, and the compromises both sides made to get there. Not much of that nowadays....

Other than being a sexual predator, Bill Clinton was actually a pretty decent president.

[Uncle Ted]

Other than being a sexual predator, Bill Clinton was actually a pretty decent president.

Yeah, he and his buddy, Al Gore, built the information super highway!

And the dumb academic types still think they built it.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I like this nominee. Reaction from the left has been interesting. Seeing progressives on twitter blast her for working too much and neglecting her kids. Or that she is a mindless servant to her husband. Ha.

All these attacks seem pointless. Do they think they can convince republican senators not to vote for her?

I hate the nominee. She is also perfectly qualified for the position. The best play for the Democrats right now is to not attack her as a nominee. Instead, they need to focus on the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the games the Republicans have been playing with the judiciary for years. I doubt that they will take the smart approach.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Mitch couldn't let Garland come up for a vote because he knew that there were enough Republicans who would have voted to confirm, Hatch being one of them.

Despite what Hatch said in the past about Merrick Garland, he wouldn't have voted to confirm. He would have been lock step with McConnell.

The reason he didn't get an official vote is he was such an incredibly qualified candidate, that also happened to be middle of the road, and Republicans would have looked awful voting him down, especially because they are the party that is still screaming about Bork.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Technically, that's not inconsistent with what Clinton said--he simply overlooked the premise that GOP strategy shifted because the Dems starting blocking nominations during W's tenure (post-Clinton). I'm curious if the Dems blocked more of W's nominees than the GOP did of Obama's.

I was also amused by Clinton's pre-class chit chat in which he and the the instructors were talking about Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), a holiday Bill likes "one day and you clean it all off." Or so he hopes, presumably.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...cies-to-trump/

McConnell took the obstructionism of judicial nominees to a new level.