McConnell reiterates that Senate would confirm a Supreme Court nominee if there is a vacancy this year

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThinkingSapien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ThinkingSapien

Guest

McConnell reiterates that Senate would confirm a Supreme Court nominee if there’s a vacancy this year​

Washington(CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday again reiterated his position that the GOP-led Senate would confirm a nominee to any Supreme Court vacancy that occurred this election year, despite leaving a seat vacant in 2016 and preventing President Barack Obama’s nominee from consideration.

“If you’re asking me a hypothetical … we would fill it,” the Kentucky Republican told Fox News Thursday.

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, McConnell had blocked the Senate from holding a hearing on Obama’s nominee, DC circuit judge Merrick Garland. McConnell had argued at the time that “this nomination ought to be made by the President we’re in the process of electing this year.”

How McConnell won, and Obama lost, the Merrick Garland fight

FROM 2016​


It was McConnell who seized the moment after the death of Scalia last February to announce there would be no confirmation hearings until after the election. “The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country,” he said at the time.
 
Last edited:
CradleRC58 said:
Why ?
Click to expand...
His hypocrisy breeds contempt.
McConnell doesn’t care about the US. He wants what he wants, period.
We watched it with the differences in his legal ideals of the US impeachment process.
Sorry, when it comes to authority, those in charge need to apply the rules equally toward parties involved, regardless of political leanings.

Clinton had one set of Congressional impeachment rules (ie. necessity of witnesses) compared to Trump (no need for witnesses).

In the last year of the Obama administration, McConnell stated it was an election year and thus, the responsibility of the incoming elected President to select the appointee for SC justice.

But if there were to be a SC vacancy this election year, the GOP would confirm a nominee. Such hypocritical attitudes are disruptive to the system of justice and are disrespectful to the American people collectively.

If it is the responsibility of the newly elected president to select the next appointee because the people have the right to have their voices heard through the election process, then it does not matter which party that new president is affiliated with. It’s fair and just to wait out of respect for the people.

The rules apply to each of us equally, regardless of political affiliation.
 
Sure, he should have noted there is no vacancy. Ruth may serve beyond 2024.

Actually, it wouldn’t upset me if she does.
 
CradleRC58 said:
Sure, he should have noted there is no vacancy
Click to expand...
That’s not necessary. There’s not a question of whether or not there is a vacancy. What is of note here is the lack of consistency of his position and that it apparently is subject to continence instead of fairness.
 

McConnell on Trump’s tweets: He should listen to Barr​

391,603 views

6.3K

673

[
AGF-l787wN9RukUSOAR_8fAit4P_uYYDTAXsIoLUIw=s48-c-k-c0xffffffff-no-rj-mo

Fox News​

](https://m.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel)

Published on Feb 13, 2020

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell joins Bret Baier on ‘Special Report.’
Click to expand...
Key Phrase: Hypothetical Supreme Court Vacancy

 
Last edited:
Why does he bother going back to the 19th century or the Iowa caucus to rationalize his approach? He can do whatever he wants with a simple majority of the Senate (or do nothing) as will the next MLS. The country should know that by now.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis . . . .
He can do whatever he wants with a simple majority of the Senate (or do nothing) as will the next MLS. The country should know that by now.
Click to expand...
Aside from observation of long-historical precedent, he also went back to 2015.

But you are right.

The country knows the House can do whatever it pleases in many regards with their majority (we’ve just seen that with the phony impeachment charges didn’t we?). And the Senate too.
 
Last edited:
The House has absolutely no checks against judicial appointments, for reasons I don’t quite understand.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
The House has absolutely no checks against judicial appointments, for reasons I don’t quite understand.
Click to expand...
Obviously because the constitution doesn’t provide for it. The House doesn’t have say over any executive appointments. Nor does it have a say regarding treaties.
I’m speculating, but it may be that the Senate represents each state equally.
 
He is using the powers within his reach as ruthlessly as the democrat appointed judges have used theirs to keep the abortion mills open.
 
Casey vs Planned Parenthood confirmed Roe v Wade and was decide by Sandra Day I’Connor. Nominated by Reagan.

Kavenaugh was confirmed because he convinced Collins that Roe was settled law, stare decisis.
 
As has often been discussed, between about half and 2/3 of nominees from Republican presidents rule with a constitutional and ultimately socially conservative bent.

0% of nominees from Democratic Presidents ever do. The Dems NEVER miss when it comes to a social progressive and engineer appointment. I’ll take my chances with the Gorsuchs and the Kavanaughs of the world over the Breyers and Kagins. Wouldn’t you?
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
Wouldn’t you?
Click to expand...
Chief Justice Roberts has stated to the effect that there are no such things as Obama judges or Trump judges. Judges and Justices are like umpires at baseball games. People don’t go to watch umpires.

I’ll say this. If people don’t like the fact that judges make rulings on certain issues, then amend the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
Chief Justice Roberts has stated to the effect that there are no such things as Obama judges or Trump judges. Judges and Justices are like umpires at baseball games. People don’t go to watch umpires.
Click to expand...
And people don’t recruit umpires to gain a winning advantage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top