snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08 July 2018, 11:11 PM
Thebobo's Avatar
Thebobo Thebobo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 April 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cervus View Post
I haven't been this sick with fear for the future of this country since the night of the 2016 election.
I haven't been this hopeful since the 2016 election. My expectations are being met.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10 July 2018, 01:26 AM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Judge

US President Donald Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a bruising confirmation battle.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44775078
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10 July 2018, 01:55 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,671
Default

Democrats should refuse to allow a hearing until after the November election and only ask one question: are you or have you ever been Merrick Garland?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10 July 2018, 02:19 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Democrats should refuse to allow a hearing until after the November election
How?

Democrats don't control the Senate.

There's some faint hope that the nomination might go down, if all the Democrats hold (which is uncertain), and at least one Republican votes against (which is possible, but also uncertain). But I don't see how Democrats can refuse to hold a hearing. Stall for a while, maybe; but they'd have to stall till next January, even if the Republicans lose the Senate in the midterms.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10 July 2018, 02:47 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,671
Default

I don't know. But given all the dirty tricks Republicans have pulled, I think that anything up to and including changing the locks on the doors should be on the table.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10 July 2018, 03:23 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,163
Default

Thorny locust, Dems need two Republicans to vote with them. If they only got 1, it would be a 50/50 tie, which Pence gets to break as president of the Senate.

Crocoduck_hunter, what do you envision happening?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10 July 2018, 03:46 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,671
Default

Nothing. I envision that Democrats are going to make some noise and then confirm him anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10 July 2018, 05:12 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,197
Default

I don't think we have much hope of actually stopping it, with the possible exception of if some scandal about him comes out that causes him to withdraw. But the Democrats need to make a stink anyway, if only to help fire up voters for November. If they go spineless, it will be disheartening, I think.

Of course it could fire up Republicans too/
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10 July 2018, 12:19 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
Thorny locust, Dems need two Republicans to vote with them. If they only got 1, it would be a 50/50 tie, which Pence gets to break as president of the Senate.
I think McCain's unable to vote.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10 July 2018, 02:52 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,163
Default

Crocoduck hunter and EQ Taft, from a process stand point, what do you think ought to happen? How should it work?

Thanks thorny locust. I hadn't heard that.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10 July 2018, 03:12 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,118
Default

I'd like to see the Democrats refuse any nominee except Merrick Garland until after the next Presidential election. I mean fair's fair, we must give the people the right to pick the new Supreme Court judge. Failing that, I'd like to see them delay until after the midterm elections.

I also want a unicorn that farts chocolate.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10 July 2018, 03:13 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,671
Default

Pretty much that.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10 July 2018, 05:01 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
I'd like to see the Democrats refuse any nominee except Merrick Garland until after the next Presidential election. I mean fair's fair, we must give the people the right to pick the new Supreme Court judge. Failing that, I'd like to see them delay until after the midterm elections.

I also want a unicorn that farts chocolate.
There is actually legal and lawful precedence for the Dems insisting the confirmation is postponed until after the midterm elections.

The McConnel Rule: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b5e692f40c31

Of course the chances that the Republicans will follow the rules they created is pretty much zero. So I'll start looking for that Unicorn.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10 July 2018, 08:04 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
There is actually legal and lawful precedence for the Dems insisting the confirmation is postponed until after the midterm elections.

The McConnel Rule: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b5e692f40c31

Of course the chances that the Republicans will follow the rules they created is pretty much zero. So I'll start looking for that Unicorn.
It is not "legal and lawful [precedent]." It's not even a real rule. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_rule It's a political position that both parties invoke -- when it is politically expedient. I don't think it has ever been invoked for midterm elections before.

Do you want it to be the rule that for 2 out of the four years of a president's term, the Senate won't consider their nominees?

Or are you invoking only the precedents of Tit v. Tat, and Goose v. Gander?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10 July 2018, 08:11 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
Thanks thorny locust. I hadn't heard that.
It may not be certain. There seems to actually be a good bit of speculation. But McCain hasn't shown up at the Senate for some time; and whether he's able to is at least in doubt.

There are at least two possible contrary Republican votes; but whether either, let alone both, of them will come through is unclear. And there are apparently several uncertain Democrats.

[ETA: there may be other possible Republican antis: https://patch.com/arizona/phoenix/mc...h-confirmation ]

-- Supreme Court judges have tended to get more liberal as they age. But whether any of the current conservative votes on the Court will do so, or whether Kavanaugh will do so if confirmed, is another question.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10 July 2018, 08:25 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
It is not "legal and lawful [precedent]." It's not even a real rule. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_rule It's a political position that both parties invoke -- when it is politically expedient. I don't think it has ever been invoked for midterm elections before.
Congressional rules basically have the weight of law on the actions of congress. If not why have congressional rules? The Republicans implemented the rule to avoid having confirmation hearings on an Obama nominee. Congress is bound by that rule. It was created to block confirmation hearings during a "lame duck" presidency though IIRC it was implemented 11 months before the end of Obama's first term, which is much earlier than the traditional definition of a "lame-duck" period. The rule doesn't appear to be specific to the presidency and looks like it applies to congress as well. With just 3 months until the midterms half of the senate is up for reelection.

Quote:
Do you want it to be the rule that for 2 out of the four years of a president's term, the Senate won't consider their nominees?
We are talking about lame duck senators, not the president. The senate confirms the nominee and half the senate is up for reelection (just like Obama was). The difference is Obama was much farther from the election than the current senate is.

Quote:
Or are you invoking only the precedents of Tit v. Tat, and Goose v. Gander?
I'm invoking bringing a gun to a gun fight instead of showing up with a copy of the Marquess of Queensberry Boxing Rules and then being surprised when I get shot. It isn't "Tit v.Tat" is is following the rules the republicans put in place. The republicans gyrated to block confirmation hearings without every even talking to the nominee. What the nominee thought was irrelevant, the only thing that mattered was that he was nominated by Obama and eventually Obama would be out of office. That is now the standard of behavior.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10 July 2018, 09:08 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
The Republicans implemented the rule to avoid having confirmation hearings on an Obama nominee. Congress is bound by that rule.
Are they?

It was my impression that they didn't formally create a rule; McConnell, who was in charge of scheduling hearings, just refused to do so. The Senate rules mean that the majority leader has that power. So the majority party can block hearings; just as they can block debates and votes on bills. That doesn't mean that the minority party can do so.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10 July 2018, 09:55 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
half of the senate is up for reelection.
One third.

[/nitpick]
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10 July 2018, 10:28 PM
Thebobo's Avatar
Thebobo Thebobo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 April 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I think McCain's unable to vote.
He should be buying the farm any day now.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10 July 2018, 10:32 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,163
Default

There is no Thurmond/Biden/McConnell *rule*. It is not a rule of the Senate or Congress. (And if it were, a majority vote would change it.) It has never been enacted as any kind of rule. And, as I said, it has always been "invoked" when it is a presidential election year, concerning presidential nominations.

I understand that an argument is now being made about putting consideration of the nominee off until after the new Senate is seated, but that isn't even an appeal to the UL "rule," because it has never been applied to that before.

There's no "gun" to bring to any fight. The Democrats are the minority. They can point out hypocrisy. That's what they can bring to this fight, and even that is weaksauce because the "rule" has never applied to midterm elections before.

I hate that Trump gets to nominate Supreme Court justices. And I am still pretty shocked that Kennedy chose to hand him another vacancy. But I am neither shocked nor outraged that the majority party will be moving forward with considering the nomination of the president who is also a member of their party.

ETA: Also, it was not "invoked" 11 months before the end of Obama's first term. McConnell put off consideration of Merrick Garland after Justice Scalia's death created a vacancy in February 2016.

Last edited by erwins; 10 July 2018 at 10:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Justice Gorsuch Joins Supreme Courtís Liberals to Strike Down Deportation Law thorny locust Soapbox Derby 5 20 April 2018 02:14 PM
Supreme Court rules states must allow same-sex marriage TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 60 13 July 2015 07:59 AM
Supreme Court favors corporations snopes Politics 0 01 July 2014 10:58 PM
Supreme Court will take up new health law dispute Psihala Soapbox Derby 23 27 November 2013 08:44 PM
Justice Clarence Thomas breaks seven-year silence in court snopes Moot Court 0 14 January 2013 07:17 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.