RBG passed
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
This isn’t exactly correct. The constitution does not require hearings, either public or private. The current rules of the senate DO require hearings. Breaking the rules of the senate would invalidate the appointment.
The abortion "back and forth" has been largely because of the religious Right and its unwillingness to allow people to make their own bodily decisions for themselves.
As for suffrage:
"...At the same time, those who opposed the voting campaign amped up their own faith-infused rhetoric, said Weiss.
They "use religion as a cudgel to beat the suffrage movement," said Weiss. "If women vote, the moral health of the nation will be in danger."
Using arguments based on biblical texts and accusing suffragists of being immoral, opponents said that Eve's subservience to Adam in Genesis was divinely ordained, she said..."
https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/faith-played-complex-role-battle-womens-right-vote
Sure, woman used religion to fight for their right to vote. But they had to fight with people using religion to deny them their vote. Religion ruins everything. Everything.
Read Ricter's and UsualName's posts.
Read my posts again. Better yet, read Ricter's and UsualNames posts twice more.
Yes. There is plenty of time, especially for nominees who have been recently vetted.
But there is time to update whatever has happened since they were vetted for the lower court.
I would not let the lefties suck the pubs into the trap of confirming without a hearing. I would stay with the proper argument which is that there is time, and make it happen within that time and close it out when a tidy little hearing has been held.
Even though this is a simple point, it needs to be made:
This process of showing average times to confirm and all of that is fine, but it also bullshit. Most of those proceeding were dragged out because the goal was to drag them out and grandstand and make the same point over and over or see if they could find another flaw with the nominee. The ones who will argue that it was not enough time will also argue that there is no amount of time that work for them. Kavanaugh being a clear example. They would like to still have him in a confirmation hearing. The ones who argue that "before the election" are too soon, are already prepared to argue that "before inauguration is to soon" and so on.
As I said, I would walk the thin line and not step into the hole of just announcing that there will be no hearing, that's giving the enemy fodder. But neither would I allow the dems to play the game of pretending that more time than that required by a tidy little hearing would make a difference. It won't.
How long do those rules specify that the hearing must be?
giggle.
Also, breaking Senate rules would not invalidate an appointment if the constitutional requirements are still met. It may piss some people off and could lead to disciplinary action, committee removals etc. in theory but would not invalidate the appointment.
Not really a need for that discussion anyway. Mitch and company get to decide whether a rule has been broken or not. The courts have stayed out of internal housekeeping in legislative committees and processes.
Senate can just change the rules. They won't do that though ---it will just be short hearings as you say.
Yeah, confirmation without a hearing would give the Dems cause to bitch. But maybe that's a "so what"? "When you've got the votes/power, you can do things." (Like Obama said [paraphrasing], "You want to make policy? Then you win elections".)
If the Dems held the Senate by <60, wouldn't they confirm without a hearing and tell the Repubs to "SUCK IT"! If confirmation hearings are not legally required, then a party could get by without them unless it needed to pick up some votes from the other side. Of course such action could set a new standard of "power play" rules into effect.
All that said, the SCOTUS should have never been a political animal like it is. Unfortunately we have to live with that now.
Last edited:
RBG actually brought this on by not stepping down under Hussein. Greed and hubris got to her because she wanted to have the first woman president to pick her replacement after she handed in her resignation to the first woman president. ---Anthony Kennedy at least had the good sense to go to Trump and say he would resign if Trump would agree to nominate Kavanaugh.
Last edited:
I hear ya. But the "so what" card is one that I would play later rather than sooner to stay peppy right before the election. I dont see any reason why they would need to short circuit anything. They can still take the high road and no one can stop them. So why not do that?
Then, yeah, when they just go round and round in circles at the end of the tidy little process by saying "Lindsey Graham said this" and "You said and did this about Merrick Garland" then "BOOM" play the card and just shut er down, done. Don't need their agreement on anything as long as the pubs have the votes.