By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

 

Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Yes 53 47.32%
 
No 41 36.61%
 
Trump should pick a new canidate 18 16.07%
 
Total:112
poklane on 06 October 2018
OlfinBedwere said:
poklane said:
When the Democrats gain power they should just stack the court.

There's no guarantee that any vacancies will come up whenever the Democrats next control the White House. Plus, realistically a president only has their first two years to nominate a Supreme Court justice, since they almost always lose control of congress after that (the only president in recent times not to do so, believe it or not, was George W. Bush).

You don't need a vacancy in order to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court, the constitution doesn't specify how many judges are on it. If the Democrats get the necessary power there would be nothing stopping them from just throwing additional judges on the SC.



Around the Network
OlfinBedwere on 06 October 2018
DarthMetalliCube said:

Got me.. They're sure not winning people over with their tantrums, character assassinations (ie "Susan Collins is a rape apologist!!!1") and hatred born of a mob mentality.

Events like this make it more clear why myself and many others #Walkaway.

These guys are endangering themselves of becoming not just a minority party but a small, insignificant one at this rate if they keep it up.

Dems need to return to level-headed debate and and temperament. drop the Victimhood Cult, extremism, and outrage, and get back to the issues of the middle/working class. THEN they'll start winning people back, maybe even myself. But I don't see that happening in my lifetime at this point. Unfortunately for them, there are two small parties that DO focus more on the real issues and are more in touch (Green and Libertarian) that I'm sure would be more than willing and able to step in and fill the void left by the increasingly nutty Democrats.

The Democrats have survived causing the Civil War, the Vietnam War, and having the only two presidents ever to be impeached coming from their party. And on the flip-side, the Republicans have survived causing the Great Depression, the Iraq War, and having the two biggest political scandals in the country's history (Teapot Dome and Watergate) happen on their watch.

Heaven knows the country could do with more than just two parties, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Republicans and Democrats are damn-near indestructible by this point. And I don't think the "SJW" crowd are going to destroy them as a viable party any more than the Tea Party did to the Republicans ten years ago.



melbye on 06 October 2018
the-pi-guy said:
NightlyPoe said:

Despite the constant drumbeat, there's been no evidence that Kavanaugh lied about anything.

-He lied about the drinking age in Maryland.

-He claimed that Ford's witnesses said the event didn't happen.  That's false.

-He claimed that an event like the one described by Ford never happened, even though his calendar lists such an event.

-He claimed that boofing referred to flatulence.

-He claimed that the devil's triangle refers to a drinking game.  

So eager to believe he is lying but refuse to believe she might be when there are claims that both her experience with lie-detectors and hear fear of flying might be lies according to her ex-boyfriend



OlfinBedwere on 06 October 2018
NightlyPoe said:

That's actually not correct.  In terms of the Senate, which the only one that matters for nominations other than VP, Clinton and Eisenhower are the only two presidents in modern times to lose a Senate majority after their first midterm.  Before that you have to go back to Cleveland's second time being president and Hayes.

For some reason I had remembered Bush Sr. and Obama losing control of the senate during their initial mid-terms, but it looks like you're right - the former never had control of the senate to begin with, while it was the latter's second mid-terms where that happened.



poklane on 06 October 2018
NightlyPoe said:
OlfinBedwere said:

There's no guarantee that any vacancies will come up whenever the Democrats next control the White House.

I think he means that they should expand the court until they get a majority.

Ding ding ding



Around the Network
Aura7541 on 06 October 2018
the-pi-guy said:
Aura7541 said:

And how will the Democrats get the votes needed to win?

Hopefully by putting forward likeable people.

Likable to who exactly? And what about the merits of the candidates' arguments?



OlfinBedwere on 06 October 2018
the-pi-guy said:

To voters.  
For me, personally:

-Someone who doesn't attack the opposition.

-Someone who is intelligent and has good proposals.

-Someone who cares about their voters.

-Someone who is a decent person.

-Someone who makes good arguments.

I think the only two major-party candidates we've had who tick all those boxes in the last ~50 years are probably Reagan and Obama. If we're being generous.



jason1637 on 06 October 2018
morenoingrato said:
What baffles me is why they didn't go with another, maybe even more conservative judge like Gorsuch after everything.
They just had to fight that one until the bitter end.

They didn't want to set a precedent.

poklane said:
When the Democrats gain power they should just stack the court.

Bad idea. The GOP would just retsack the court a few years later.



poklane on 06 October 2018
jason1637 said:
morenoingrato said:
What baffles me is why they didn't go with another, maybe even more conservative judge like Gorsuch after everything.
They just had to fight that one until the bitter end.

They didn't want to set a precedent.

poklane said:
When the Democrats gain power they should just stack the court.

Bad idea. The GOP would just retsack the court a few years later.

Fine, and then the Democrats can do so again a few years later



contestgamer on 06 October 2018
Signalstar said:
No it should not continue. Kavanaugh proved he is a vengeful, partisan hack with his responses yesterday. He blamed democrats and the left for conspiring against him. He will be a judge for all Americans but he showed his animus to half the country. He only did this because he knows he only needs 51 votes rather than 60. The lower threshold means he only has to appeal to the conservative base. Trump should pick another conservative judge.

Trumps is president, so he gets to choose his team. Why should he bother picking someone that shows good faith to half the country when that same half shows no good faith towards him?