Filibuster Court Nominee

[Supposn]

Filibuster Republican Supreme Court Nominee:


The Republican Party’s Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and their judiciary committee members deliberately prevented the U.S. Senate from discussing and voting upon the Democratic president’s nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court while a Democratic president was in office. If this was in the best interests of our nation, then surely Democratic Senators should behave no less patriotically. Until at least the year 2021, Democrats should filibuster any discussion or vote for a seat upon the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Republicans behaved contrary to our nation’s best interests, their behavior should not be rewarded to encourage similar or worse occurrences in future senate sessions.

At very least the Democrats should insist that Senator McConnell on behalf of the Republican Party lead the passage of a vote for his own censure and publicly apologize for their undermining the reputation of the U.S. Senate; I do not believe the Democrats should insist upon McConnell’s resignation (if he wishes to remain in the U.S. Senate).

Until such a public Republican apology, or 2021, it’s Democrats patriotic duty to attempt filibustering any discussion or vote for a seat upon the U.S. Supreme Court while a Republican President is in office.

Respectfully, Supposn

[John Galt]

Mitch will just go nuclear and it will be moot

Although I'd like to see an old fashioned filibuster.

[spacemonkey]

Third grade level revenge on display here, nothing more.

[The Comrade]

Revenge for what?

[John Galt]

revenge for doing what parties have done multiple times in this country: refuse to appoint judges until the next president. at one point it was several years and multiple openings on the supreme court because of it, but this is dealing with scalia's seat

honestly, scalia would be against trump's overreaches

[Supposn]

John, if the Democrats attempt to block all President Trump’s nominations (until the parties come to some agreement), majority leader Senator McConnell then necessarily must threaten to enact the “nuclear option”. That would further be detrimental to the decorum and reputation of the U.S. Senate.

But of greater concern would be the additional rule further reduce the U.S. Supreme Courts reputation. The previous senate rule change reducing confirmation requirement to a simple majority vote excluded application to supreme court appointments. There’s good and sufficient reason for that exclusion. Further extension of the rule would be detrimental to the reputed independent and equitabile characteristics of the justices appointed and to the entire court.

If Democrats do not act to maintain political balance, by default they’d be accepting Democratic Presidents should be unable to appoint a U.S. Supreme Court Justice unless at that time Democrats also hold 67 seats in the U.S. Senate.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Spider]

Decorum is already toast. Balance is toast.

It doesn't matter that's its happened in the past. Precedence for f**k only enables further f**k. We need to work towards eliminating this loophole. The court is meant to be independent. Not something that is gamed along party lines to the extreme of leaving seats empty for months or years on the hopes that it can be stacked with partisan puppets.

If a seat needs filled, the sitting POTUS should fill it.

[Winchester]

[uebermann]

Yeah I'm not so sure its a good idea to remove all checks and balances for such things, if that is what is being suggested here. Maybe not allowing filibusters but we definitely want to have approval for people picked for such positions.

[Spider]