I can think of another reason why the Rats want to stall on everything ... especially anything pertaining to Justice and the Supreme Court.
Can proving discrimination against a few female, Walmart employees serve as proof that the company discriminated against 1.3 million female employees? Does the Federal government have the power to determine who is a religious minister? Are residents undergoing training at a hospital to be considered students or employees? Is carbon dioxide, part of the very air that we breathe out, a pollutant that the EPA can regulate? Does the Constitution forbid prayer at school football games and graduation ceremonies?
And it does have the occasional hot skirmish, though they’ve been reduced by the elimination of Obama.
Wrong, the real reason is as long as the SC is 4-4 then the 9th circus is the de facto SC and the Rats will run everything through there.
The real issue at stake is the rule of law. The liberals believe in a “living” constitution. Conservatives believe in an “originalist” interpretation. If you believe in a living document, then you really care who gets to interpret what it means now. Liberals tend to agree with Stalin, its not how many votes that matter, but who gets to count them. Hence Ted Kennedy launching the first salvo against Robert Bork...
I also think it gives them cover for what is about to take place. I think two retirements and a death will mean 3 more in the next couple of years.
I can think of another reason why the Rats want to stall on everything ... especially anything pertaining to Justice and the Supreme Court.
Bingo
The courts are the one thing the progressives must keep. When they lose elections they sue until they find a judge to change the outcomes. When they win, they have a court cement their unconstitutional power grabs. When they can’t pass a law they find a judge to declare laws. They are losing their power, they hate Trump. They hate the people that voted for Trump and want to punish them. The courts are a powerful tool in their arsenal.
The filibuster of judges has not given us “centuries of bipartisanship” — because until the hyperpartisan democrats came along, nobody ever thought to filibuster a qualified nominee.
It is pretty much a given now that republicans are highly unlikely to ever nominate someone who will wildly legislate, and democrats will. And since we already know that democrats will get rid of the filibuster the first time it is used to stop one of their supreme court nominees, you might as well just get rid of it now.
If Trump appoints 3 or more conservatives to the bench then if the dems ever get into power again (God forbid) look for mysterious deaths of conservative justices and also expect the court to be expanded from 9 to at least 13 justices.
This is what we have come to :-/
And that is why Donald J. Trump is President of the United States and Hillary Clinton is not.
They are angry because they are out of power. They thought that all the media lying would guarantee hillary the presidency, but they were wrong.
May all dems go to hell.
A more powerful federal government means more things the Supreme Court has to meddle in, which raises the stakes for judicial selection. (Under an all-powerful government, the judges would have power over everything, exercised according to who controls THEM.)
Reduce the power and scope of the federal government!
When is SOMEONE going to say, NATIONALLY, if the American people had wanted Merrick Garland, they would have given Hillary the Electoral College. This is not a stolen seat!!
They do this because there is no downside. They get to pander to their base, delay by obstruction, and if they hold power again their nominee gets rammed through and they get to blame Republicans for using the “nuclear option”. Wins all around.
I figure the Democrats are trying to punish Gorsuch for the perceived sins of his mother, who was Ronald Reagan’s EPA director.
They are engaged in shooting themselves in the foot.
On the substance, there isn't any real argument. The Garland appointment was for the outright purpose of changing the balance of the vote on the Supreme Court by replacing Scalia's conservative vote with a Liberal. That under circumstances in which there is reasonable room for concern that Scalia's death was not a natural accident.
McConnell would presumably have been better off if he had held a vote rejecting Garland--the Dems didn't have the votes to excuse changing the balance on the Court. It isn't exactly clear why he didn't do that--they may have thought it improved their position in the Senate election to make it clear that the Senate majority would result in a determination of the Court balance.
If they proceed on the current line, which they may, the Court votes that will be at issue will matter a lot more.
Doubtful Kennedy's resignation will be effective until his successor is confirmed. If Ruth goes first, you will have a 5-3 split until her successor is confirmed, hopefully to get to a 6-3 split.
The vote to dispose of the 60% rule is in process now so we will see the result shortly. But it looks as though the Dems are making a big mistake here.
Trump is actually winning this live ongoing poll right now right in California’s leftist liberal heartland -— ( please see the upper right corner of this linked page): http://www.smdailyjournal.com/
Do We Have
A Living
Constitution?
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:
- (Quoted from essay by the same name in "Our Ageless Constitution," 1987)"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
“What caused this rancor?”
The Democrats assassinated Scalia in their excitement about getting Obama’s hands on yet another Supreme Court nomination. Apparently, appointing three just wasn’t enough!
They tried and couldn’t get “gun control”... Ask Chelsea Clinton.
If activist Supreme Court judges followed the Constitution instead of carving out new “rights” for their constituents the fight over who sat on the court would not be so contentious. When have you seen Republican nominated judges accused of expanding the Constitution vs Democratic nominated judges? Therein lies the fault of continuousness.