Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » I predict that no supreme court nomination will be approved in the next four years

I predict that no supreme court nomination will be approved in the next four years

3 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

2seaoat




There haven't always been nine justices on the court. The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices.Oct 8, 2013
history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

So if now hot potato issues are being ruled on by the supreme court because there is a 4 to 4 split, then only on true issues of consensus will the Supreme Court Rule, and if the Democrats believe the action for one year of not appointing a replacement for Scalia will allow them to sandbag any appointment at all, which means the status quo remains, then there is a very good chance that the court will run with eight, seven, and even down to six members depending on the compromise which can be crafted. The status quo will remain on the court for four years, the Republicans will do the same thing to the next president, until a political compromise is reached......bet on it.

Guest


Guest

Why wouldn't the pubs simply extend the dems nuclear option precedent to the scotus?

There's no sense in only one side abiding long agreed to rules. Good luck comrades.

2seaoat



The Democrats excepted the Supreme Court nominations from the nuclear option and if you are familiar with Senate rules, they have been passed on the seating of the current senate, and there will not be a change until new senators are seated in 2018. If the Democrats do not want a Supreme Court nominee, it will not happen. There will be political compromise when both sides realize that the best people should be appointed. There is a very good conservative judge from Colorado being considered, and a less than stellar judge from Alabama who has said any homosexual act should be criminalized. Those type of people will not even get some of the Republican senator votes.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:
There haven't always been nine justices on the court. The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices.Oct 8, 2013
history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

So if now hot potato issues are being ruled on by the supreme court because there is a 4 to 4 split, then only on true issues of consensus will the Supreme Court Rule, and if the Democrats believe the action for one year of not appointing a replacement for Scalia will allow them to sandbag any appointment at all, which means the status quo remains, then there is a very good chance that the court will run with eight, seven, and even down to six members depending on the compromise which can be crafted.  The status quo will remain on the court for four years, the Republicans will do the same thing to the next president, until a political compromise is reached......bet on it.

Wrong again.

Keep in mind, good ol' Harry Reid changed the rules.  While they don't apply to a Supreme Court nominee but, what's good for the goose.... They are rules, not statutes. Elections have consequences.

President Trump's nomination will be approved.  Even if the panicked Democrats are dragged along kicking and screaming.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:The Democrats excepted the Supreme Court nominations from the nuclear option and if you are familiar with Senate rules, they have been passed on the seating of the current senate, and there will not be a change until new senators are seated in 2018.  If the Democrats do not want a Supreme Court nominee, it will not happen.   There will be political compromise when both sides realize that the best people should be appointed.   There is a very good conservative judge from Colorado being considered, and a less than stellar judge from Alabama who has said any homosexual act should be criminalized.   Those type of people will not even get some of the Republican senator votes.

If you're familiar with the rule change that Reid pushed through... then you'd know how wrong you are.

Which I highly doubt.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

2seaoat wrote:
There haven't always been nine justices on the court. The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices.Oct 8, 2013
history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

So if now hot potato issues are being ruled on by the supreme court because there is a 4 to 4 split, then only on true issues of consensus will the Supreme Court Rule, and if the Democrats believe the action for one year of not appointing a replacement for Scalia will allow them to sandbag any appointment at all, which means the status quo remains, then there is a very good chance that the court will run with eight, seven, and even down to six members depending on the compromise which can be crafted.  The status quo will remain on the court for four years, the Republicans will do the same thing to the next president, until a political compromise is reached......bet on it.

I SO hope your are right. It would be a backbone strengthening exercise for the Democrats in the event Trump puts up someone unacceptable. It would also be a moral stance considering how this appointment should have rightly gone to President Obama. UGH!

2seaoat



The Nuclear option on Supreme Court nominations will not happen because only two Republican votes would stop the same. Let the games begin. The democrats will quickly confirm a mainstream talented jurist......they will not do the same with other nominees. It will be subtle. It will be quiet and done with whispers, but no appointment will happen without their concurrence, and there will be NO nuclear option because they would lose two senate republicans on such a radical vote. However, as Hatch said the door is open, but it is doubtful that Collins and Paul would vote for the same, and the idea that the nuclear will be used on Supreme Court Justices, is exactly what the democrats are positioning, because in the end, there has to be a commitment from every Republican to go that route.....will not happen so my prediction is a traditional jurist from Colorado who was not on the original list will be nominated and he will be approved, but after that probably not so easy, and if another type of nominees is forced into the nomination process, the dems will foot drag, and my prediction will be confirmed. Again, 9 is not a magic number.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:
There haven't always been nine justices on the court. The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices.Oct 8, 2013
history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

So if now hot potato issues are being ruled on by the supreme court because there is a 4 to 4 split, then only on true issues of consensus will the Supreme Court Rule, and if the Democrats believe the action for one year of not appointing a replacement for Scalia will allow them to sandbag any appointment at all, which means the status quo remains, then there is a very good chance that the court will run with eight, seven, and even down to six members depending on the compromise which can be crafted.  The status quo will remain on the court for four years, the Republicans will do the same thing to the next president, until a political compromise is reached......bet on it.

Like 2010, 2014 and this past election you are wrong. Keep racking up those losses old man. You should just quit making stupid statements.

Guest


Guest

The GOP learned well how to force things through Congress watching the Dems do so with obummercare.

Markle

Markle

othershoe1030 wrote:
2seaoat wrote:
There haven't always been nine justices on the court. The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices.Oct 8, 2013
history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

So if now hot potato issues are being ruled on by the supreme court because there is a 4 to 4 split, then only on true issues of consensus will the Supreme Court Rule, and if the Democrats believe the action for one year of not appointing a replacement for Scalia will allow them to sandbag any appointment at all, which means the status quo remains, then there is a very good chance that the court will run with eight, seven, and even down to six members depending on the compromise which can be crafted.  The status quo will remain on the court for four years, the Republicans will do the same thing to the next president, until a political compromise is reached......bet on it.

I SO hope your are right. It would be a backbone strengthening exercise for the Democrats in the event Trump puts up someone unacceptable. It would also be a moral stance considering how this appointment should have rightly gone to President Obama. UGH!

Vacancies that late in an administration had been left to the incoming president. Petulant late President Obama half-heartedly threw up a sacrificial lamb knowing full well he'd never be considered. He wasn't concerned since he "knew" Hillary Clinton would be filling the void.

The Democrats are in such a bundle that President Trump could nominate former President Obama and Democrats would scream that he's a Conservative hack.

Guest


Guest

Markle wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
2seaoat wrote:
There haven't always been nine justices on the court. The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices.Oct 8, 2013
history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

So if now hot potato issues are being ruled on by the supreme court because there is a 4 to 4 split, then only on true issues of consensus will the Supreme Court Rule, and if the Democrats believe the action for one year of not appointing a replacement for Scalia will allow them to sandbag any appointment at all, which means the status quo remains, then there is a very good chance that the court will run with eight, seven, and even down to six members depending on the compromise which can be crafted.  The status quo will remain on the court for four years, the Republicans will do the same thing to the next president, until a political compromise is reached......bet on it.

I SO hope your are right. It would be a backbone strengthening exercise for the Democrats in the event Trump puts up someone unacceptable. It would also be a moral stance considering how this appointment should have rightly gone to President Obama. UGH!

Vacancies that late in an administration had been left to the incoming president.  Petulant late President Obama half-heartedly threw up a sacrificial lamb knowing full well he'd never be considered.  He wasn't concerned since he "knew" Hillary Clinton would be filling the void.

The Democrats are in such a bundle that President Trump could nominate former President Obama and Democrats would scream that he's a Conservative hack.

That's funny right there...

2seaoat



I was wrong on the senate this year, and no sane person would have thought Donald Trump would be president. I stand by those predictions. The idea that a far right homosexual conduct is a crime nominee being approved has zero chance. Zero. We will see who is wrong.

Guest


Guest

The dems would change the rules to suit their desires given reversed positions.

So the pubs will too. While we the people lose because the dems actually want mob rule.

2seaoat



While we the people lose because the dems actually want mob rule.


I guess I kinda agree. The Republicans with direction and control from the Oligarchy, did not want to allow any legislation to pass during President Obama's term, met immediately with a small evil cabal on how they could hinder the operation of Democracy. The Democrats just got piszed and took to the streets........they are not so easy to control by the Oligarchy now as the traditional Democrats who were experts in back room deals have been replaced by Bernie's folks. So the nuclear option is clearly a choice, but MAD applies, and in that situation, Trump's sister will have some influence on her brother beyond the crazies and oligarchs who now surround him. Again it will be a traditional jurist who is conservative but who is well written. It will not be somebody from Alabama.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » I predict that no supreme court nomination will be approved in the next four years

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum