Home | About | Donate

Opposition Gathers Steam as Trump Readies Conservative Pick for Supreme Court


#1

Opposition Gathers Steam as Trump Readies Conservative Pick for Supreme Court

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

With Republicans having blocked the nomination of former President Barack Obama's pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, President Donald Trump is now ready to offer up his choice for the seat left vacant for nearly a year since the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.


#2

Hmmm. So, Justice Sotomayor, would you have voted to return runaway slaves in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act even though you are personally repulsed by it?


#3

You make it sound like she would have had to. That's not quite how the SC works.

But on a more important note...doesn't Congress have to vote on Obama's nominee before it can consider a new nomination?


#4

A year ago the Republicans screamed that ONLY one year was not nearly long enough to vet and confirm a supreme court nominee. Later they protested that they had no intention of confirming ANY candidate nominated by HRC, no matter whom she picked. They argued that there was NO REASON to replace an empty court seat, and that it was perfectly fine for the court to operate with 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or fewer sitting judges. FINALLY !!! We have a point on which we can agree completely with the Republicans. NO supreme court nominee will be considered during the next four years. We all agree, the matter is settled, over, done - not to be brought up for at least four more years. Democrats in the senate can make sure that this happens, and it is up to us to make absolutely certain that they do.


#5

Democrats, show some spine and do not allow ANY candidate to be accepted for the whole four years of Trump's term. Juan Cole wrote an article on this, and why on earth should the Repugs put another vicious monster like the present RAT-Kennedy gang ?The situation and actions since "citizens united" have shown the way NOT to go for a fair SCOTUS.


#6

This seat was stolen by the rep----Obama had the right to fill it------dem should refuse any support unless its a real moderate pick


#7

Absolutely, but the time to rectify that was during the election. But of course, those of us arguing for a bit of strategic thinking in this respect were accused of pushing "fear votes" as if there wasn't good reason to fear. Niche issues that are going to seem smaller and smaller as time moves forward, mattered more to the Left.

The Right was far more strategic. I commuted with a Christian fundy until December. He didn't like Trump at all, but always had the bigger picture in mind. One justice would make all the difference for his issues and he knew that was way more important than one vote for president. Its all he knew frankly, when it came to politics. Now they'll have a five seat majority lock on the Court, six if Ginsburg retires. Republicans control the gavel in the Senate, they'll get their man in. That was literally the choice everyone made to have happen when they went into the booth.

Anyone who thinks McConnell won't turn on a dime and ditch the filibuster for whatever retrograde person Trump nominates is just fooling themselves. This was the issue. A future court can cap whatever any future Green, Democrat, or Independent President and Congress will do. Just look at what the Court did to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments after Reconstruction. Conservatives know this, why don't so-called reality-based progressives?