President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Paul and Cruz would be completely ostracized from the party if they pulled a stunt like this, and well they should be. This is a chance to pack the court, a generational opportunity.

 

 

Well, we'll find out who's who then...won't we?

 

I bet that milquetoast Collins proves to be a real pain in the ass.

 

 

Not taking that bet.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Not taking that bet.

 

Why not?

 

She's pretty much a Democrat, you know.

 

[keepthefaith]

5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Why not?

 

She's pretty much a Democrat, you know.

 

 

I can't believe she wasn't smoked in her last primary.  Don't know if she was even challenged. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by keepthefaith

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Paul and Cruz would be completely ostracized from the party if they pulled a stunt like this, and well they should be. This is a chance to pack the court, a generational opportunity.

 

 

Well, we'll find out who's who then...won't we?

 

I bet that milquetoast Collins proves to be a real pain in the ass.

 

 

If Paul and Cruz don't feel the pick represents their governing philosophies, and they reject him, and the Administration is unable to sway any centrist Democrats, Trump will simply nominate another jurist, hopefully consulting with Paul and Cruz (amongst others) on a list of whom they might approve.

 

It is not the job of Republicans in the Senate to rubber stamp the President's choices.  Especially in an environment when the President's choices are not being honestly vetted by Democrats.  It is the job of Republicans in the Senate to act as statesmen, and to advise and consent as they deem best.

 

It speaks to the downfall and failure of our institutions when a person demands the Senate abrogate it's responsibilities in favor of simply becoming a tool of the Executive.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

It speaks to the downfall and failure of our institutions when a person demands the Senate abrogate it's responsibilities in favor of simply becoming a tool of the Executive.

 

 

Not incorrect.

 

But also, completely detached from reality. The fact of the matter is, no matter who trump puts forth, he won't get a single democratic vote, and likely will have republican defections. What that means is that no appointment will likely be made without straight-party voting. If Cruz and Paul decide to have a tantrum over a candidate, they're exercising outsized power for their positions.

 

To restate: you're not incorrect. In an IDEAL world, the senate would have a logical and rational debate and process. The fact of the current situation, however, is that such a process is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[row_33]

Paul and Cruz are total greasy sleaze-bags, always have been.  When given a chance to finally act like they have mouthed off, they do the most dishonourable thing.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Not incorrect.

 

But also, completely detached from reality. The fact of the matter is, no matter who trump puts forth, he won't get a single democratic vote, and likely will have republican defections. What that means is that no appointment will likely be made without straight-party voting. If Cruz and Paul decide to have a tantrum over a candidate, they're exercising outsized power for their positions.

 

To restate: you're not incorrect. In an IDEAL world, the senate would have a logical and rational debate and process. The fact of the current situation, however, is that such a process is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

 

It is not impossible.

 

Further, you need to realize that your advocating for the breaking down of our institutions.  Government should never act as a monolith.  It's dangerous.

 

Again, if Cruz and Paul reject the pick, the President will simply go back to the drawing board and nominate another jurist. Simple as that.

 

And no, Paul and Cruz would not be exercising outsized power.  They would be doing their Constitutional duty as a check on the Executive.

 

It's how our government is supposed to work.

 

It's a feature, not a flaw.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

And no, Paul and Cruz would not be exercising outsized power.  They would be doing their Constitutional duty as a check on the Executive.

 

You're always consistent in your idealism.

 

You understand of course that Cruz and Paul want someone who will NEVER get past the process, right?

 

So, Trump could nominate a half-dozen conservative choices, and if they're not what Cruz and Paul want then the opportunity is likely wasted.

REMEMBER: keeping control of the senate is no sure thing. In a few short months, it could be LITERALLY impossible to get a SC pick past the senate.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

You're always consistent in your idealism.

 

You understand of course that Cruz and Paul want someone who will NEVER get past the process, right?

 

So, Trump could nominate a half-dozen conservative choices, and if they're not what Cruz and Paul want then the opportunity is likely wasted.

REMEMBER: keeping control of the senate is no sure thing. In a few short months, it could be LITERALLY impossible to get a SC pick past the senate.

 

 

It's not idealism, Joe.  It's literally how the process was designed to work.

 

And I'm consistent in advocating for process.  Process is much more important to long term stability and success than individual outcomes.

 

Did, or did not, Cruz and Paul vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch?

Edited July 10, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Did, or did not, Cruz and Paul vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch?

 

They did.

 

Was there a definite time limit on that vote, or did they pretty much have two years to get that done?

 

Again, my concern is getting this done before November, whereas you couldn't care less about throwing the dice, and giving a reckless Democratic party a chance to stonewall ALL progress.

 

It's a matter of opinion.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

They did.

 

Was there a definite time limit on that vote, or did they pretty much have two years to get that done?

 

Again, my concern is getting this done before November.

 

 

Neil Gorsuch was confirmed in just over two months:  nominated January 31, 2017, confirmed April 7, 2017.

 

Again, if Paul and Cruz reject the nomination, they are doing their jobs vetting the nominee, and advising and consenting through the Constitutional process.  Literally their jobs.

 

If the President wants his nominee confirmed, he needs to work with the Senate to do so, which includes nominating someone palatable to them, rather than rubber stamping whatever the Executive wants.

 

He's done it before, and he can do it again.

 

The President, in his position, should be acutely aware of the approaching timelines, and the importance of getting a justice confirmed.  As such, it's his job to nominate someone who the Senate will confirm; not the other way around.

Edited July 10, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Neil Gorsuch was confirmed in just over two months:  nominated January 31, 2017, confirmed April 7, 2017.

 

Again, if Paul and Cruz reject the nomination, they are doing their jobs vetting the nominee, and advising and consenting through the Constitutional process.  Literally their jobs.

 

If the President wants his nominee confirmed, he needs to work with the Senate to do so, which includes nominating someone palatable to them, rather than rubber stamping whatever the Executive wants.

 

He's done it before, and he can do it again.

 

Let's hope. Two months from now (which would be the same timetable as Gorusch) puts us at Sept. 10.

 

If Cruz and Paul get their way, and reject this nominee, we all had better hope the second one is palatable enough to squeeze it in before the election. If not, it's a generational opportunity likely lost, and the Republican party has no one but themselves to blame for whatever fallout those two cause.

 

But again, I have little faith that anyone to the left of say Mitch McConnell would approve of a choice Cruz and Paul would like.

What specific objections do those two have anyway?

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Let's hope. Two months from now (which would be the same timetable as Gorusch) puts us at Sept. 10.

 

If Cruz and Paul get their way, and reject this nominee, we all had better hope the second one is palatable to squeeze it in before the election. If not, it's a generational opportunity likely lost, and the Republican party has no one but themselves to blame for whatever fallout those two cause.

 

 

Again, it's not the job of the Senate to rubber stamp whatever the President wants.

 

The reasoning that says otherwise is a central part of the Obama legacy, and you're protecting it.

 

Constitutional government, and the process, is more important than individual outcome.

 

It is the President's responsibility to nominate someone whom the Senate will confirm; and if we're being intellectually honest, no President in history has ever had an easier path to having their nominees confirmed now that the nuclear option is in play.  He doesn't need to get to 60 votes.  He doesn't need a single Democrat.

 

If he, in this environment, can't bring himself to nominate someone who can pass the rigors of a purely conservative vetting process, the failure is his, not the Senates.

Edited July 10, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Bray Wyatt]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again, it's not the job of the Senate to rubber stamp whatever the President wants.

 

The reasoning that says otherwise is a central part of the Obama legacy, and you're protecting it.

 

Constitution government, and the process, is more important than individual outcome.

 

It is the President's responsibility to nominate someone whom the Senate will confirm; and if we're being intellectually honest, no President in history has ever had an easier path to having their nominees confirmed now that the nuclear option is in play.  He doesn't need to get to 60 votes.  He doesn't need a single Democrat.

 

If he, in this environment, can't bring himself to nominate someone who can pass the rigors of a purely conservative vetting process, the failure is his, not the Senates.

 

If I am not mistaken, it was a simple majority for a long time before they switched to the 60 votes.

Also, I do agree in part that if Paul and Cruz are rejecting Kavanaugh on his qualifications and merits then yes they are doing their job. If they are doing it for reasons like a power play then they would be doing their country a disservice

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Constitutional government, and the process, is more important than individual outcome.

Well thank goodness we have real heroes like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to save us all from ourselves.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, joesixpack said:

Well thank goodness we have real heroes like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to save us all from ourselves.

 

 

That's sort of the exact point of a representative democratic republic, Joe.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

That's sort of the exact point of a representative democratic republic, Joe.

 

Because they'd never have impure motives right?

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Because they'd never have impure motives right?

 

 

Depends.

 

Do you believe a demand for an Origionalist jurist is impure?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Depends.

 

Do you believe a demand for an Origionalist jurist is impure?

 

If it means putting control of the process into the Democratic party's hands come November, yes. At that point, it would be grandstanding and promotion of their own self-interest. Don't forget, Collins is on record saying she won't vote for anyone who'd overturn Roe. So if the woman judge (can't remember her name) was the candidate that  Cruz and Paul wanted, she wouldn't pass the senate anyway...due to McCain being incapacitated.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]