Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnySide
2018, dems had 26 senate seats up for re-election, Republicans had 9. Only one of the R seats was in a state won by Clinton. To say the 2018 results were the American people’s will and shows what the nation wants is a stretch. Hillary beat trump by 3 million Americans wishes and wants.
Now the senate, where New York gets the same votes as North Dakota, will decide. Let’s not try to spin this. It’s a political no holds bar, no turning back move.
Obama had 11 months left in his presidency, Trump has something like 41 days. First republicans said not during an election year. Now it’s not during an election year if a different party holds the senate.
No senate will ever vote on a SCOTUS nomination by a different party president no matter how long the president has left. When a Republican President has 3 years left but a dem senate, there will be no vote. Slippery slope.
Eventually, we will start adding justices until it becomes absurd as we have 113 judges.
Is it worth it? To possibly lose the presidency and senate and any shred of decorum for 1 justice? Republican Party can never be viewed as honorable after this, there is no turning back.
This will be a majority dem country soon ... perhaps 20 years and this move and what trump has done will be repeatedly pointed to as justification.
|
As I have said a few times now, I wish the republicans had chosen a different way. But I do want to address one thing.
Would it be a bad thing for SC justices to be held up until after the next national election. (This is reacting to your point that going forward no confirmation will happen when the senate and peesident are of different parties). Especially when the country is as divided as it is. If that means that the court spends a term as an 8 judge panel so be it. I don't want to see SC justices elected on a ballot, but this is almost like you are creating republic style justice nominations instead of lifetime appointment by the ruling class.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk