User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: McConnell Walks It Back...Just in Case

  1. #1
    Points: 74,657, Level: 66
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 793
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314977
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,631
    Points
    74,657
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,719
    Thanked 21,094x in 12,287 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    McConnell Walks It Back...Just in Case

    Mitch McConnell Refuses To Rule Out Senate Confirming A Supreme Court Pick In 2020

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been peddling a new story about his decision to block President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

    McConnell declined to allow any hearings on Garland after Obama chose him in March 2016 as his pick for the high court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate leader claimed the vacancy shouldn’t be filled in the months leading up to a presidential election, citing historical precedent.


    But on Sunday, McConnell offered a revised version of his reasoning and refused to say he wouldn’t push for confirmation of a potential Supreme Court nominee from President Donald Trump in 2020.

    Discussing Brett Kavanaugh’s Saturday confirmation to the court, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked McConnell to respond to a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slamming the Kentucky lawmaker’s handling of the Garland nomination.

    “We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him,” McConnell responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have... a Senate of a different party than the president you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.”


    Wallace, picking up on McConnell’s revised version of his rationale for blocking Garland, pressed him on his mention of party difference.


    “When you blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don’t do this in a presidential election year, and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose (for the White House), they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee,” Wallace said. “But what you just said now was it’s a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different than the president.”

    “If Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?” he asked McConnell.

    McConnell danced around the inquiry, pointing again to the Senate’s voting record in the 1880s. When Wallace tried to ask the question again, McConnell interrupted him: “The answer to your question is we’ll see whether there’s a vacancy in 2020.”


    Later Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson continued to grill McConnell about his reason for blocking Garland’s nomination.


    “Your decision to block Merrick Garland is something [Democrats] see as having kicked off a new stage in the partisanship associated with Supreme Court nominees,” Dickerson said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”


    McConnell claimed again that he had been merely following historical precedent, but Dickerson challenged him on the facts.

    “John you are not listening to me,” McConnell said. “The history is exactly as I told you.” Dickerson responded that they “have a disagreement about the history.”

    The Republican senator’s remarks on Sunday echoed his response to reporters a day earlier when asked a similar question about a potential 2020 Supreme Court nominee.

    “We’ll see what it looks like in 2020,” McConnell said.



    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b028e1fe3e6eab




    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    AZ Jim (10-10-2018),Crepitus (10-09-2018),IMPress Polly (10-09-2018),Ransom (10-10-2018),Trish (10-09-2018)

  3. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,122, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496584
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,700
    Points
    859,122
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,223
    Thanked 147,594x in 94,422 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Mitch McConnell Refuses To Rule Out Senate Confirming A Supreme Court Pick In 2020

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been peddling a new story about his decision to block President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

    McConnell declined to allow any hearings on Garland after Obama chose him in March 2016 as his pick for the high court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate leader claimed the vacancy shouldn’t be filled in the months leading up to a presidential election, citing historical precedent.


    But on Sunday, McConnell offered a revised version of his reasoning and refused to say he wouldn’t push for confirmation of a potential Supreme Court nominee from President Donald Trump in 2020.

    Discussing Brett Kavanaugh’s Saturday confirmation to the court, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked McConnell to respond to a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slamming the Kentucky lawmaker’s handling of the Garland nomination.

    “We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him,” McConnell responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have... a Senate of a different party than the president you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.”


    Wallace, picking up on McConnell’s revised version of his rationale for blocking Garland, pressed him on his mention of party difference.


    “When you blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don’t do this in a presidential election year, and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose (for the White House), they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee,” Wallace said. “But what you just said now was it’s a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different than the president.”

    “If Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?” he asked McConnell.

    McConnell danced around the inquiry, pointing again to the Senate’s voting record in the 1880s. When Wallace tried to ask the question again, McConnell interrupted him: “The answer to your question is we’ll see whether there’s a vacancy in 2020.”


    Later Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson continued to grill McConnell about his reason for blocking Garland’s nomination.


    “Your decision to block Merrick Garland is something [Democrats] see as having kicked off a new stage in the partisanship associated with Supreme Court nominees,” Dickerson said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”


    McConnell claimed again that he had been merely following historical precedent, but Dickerson challenged him on the facts.

    “John you are not listening to me,” McConnell said. “The history is exactly as I told you.” Dickerson responded that they “have a disagreement about the history.”

    The Republican senator’s remarks on Sunday echoed his response to reporters a day earlier when asked a similar question about a potential 2020 Supreme Court nominee.

    “We’ll see what it looks like in 2020,” McConnell said.



    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b028e1fe3e6eab




    We should stick with historical precedent- no SCOTUS nominations leading up to a presidential election.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (10-09-2018)

  5. #3
    Points: 74,657, Level: 66
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 793
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314977
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,631
    Points
    74,657
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,719
    Thanked 21,094x in 12,287 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    We should stick with historical precedent- no SCOTUS nominations leading up to a presidential election.
    I might agree with that sentiment if there existed a universally accepted meaning for the phrase "leading up to".

    Antonin Scalia died on February 13th, with roughly nine months to go before the general election, and a little more than eleven months until a new President would take office. Are we going to say that a President shouldn't be permitted to nominate a Supreme Court justice during the year leading up to the election - or perhaps during the year leading up to his successor's inauguration?

    I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that as long as the Senate is in the hands of the President's Party, such a rule - unless it is somehow codified into law - would be blithely ignored, or that some justification for ignoring it would certainly be trotted out. McConnell is as much as saying that now.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    Crepitus (10-09-2018)

  7. #4
    Points: 42,570, Level: 50
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 980
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Social25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    ripmeister's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    29487
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    15,686
    Points
    42,570
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    1,202
    Thanked 3,495x in 2,836 Posts
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mitch will do whatever it takes to cement a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. They've been building for this for 50 years. He'll come up with some rationale for a last minute nomination were it to come to that.
    One can be sure that he who says he knows knows nothing

  8. #5
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,122, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496584
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,700
    Points
    859,122
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,223
    Thanked 147,594x in 94,422 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    I might agree with that sentiment if there existed a universally accepted meaning for the phrase "leading up to".

    Antonin Scalia died on February 13th, with roughly nine months to go before the general election, and a little more than eleven months until a new President would take office. Are we going to say that a President shouldn't be permitted to nominate a Supreme Court justice during the year leading up to the election - or perhaps during the year leading up to his successor's inauguration?

    I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that as long as the Senate is in the hands of the President's Party, such a rule - unless it is somehow codified into law - would be blithely ignored, or that some justification for ignoring it would certainly be trotted out. McConnell is as much as saying that now.
    It is not law but historical precedent. I have not researched the typical time period covered. Shumer (SP) wanted it extended to 19 month for Bush Jr. That was ridiculous.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (10-09-2018)

  10. #6
    Points: 42,570, Level: 50
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 980
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Social25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    ripmeister's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    29487
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    15,686
    Points
    42,570
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    1,202
    Thanked 3,495x in 2,836 Posts
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've always been surprised that the strict Constitutionalists would be for anything than what the Constitution says and that is the sitting POTUS should nominate and the Senate should consider it.
    One can be sure that he who says he knows knows nothing

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to ripmeister For This Useful Post:

    Standing Wolf (10-09-2018)

  12. #7
    Points: 665,345, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433322
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,560
    Points
    665,345
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,988
    Thanked 80,911x in 54,724 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    What I understand is McConnell invoked the Biden Rule on nominations.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Don29palms (10-09-2018)

  14. #8
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ripmeister View Post
    Mitch will do whatever it takes to cement a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. They've been building for this for 50 years. He'll come up with some rationale for a last minute nomination were it to come to that.
    Winning an election gives you the power to make the rules. Harry Reid did it and that's the way it is.

    The conservative majority is cemented.
    Last edited by Captdon; 10-09-2018 at 05:33 PM.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Captdon For This Useful Post:

    Don29palms (10-09-2018)

  16. #9
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ripmeister View Post
    I've always been surprised that the strict Constitutionalists would be for anything than what the Constitution says and that is the sitting POTUS should nominate and the Senate should consider it.
    It doesn't say that at all. The President shall appoint with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's what it says.

    The Republicans put off the advice and consent as they are allowed to do. Politics is what it is.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Captdon For This Useful Post:

    Don29palms (10-09-2018)

  18. #10
    Points: 124,894, Level: 85
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 1,156
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Crepitus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1255215
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    41,416
    Points
    124,894
    Level
    85
    Thanks Given
    17,385
    Thanked 13,440x in 9,812 Posts
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    What I understand is McConnell invoked the Biden Rule on nominations.
    There is no such thing as "the Biden rule". Lying does no one any good. I would have thought you'd figured that out by now.
    People who think a movie about plastic dolls is trying to turn their kids gay or trans are now officially known as

    Barbie Q’s

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts