ADVERTISEMENT

Empty Supreme Court Seat Is Being 'Stolen' by Republicans: Merkley

WVU82

Hall of Famer
May 29, 2001
179,814
52,333
718
obama is a dumbass...

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...seat-being-stolen-republicans-merkley-n682386

A Democratic senator accused the GOP of "theft" for blocking President Barack Obama's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court so it can be filled by the Trump administration.

"We really have to pay attention to the Supreme Court seat. The seat that is sitting empty is being stolen," Sen. Jeff Merkley told MSNBC's Chris Hayes on Thursday night. "It's being stolen from the Obama administration and the construct of our Constitution. And it's being delivered to an administration that has no right to fill it."

President Barack Obama stood in the White House Rose Garden back inMarchto announce his nominee, Merrick Garland, for the Supreme Court seat emptied by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

But Republicans who control the Senate have refused to grant Garland a hearing, saying it should be up to Obama's successor to pick a replacement for Scalia, who died in February.

Garland now holds the record as the Supreme Court nominee with the longest wait for a Senate hearing.

Obama says he is legally and historically empowered to nominate a new justice, and that the Senate is shirking its duties by ignoring it.

The fact that Garland has been a nominee this long and Republicans have refused to grant him a hearing is unprecedented.

As of Friday, the federal appeals court judge's nomination has beenpending 240 days— far surpassingany other Supreme Court nomineein history. Every past nominee who was not withdrawn has received a vote with 125 days of nomination.

Six justices have been confirmed in presidential election year since 1900, according to theWhite House.

The impasse has left the high court with eight justices divided roughly along ideological lines. When they tie, the court leaves in place the lower court decision.

The delay has little to do with Garland's record— he is seen as a centrist — and as a Harvard Law School graduate he clerked for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan and held a series of top positions in the Justice Department before becoming a federal judge.

Few Republicans have argued with his record as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"There's no legitimacy to a Supreme Court justice in a seat that's been stolen from one administration and handed to another," Merkley added. "We need to do everything we possibly can to block it ... it won't be DOA unless the American people understand that this is the theft of the court."

Hayes asked Merkley whether he would adoptRepublican Sen. Richard Burr's pre-election positionthat he would "do everything I can do" to keep the seat open for the duration of a Clinton administration and keep the court deadlocked 4-4.

The Oregon senator said: "The Trump administration, if they want to see partnership and cooperation, needs to put Merrick — if he puts forward a nominee, it should be Merrick Garland."

Merkley added that "packing the court from the far right" was not acceptable.
 
obama is a dumbass...

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...seat-being-stolen-republicans-merkley-n682386

A Democratic senator accused the GOP of "theft" for blocking President Barack Obama's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court so it can be filled by the Trump administration.

"We really have to pay attention to the Supreme Court seat. The seat that is sitting empty is being stolen," Sen. Jeff Merkley told MSNBC's Chris Hayes on Thursday night. "It's being stolen from the Obama administration and the construct of our Constitution. And it's being delivered to an administration that has no right to fill it."

President Barack Obama stood in the White House Rose Garden back inMarchto announce his nominee, Merrick Garland, for the Supreme Court seat emptied by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

But Republicans who control the Senate have refused to grant Garland a hearing, saying it should be up to Obama's successor to pick a replacement for Scalia, who died in February.

Garland now holds the record as the Supreme Court nominee with the longest wait for a Senate hearing.

Obama says he is legally and historically empowered to nominate a new justice, and that the Senate is shirking its duties by ignoring it.

The fact that Garland has been a nominee this long and Republicans have refused to grant him a hearing is unprecedented.

As of Friday, the federal appeals court judge's nomination has beenpending 240 days— far surpassingany other Supreme Court nomineein history. Every past nominee who was not withdrawn has received a vote with 125 days of nomination.

Six justices have been confirmed in presidential election year since 1900, according to theWhite House.

The impasse has left the high court with eight justices divided roughly along ideological lines. When they tie, the court leaves in place the lower court decision.

The delay has little to do with Garland's record— he is seen as a centrist — and as a Harvard Law School graduate he clerked for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan and held a series of top positions in the Justice Department before becoming a federal judge.

Few Republicans have argued with his record as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"There's no legitimacy to a Supreme Court justice in a seat that's been stolen from one administration and handed to another," Merkley added. "We need to do everything we possibly can to block it ... it won't be DOA unless the American people understand that this is the theft of the court."

Hayes asked Merkley whether he would adoptRepublican Sen. Richard Burr's pre-election positionthat he would "do everything I can do" to keep the seat open for the duration of a Clinton administration and keep the court deadlocked 4-4.

The Oregon senator said: "The Trump administration, if they want to see partnership and cooperation, needs to put Merrick — if he puts forward a nominee, it should be Merrick Garland."

Merkley added that "packing the court from the far right" was not acceptable.
Theft? NONSENSE! The very same tactic has been employed before and widely supported as proper that a a lama duck President does not possess the privilege of making the choice.. Sour grapes just like the immature morons participating in the 'demonstrations'. GROW UP and get on with life.
 
As much as I dislike McConnell, and thought he handled the replacement nominee poorly, his tactics might have worked and the courts won't be flipped by Obama.
 
obama is a dumbass...

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...seat-being-stolen-republicans-merkley-n682386

A Democratic senator accused the GOP of "theft" for blocking President Barack Obama's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court so it can be filled by the Trump administration.

"We really have to pay attention to the Supreme Court seat. The seat that is sitting empty is being stolen," Sen. Jeff Merkley told MSNBC's Chris Hayes on Thursday night. "It's being stolen from the Obama administration and the construct of our Constitution. And it's being delivered to an administration that has no right to fill it."

President Barack Obama stood in the White House Rose Garden back inMarchto announce his nominee, Merrick Garland, for the Supreme Court seat emptied by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

But Republicans who control the Senate have refused to grant Garland a hearing, saying it should be up to Obama's successor to pick a replacement for Scalia, who died in February.

Garland now holds the record as the Supreme Court nominee with the longest wait for a Senate hearing.

Obama says he is legally and historically empowered to nominate a new justice, and that the Senate is shirking its duties by ignoring it.

The fact that Garland has been a nominee this long and Republicans have refused to grant him a hearing is unprecedented.

As of Friday, the federal appeals court judge's nomination has beenpending 240 days— far surpassingany other Supreme Court nomineein history. Every past nominee who was not withdrawn has received a vote with 125 days of nomination.

Six justices have been confirmed in presidential election year since 1900, according to theWhite House.

The impasse has left the high court with eight justices divided roughly along ideological lines. When they tie, the court leaves in place the lower court decision.



The delay has little to do with Garland's record— he is seen as a centrist — and as a Harvard Law School graduate he clerked for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan and held a series of top positions in the Justice Department before becoming a federal judge.

Few Republicans have argued with his record as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"There's no legitimacy to a Supreme Court justice in a seat that's been stolen from one administration and handed to another," Merkley added. "We need to do everything we possibly can to block it ... it won't be DOA unless the American people understand that this is the theft of the court."



Hayes asked Merkley whether he would adoptRepublican Sen. Richard Burr's pre-election positionthat he would "do everything I can do" to keep the seat open for the duration of a Clinton administration and keep the court deadlocked 4-4.

The Oregon senator said: "The Trump administration, if they want to see partnership and cooperation, needs to put Merrick — if he puts forward a nominee, it should be Merrick Garland."

Merkley added that "packing the court from the far right" was not acceptable.

The Dems started this mess. Remember Robert Bork? That was the most unprofessional political assassination in history. What an absolute travesty. Clearance Thomas? And the many justices the Dems would not even consider or let out of committee, does the name Miguel Estrada ring a bell? Even Biden said a lame duck President should not appoint a Supreme Court justice. And as we all know, Uncle Joe is never wrong. The Dems also nuked the filibuster of judges. They dug their own grave if they try and filibuster a Trump selection. McConnell will simply follow the Dem playbook and nuke the filibuster (that McConnell restored).

Now, both parties are playing the game. And the Dems are now crying. Hypocrites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lenny4wvu
In the past, there has been a lot of talk about a "Lame Duck" president should not appoint an open seat. This president just became a "Lame Duck" after the elections, this nominee was put out there back in March, a little while before the elections.

I don't really care one way or the other but using the lame duck reasoning or by saying someone else did wrong in the past is a pretty poor argument.
 
In the past, there has been a lot of talk about a "Lame Duck" president should not appoint an open seat. This president just became a "Lame Duck" after the elections, this nominee was put out there back in March, a little while before the elections.

I don't really care one way or the other but using the lame duck reasoning or by saying someone else did wrong in the past is a pretty poor argument.

As I pointed out, the Dems claimed lame duck Presidents should appoint SCOTUS justices. Now they backtrack. Trump is not a lame duck. You need to look up that definition if you're trying to make that argument.
 
Where did I say anything about Trump?

I agreed that in the past, there has been a lot of talk about lame duck presidents should not appoint the open seats - understand?

My point was that the current president just became what typically is considered as the time a sitting president becomes lame duck - right after the elections for a new president.

The current nominee Garland was nominated 8 months ago - not exactly during what the lame duck period represents.
 
Where did I say anything about Trump?

I agreed that in the past, there has been a lot of talk about lame duck presidents should not appoint the open seats - understand?

My point was that the current president just became what typically is considered as the time a sitting president becomes lame duck - right after the elections for a new president.

The current nominee Garland was nominated 8 months ago - not exactly during what the lame duck period represents.

When you made this statement - "This president just became a "Lame Duck" after the elections, this nominee was put out there back in March, a little while before the elections", I thought you were referring to Trump. My apologies.

The Dems made the argument that lame duck for purposes of a SCOTUS appointment extended back to June (the Biden Rule). The Republicans extended the Biden rule back to February. Once again, the Dems started this mess and are now whining.

You must acknowledge that one side can't unilaterally disarm if the other side is making up new rules. You and I may not like this, but on this one, the Dems started it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html
 
The problem is - where does it end?

Nothing gets done anymore because of all the BS extremes on both sides. If we don't soon get some moderates on both sides of the aisle working together, this country will continue to spiral out of control.
 
The problem is - where does it end?

Nothing gets done anymore because of all the BS extremes on both sides. If we don't soon get some moderates on both sides of the aisle working together, this country will continue to spiral out of control.

I don't disagree. But I hate hypocrites. I think a big reason Trump won is that Americans want Washington blown up. They believe it is simply not working. We are gradually losing our freedoms. And they are angry.
 
I don't disagree. But I hate hypocrites. I think a big reason Trump won is that Americans want Washington blown up. They believe it is simply not working. We are gradually losing our freedoms. And they are angry.
^^^^^^^^^^ HEAR, H-E-A-R ^^^^^^^^^^
 
In the past, there has been a lot of talk about a "Lame Duck" president should not appoint an open seat. This president just became a "Lame Duck" after the elections, this nominee was put out there back in March, a little while before the elections.

I don't really care one way or the other but using the lame duck reasoning or by saying someone else did wrong in the past is a pretty poor argument.
OH, come on! You are splitting hairs! Obama has been a 'lame duck' for months. He cannot run again. He leaves at a designated date. He is, by definition, LAME DUCK. Cut the crap regarding the election JUST occurred, etc, etc, etc.
 
OH, come on! You are splitting hairs! Obama has been a 'lame duck' for months. He cannot run again. He leaves at a designated date. He is, by definition, LAME DUCK. Cut the crap regarding the election JUST occurred, etc, etc, etc.

Really? So on what date did the lame duck status occur?

If you are going by "he cannot run again" and "he leaves at a designated date", then lame duck status occurs the first day of the second term. So, a 4 yr lame duck?
 
Really? So on what date did the lame duck status occur?

If you are going by "he cannot run again" and "he leaves at a designated date", then lame duck status occurs the first day of the second term. So, a 4 yr lame duck?
He's basically been a lame duck for 2 years.
 
Really? So on what date did the lame duck status occur?

If you are going by "he cannot run again" and "he leaves at a designated date", then lame duck status occurs the first day of the second term. So, a 4 yr lame duck?
That fits the definition. When he does not seek or cannot seek another term, he becomes "lame". Jan 20 of the year in which he will not nor cannot seek another elected term. In Obama's case it would start on the 1st day of his second and final term.
 
That fits the definition. When he does not seek or cannot seek another term, he becomes "lame". Jan 20 of the year in which he will not nor cannot seek another elected term. In Obama's case it would start on the 1st day of his second and final term.

That is an exaggerated view of what the lame duck moniker actually means. Here is how the definition has been more accepted throughout history.

In U.S. politics, the period between (presidential and congressional) elections in November and the inauguration of officials early in the following year is commonly called the lame duck period. In regard to the presidency, a president is a lame-duck after a successor has been elected, and during this time the outgoing president and president-elect usually embark on a transition of power
.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)

It gets exaggerated as soon as one side wants to use it as an excuse for holding up nominees. Just as Biden extended it to June and now being extended to a whole term.
 
That is an exaggerated view of what the lame duck moniker actually means. Here is how the definition has been more accepted throughout history.

In U.S. politics, the period between (presidential and congressional) elections in November and the inauguration of officials early in the following year is commonly called the lame duck period. In regard to the presidency, a president is a lame-duck after a successor has been elected, and during this time the outgoing president and president-elect usually embark on a transition of power
.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)

It gets exaggerated as soon as one side wants to use it as an excuse for holding up nominees. Just as Biden extended it to June and now being extended to a whole term.
Is that something you offered for wiki? The true definition is when he cannot serve another term.

What did you really expect Republicans to do? Do you think for a second the judiciary committee(with Republican majority) would have accepted the Obama offering? Hopefully we are playing with someone more reasonable than that. Do a little research, and you will find that the 11 Republican members of the 20 member committee told McConnell to refrain from sending Obama nomination. They simply were not going to let the balance of power in SCOTUS change. Geeze.
 
Last edited:
Is that something you offered for wiki? The true definition is when he cannot serve another term.

What did you really expect Republicans to do? Do you think for a second the judiciary committee(with Republican majority) would have accepted the Obama offering? Hopefully we are playing with someone more reasonable than that. Do a little research, and you will find that the 11 Republican members of the 20 member committee told McConnell to refrain from sending Obama nomination. They simply were not going to let the balance of power in SCOTUS change. Geeze.

Yeah, I used wiki as a matter of convenience. They are not the end all of proof - they just use what they find in their limited research. Didn't feel like digging for more when no matter what is said, everybody already has their mind made up.

I didn't expect the Republicans to do anything but what they did, just like what the Democrats do. I didn't say anything but that using it as a reason to block a nomination is a poor argument. Would have figured that they could find at least something relevant for their reasoning.

I should know better than discussing anything from a moderate independent position in a thread that began like this one did. People think politics is like sports, pick a team and go along with whatever they do without question. I take it back, a lot of WV fans question/pick apart this team way more than they would dare do their political teams.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT