Sad time we live in! So many lies, so much dishonesty. So much posturing. I agree with Erick, all the threats from the Democrats ring hollow because they are already doing what they are threating. They are offering nothing to anyone that is meaningful. Which city will they stop burning? Will they swear they will not pack the court and would you believe them? Nominate and vote on the nomination. In the end, even if the nomination is confirmed, it still will not increase or decrease the posturing and the actual actions.
In my opinion, returning our judiciary system to one based on rulings consistent with the Constitution is arguably the most important issue facing our country. The Democrats promote a living Constitution that changes with each judicial ruling. But if that is what the founders intended, why does the Constitution have an official amendment process, since the judiciary can amend it without that process?
One can conceptually argue that abortion should be legal in our country (not that I support that), but it is folly to argue that a right to abortion exists in our Constitution. Legalized abortion is only the law of the land because a set of SCOTUS justices ruled a penumbra of the 14th amendment's right to privacy also included a right to abortion. If Democrats want legalized abortion, they should officially amend the Constitution or pass a law that legalizes it. But since they don't have the political support to do that, there is now a non-stop battle over our politicized court system. Many Republicans are now fighting to win this battle and return our country to following the Constitution as written.
Politicians in general flip-flop on a variety of issues, as Biden has done repeatedly this year on a national mask mandate and fracking. In 2016, McConnell clearly identified the precedent he was following: i.e., an opposing party blocking Senate confirmation in a Presidential election is completely acceptable. But that doesn't mean that a Senate with the same party as the President can not confirm a SCOTUS nominee, as this has been done many times in the last 100 years. Democrats are being disingenuous about that, but some Republicans were not as clear as McConnell about the precedent they were following in 2016, and consequently they have some amount of egg on their face. The moral of the story is to be honest (as McConnell has been) so that you can fearlessly defend your positions as being consistent instead of the result of a partisan flip-flop.
For the life of me, I cannot recall McConnell saying that he was holding off voting on Merrick Garland because the President and the Senate-control were opposite parties. In fact, I don’t recall any Republican saying that. Senator Grassley apparently doesn’t think that was the reason. He’s said if he were still chair of the Judiciary Committee he wouldn’t hold hearings.
That doesn’t mean that the Democrats aren’t hypocrites, too. They are. And, if the situation were reversed, and especially if their presidential candidate were behind in the polls, I have no doubt they would be nominated and confirming a candidate.
Still, I’d love to see more principled leadership. From both sides.
Good article thanks
President Trump should nominate a female Hispanic quadriplegic. Let's see the Democrats vote against that!
Sad time we live in! So many lies, so much dishonesty. So much posturing. I agree with Erick, all the threats from the Democrats ring hollow because they are already doing what they are threating. They are offering nothing to anyone that is meaningful. Which city will they stop burning? Will they swear they will not pack the court and would you believe them? Nominate and vote on the nomination. In the end, even if the nomination is confirmed, it still will not increase or decrease the posturing and the actual actions.
Yes, Yes, Yes.. Just curious, are there two Constitutions, one for the Democrats and one for the Republicans?
In my opinion, returning our judiciary system to one based on rulings consistent with the Constitution is arguably the most important issue facing our country. The Democrats promote a living Constitution that changes with each judicial ruling. But if that is what the founders intended, why does the Constitution have an official amendment process, since the judiciary can amend it without that process?
One can conceptually argue that abortion should be legal in our country (not that I support that), but it is folly to argue that a right to abortion exists in our Constitution. Legalized abortion is only the law of the land because a set of SCOTUS justices ruled a penumbra of the 14th amendment's right to privacy also included a right to abortion. If Democrats want legalized abortion, they should officially amend the Constitution or pass a law that legalizes it. But since they don't have the political support to do that, there is now a non-stop battle over our politicized court system. Many Republicans are now fighting to win this battle and return our country to following the Constitution as written.
Politicians in general flip-flop on a variety of issues, as Biden has done repeatedly this year on a national mask mandate and fracking. In 2016, McConnell clearly identified the precedent he was following: i.e., an opposing party blocking Senate confirmation in a Presidential election is completely acceptable. But that doesn't mean that a Senate with the same party as the President can not confirm a SCOTUS nominee, as this has been done many times in the last 100 years. Democrats are being disingenuous about that, but some Republicans were not as clear as McConnell about the precedent they were following in 2016, and consequently they have some amount of egg on their face. The moral of the story is to be honest (as McConnell has been) so that you can fearlessly defend your positions as being consistent instead of the result of a partisan flip-flop.
For the life of me, I cannot recall McConnell saying that he was holding off voting on Merrick Garland because the President and the Senate-control were opposite parties. In fact, I don’t recall any Republican saying that. Senator Grassley apparently doesn’t think that was the reason. He’s said if he were still chair of the Judiciary Committee he wouldn’t hold hearings.
That doesn’t mean that the Democrats aren’t hypocrites, too. They are. And, if the situation were reversed, and especially if their presidential candidate were behind in the polls, I have no doubt they would be nominated and confirming a candidate.
Still, I’d love to see more principled leadership. From both sides.