Refresh your driving skills and you could save on your auto insurance! Sign up for the AARP Smart Driver course.

 

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
281
Views

Re: Liberals...Don't "Get Over" Merrick Garland

281 Views
Message 1 of 10

Thanks pc.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
281
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
287
Views

Re: Liberals...Don't "Get Over" Merrick Garland

287 Views
Message 2 of 10

Saworld-yesterday when I was trying to post something, I kept getting a message that there was an error and to try later. then when I looked on the site, the same thing was posted three or four different times, so it may not be you not quite sure what's happening but just  wanted you to know.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
287
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
296
Views

Re: Liberals...Don't "Get Over" Merrick Garland

296 Views
Message 3 of 10

Don't mind me, am checking a posting problem via a different browser.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
296
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
317
Views

Re: Liberals...Don't "Get Over" Merrick Garland

317 Views
Message 4 of 10

Saworld-Republicans didn't earn the name the  obstructionist party for nothing. I was stunned too--I mean even the filibusters mentioned in the article were at least some proof that the opposing party let it move forward somewhat. But to not even meet with Judge Garland was extremely unprofessional and it just mean-spirited. Of course Republicans just wanted to make sure a conservative got onto the court. I'm wondering how many of them wish they weren't even part of the Republican party at this point in time.  Really wish I could tell you that things won't get worse-

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
317
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
321
Views

Re: Liberals...Don't "Get Over" Merrick Garland

321 Views
Message 5 of 10

pc6063 wrote:  Saworld- In a May 15, 2016 article of the "Atlantic" there is a informative article which I believe is entitled why the Senate doesn't have to act on Merrick Garland's nomination. One part of the article discusses that this wasn't the first time that the Senate has failed to act on a nomination and discusses the use if filibusters. What was different this time is that poor Mr. Garland came   Up against senators who refused to even meet with him.   Extremely unprofessional.

I also heard this discussed on CNN shortly after  it became apparent that no action was going to be taking on this nomination .


That article is a good summary regarding the Senate's specific obligations (or lack of) as dictated by the Constitution.  Thanks for mentioning it; it confirms other sources.  

 

However pc, this is the first such theft of a Supreme Court nomination and "loopholes" in our Constitution and doing something "just because we can" do not justify it or make it ethical.  

 

To me, this occurrence like the undemocratic electoral college, shows the extreme vulnerability of our democracy.  Taken to its logical end, no president's SCOTUS nomination need ever be considered as long as the opposing party holds the majority in the Senate.  So within their minority status limitations, that's what I want the Democrats to try for with Trump: disallow any Trump SCOTUS nominee.  Not because Trump is Trump or anything about a given nominee but because the vacancy is illegitimate.  It was Obama's to fill on behalf of the voters who elected him president.   

 

My feelings about this occurrence are personal because it's another example of my citizen's vote being stolen.  Trump's election & Bush v Gore are other examples.     

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
321
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
327
Views

Re: Liberals...Don't "Get Over" Merrick Garland

327 Views
Message 6 of 10

@saworld wrote:

pc6063 wrote: saworld--It's not the first time this has happened, but I guess that's some of the Washington dirty politics that goes on in Washington, on both sides. What was different was that some Republicands refused to even meet with the poor man.  I saw the clip of Garland accepting the nomination, he was very honored. 

pc, do believe this is unique.  Don't think there's ever been an occasion were one president's nomination was stolen & passed on to another.  


I certainly don't remember the same thing ever happening. It wasn't like Obama had a couple of months or something left in his term, he had almost an entire year!  McConnell and crew stole this nomination from him and they are two faced liars about it. I won't forget or "get over" it either, saworld.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
327
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
334
Views

Re: Liberals...Don't "Get Over" Merrick Garland

334 Views
Message 7 of 10

Saworld- In a May 15, 2016 article of the "Atlantic" there is a informative article which I believe is entitled why the Senate doesn't have to act on Merrick Garland's nomination. One part of the article discusses that this wasn't the first time that the Senate has failed to act on a nomination and discusses the use if filibusters. What was different this time is that poor Mr. Garland came   Up against senators who refused to even meet with him.   Extremely unprofessional.

I also heard this discussed on CNN shortly after  it became apparent that no action was going to be taking on this nomination .

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
334
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
338
Views

Re: Liberals...Don't "Get Over" Merrick Garland

338 Views
Message 8 of 10

pc6063 wrote: saworld--It's not the first time this has happened, but I guess that's some of the Washington dirty politics that goes on in Washington, on both sides. What was different was that some Republicands refused to even meet with the poor man.  I saw the clip of Garland accepting the nomination, he was very honored. 

pc, do believe this is unique.  Don't think there's ever been an occasion were one president's nomination was stolen & passed on to another.  

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
338
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
353
Views

Re: Liberals...Don't "Get Over" Merrick Garland

353 Views
Message 9 of 10

saworld--It's not the first time this has happened, but I guess that's some of the Washington dirty politics that goes on in Washington, on both sides. What was different was that some Republicands refused to even meet with the poor man.  I saw the clip of Garland accepting the nomination, he was very honored. 

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
353
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
372
Views
9
Replies

Liberals...Don't "Get Over" Merrick Garland

372 Views
Message 10 of 10

I for one will not "get over" what the GOP did to Obama's SCOTUS' nomination.  Obama was the duly elected president by EVERY (electoral & popular) vote measure and We The People had a right to have him fill the vacancy.  What the GOP Senate did was to steal our vote in this regard by refusing to even consider Garland.   Trump could have done the right thing & renominate Garland but he didn't.  So it's imperative IMO that the Democrats resist Trump's nominee as fully as possible, regardless of any qualities he may or may not have.  Simply put, he's just not The People's Justice.  Here's an excerpt from the NY Times on this devasting affair.

 

  • "Thirty years ago, Judge Robert H. Bork’s failed Supreme Court nomination introduced a new verb into the American lexicon. But if “to Bork” means to derail a divisive nominee’s candidacy through a sustained attack on the candidate’s record, then “to Garland” surely means to kill a respected nominee’s chances by simply letting him linger in limbo, virtually ignoring him while refusing to consider his candidacy.
  • Judge Garland, now 64, had been on the shortlist for the court twice before, and he cried when President Barack Obama announced his nomination to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Now there is a new nominee, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, put forward by President Trump, and next month he will have the hearing Judge Garland was denied."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-obama-nominee.html?_r=0

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
372
Views
9
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors