Merrick Garland has publicly stated he has no interest in being our Attorney
General. Why not take him at his word?
"I would also remind you that Trump voters do not represent a majority, so
there's no basis for them speaking as if their voice represents the desire
of the nation as a whole. This is objectively untrue."
If majority is the standard, then hitlary voters don't represent the desire
of the nation either. She may have received he most votes, but she didn't
get more then half. The rules are the rules. We don't just allow
california to decide who the next president is, so move on. Everyone did what
they had to do. Bho did his thing, the senate did their thing, and Trump did his
part. It all worked out, and if the election would have gone another way, so
would the SC appointment. How much longer is are we going to have to put up with
this sour grapes syndrome? There are literally dozens of other candidates who
were just as qualified as Gorsuch or Garland, but the process played out and now
it's over. Rules were followed and life goes on. Grow up.
RE: "Party-of-impeachment"...---Democrats are the
party-of-impeachment. Democrats have written up articles of impeachment for
every REPUBLICAN President in my lifetime. Every one. They didn't spare
one Republican. Including Ronald Reagan.Don't believe me...
Google "Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials"
(Wikipedia)... Go to "Presidents" list.Clinton is on
the list.But Democrats submitted articles of impeachment for:-Richard M. Nixon-Ronald Reagan-George H. W. Bush-George W.
Bush-Donald TrumpEVERY Republican elected President (in my
lifetime).Is that weird to anybody else?Democrats have
tried to impeach every President (in my lifetime) except those of their
party...Is anybody surprised it's their plan yet again?I wonder if they realize it doesn't put a Democrat in office.
Mostly just messes with the guy in office and makes sure he, the media, and the
public, are distracted by their impeachment antics, making it hard for the
President (and the country) to get anything done.So maybe
Republicans are the party-of-no. But Democrats are surely the
Vermonter is right.Those in the media are so, so, so, eager to find
something negative about Trump every day. Every day. They feel the need to
prove they were right, and voters were wrong.I have to admit he
gives them a lot to talk about. Some of it's his fault. But they would
find something negative every day no matter what. It's their obsession.
It's their full time job now (to bring Trump down one way or another).And Democrats are on the same team. They pose for the cameras every
night and talk about the latest scandal the media reported today (whether
it's real or not).I'm pretty sure sooner or later at least
one of these scandals the NY Times has reported are going to turn out to be
true. I predict that Trump will not stay in office till the end of his full
term, one way or another. The tenacious attack from the Press and the
Democrats is too much for anybody to stand for 4 years IMO. I would have quit
by now. Nobody needs a job that bad. Especially Trump. He has lots of
options.The media is after the President, there's no doubt
about it. And Democrats... That's automatic. They are not only the
party-of-no... they are the party-of-impeachment
@ 2 bits"But I have to admit that I'm glad they didn't
get to take advantage of Justice Scala's unfortunate and untimely
death...it's a big deal to lose one of your guys on the court and have them
replaced by the other side."Thank you, 2 bits. This kind of
honesty is like oxygen to me."The founder's theory was that
if Justices didn't have to face elections they wouldn't be partisan.
But that hasn't worked out."We elect judges here in Texas,
including Supreme Court justices, and oh my goodness the conflicts of interest
it creates. I'm all right with lifetime appointments for
appellate courts and above. IMO we just need to agree that they shouldn't
ever be allowed to lean too far in any one direction because of the length of
time they can be expected to serve. Of course, that requires our politicians
feeling safe to act in the best interests of all. This isn't the case
right now. We're demanding that they be partisan (or they're already
partisan on their own).IMO, getting back to longer term, what's
best for all decision-making would go along on this issue.
I see why Democrats are upset. They have reason to be upset. But I have to
admit that I'm glad they didn't get to take advantage of Justice
Scala's unfortunate and untimely death.With how politicized the
courts are today... it's a big deal to lose one of your guys on the court
and have them replaced by the other side.I know it shouldn't be
that way... but it is. It shouldn't matter which President appoints
them... but it does.The founder's theory was that if Justices
didn't have to face elections they wouldn't be partisan. But that
hasn't worked out. Especially today.Supreme Court Justices are
just as partisan as politicians today. Maybe they should have to face
elections, so we can throw them out when WE want to, instead of having to wait
until they die and then have no voice/vote.This is the one branch of
government that doesn't have to face the people or report to the people
regularly. The only people we can't throw out if they are out of touch.There was a good reason for that, which works in political theory... but
not in today's highly politicized reality.Maybe we should get
to vote justices in/out every few years.
Mike Lee wants Garland off the federal bench so he can fill the slot with
another right-wing judge.
@ JoeCapitalist2"I can certainly see how Democrats are upset
about Garland not being on the SCOTUS..."This kind of sidesteps
the real issue, which is exhibiting contempt for the process, but blaming this
on another. And "but we won" avoids the issue all together. I would
also remind you that Trump voters do not represent a majority, so there's
no basis for them speaking as if their voice represents the desire of the nation
as a whole. This is objectively untrue.
Karen R.: "McConnell's gambit was a cynical and ruthless application of
party before country. I'm confident you'd feel just as Dems do if the
shoe were on the other foot. In fact, you may be thinking of some examples as
you read this."I can think of hundreds of examples where the
Dems put party before country and their supporters like you didn't think
twice about it. I am also confident that when the 'shoe is on the other
foot' that all the liberals screaming about this issue would take the
opposite stance.I can certainly see how Democrats are upset about
Garland not being on the SCOTUS, but as Obama once said: "Elections have
consequences". It is probably the main reason I voted for Trump along with
enough other voters to actually win the election.
To "Hutterite " if you have to ask why Garland was not appointed, you
have not paid any attention to the news for the last 18 months. Garland was not
picked because Congress didn't want him. That is it.To
"Esquire" tell us where in the Constitution it states that congress has
a timeframe for voting on any nominee or that any nominee must be vetted.To "RJohnson" yes, the ACA was rammed through. What would you
call it when the final vote is avoided by using Reconciliation? Also, what
would you call a bill that was voted on purely on party lines?
Any honorable, self respecting person would have to think long and hard before
taking a job under Trump. Especially one that has any oversight of the actions
of the POTUS.Loyalty pledge? Interference in investigations?Not a job for the ethical.
@ Vermonter and the so-called Biden RuleMcConnell's gambit was
a cynical and ruthless application of party before country. I'm confident
you'd feel just as Dems do if the shoe were on the other foot. In fact,
you may be thinking of some examples as you read this.So, please.
Let's stop with what is IMO the insulting, contempt-filled tactic of
blaming another for our own actions. Let's have the courage of our
convictions and own our stuff.
Ya --How dumb do you think we are?Move Merrick Garland to the
FBI, free up a Federal Court seat -- Trump can then fill it
with whomever the GOP wants, Trump then FIRES Merrick Garland at the FBI
like James Comey.baddah-boom, baddah-bing!GOP problem -
solved.ala New York Mafia hit job, fashion.
@Tyler D.If you are as disgusted by the Garland obstruction as you say you
are, where is your call for an amendment to the Constitution so that this can
never happen again. And where are the Democrats and Joe Biden calling for such
an amendment. No, it seems Democrats are not really offended by the
Biden Rule or tactic. They are only seem to be offended because Republicans
dared to use the tactic against their president, and decided to let the America
people judge the wisdom of the Republican obstruction of the Garland nomination.
It appears the American people were not as offended as the Democrats
seem to be. Thanks for the dialogue.
Garland is not on the supreme court because extremist leftists/liberals like
sotomayor, kagan and ginsberg.The democrats have only themselves to
blame because of the extreme left nominations they did have and for not
nominating more centrist or moderate judges.Don't go blaming
the other side else. It just ain't so.
@NoNamesAccepted"The liberals need to move on."Not a chance. Why weren't you and likeminded "conservatives"
moving on in 2008? 2012? Where was your conciliatory requests then?"Garland is not on the Supreme Court"Because
obstructionist "conservatives", the ones who refused to move on in 2008
and 2012, shamefully poiticized the process--so much so they even suggested that
Had Clinton won the Whitehouse, the SCOTUS would permanently have only 8
justices. "after democrats rammed through Obamacare."Rammed through? It took almost two years to get the ACA into law. What
were Democrats ramming with? Q-Tips?
The liberals need to move on.Garland is not on the Supreme Court
because the American voters wisely returned control of the US Senate to the GOP
after democrats rammed through Obamacare.The US constitution
specifies that the President appoints members of the Supreme Court but only with
the "advice and consent" of the Senate. It does not set a timetable in
which the Senate must act, just as it doesn't actually require the
President to nominate someone acceptable to the majority of senators.The entire process is, and always has been political. These days, it is
hyper-partisan and has been ever since Democrats invented the notion of
"borking" a candidate they don't like.Liberals are not
entitled to shift the court to the left, nor to even have liberal majority
courts. By not seating Garland, and then confirming Gorsuch, the
GOP has merely maintained the status quo on the bench. If Trump
were to get the chance to nominate another Originalist or Conservative to
replace Kennedy or Gingsburg, that would actually shift the court. How
hysterical will leftists be if that happens?
@Vermonter – “The reason Garland is not on the Supreme Court is
something called the Biden Rule.”Hilarious!How
does comment by one Senator (who was not the majority leader) 25 years ago
suddenly become a “rule” and fully weaponized by the entire
Republican Party? Party over country, right? You guys are
@Esquire.As for the existence of the Biden Rule, you might try Google. I
know people have various opinions of it. But, there is no denying Biden created
the idea of obstructing and delaying any action on a president's judicial
nominations during an election year. I'm not saying its good or bad.
I'm just acknowledging that there is a Biden Rule and that in 1992, Joe
Biden was the first person to talk favorably about using such a tactic.As for keeping Garland on the DC Circuit Court, I think you are right. This
is as hyper-political an atmosphere as I ever remember. The Democrats know
where they have power, and they are going to protect it to the point of telling
Garland what he will and will not do.
The Honorable Merrick Garland has a lifetime job.Whomever is
appointed as the FBI Director will serve at the pleasure of a reality show
host.The Honorable Merrick Garland has dealt with the Dishonorable
re-Publican Cartel/Machine.No need to go there again.
@ Vermonter, there is no such thing as the Biden Rule, and it has never been
used until the Republicans spit on the Constitution in the Garland nomination.
The idea of Garland at the FBI is a scam to get him off the DC Court of Appeals
so Trump can put his own person in there. Don't be fooled.
@Impartial. @hutterite.The reason Garland is not on the Supreme Court is
something called the Biden Rule. The Biden Rule is good if one is obstructing a
president you don't like, bad if the opposition is obstructing a president
you like. Its just the way things are.If enough Americans are mad
about it, we can always amend the Constitution to force Congress to act within a
certain period of time. But, until that happens, the Constitution allows for
the use of the Biden Rule.BTW, if things work out right, Democrats
might be able to use this tactic against a Trump nominee in 2019 and 2020. They
just need to win back the House and the Senate. Democrats must concentrate on
that goal first.
I think the good senator, and all of his colleagues, still owes the nation an
explanation as to why Garland does not have a court seat today. An explanation
for which they could somehow be held accountable.
Bingo! Anytime Lee does or says anything, you need to look a little deeper.
Lee's motivation to appoint Garland, who Lee refused to even hold a hearing
for SC, isn't because he thinks Garland would make a competent FBI
director. It was, as the article states, an attempt to get Garland off the Court
so Lee and his Tea Party cohorts can get another right wing extremist on the
This is beating a dead horse. There are arguments to be made on both sides.
Neither is right or wrong. This is simply the way America's constitutional
republican democracy works. But, heaven forbid Trump nominates one
of the "good guys" to be FBI Director. Republicans are trying to be
bi-partisan. But, Garland doesn't want the position. Like Heidi Heitkamp
and Tulsi Gabbard before, Garland has likely been warned not to have anything to
do with the Trump Administration. At this point, Democrats are way beyond the
"party of no." And some of them are seriously waiting for Trump to be
impeached and convicted, or to have him resign.I am not a Trump
supporter. But, Democrats and their allies in the media are just a tad too
eager and gleeful with every Trump mis-step, perceived or real--and it appears
most of them are only perceived by unnamed, anonymous sources.