The worst argument against confimring Merrick Garland: You started it! That was Sen. Orrin Hatchs (R-UT) message in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday, when he...

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

You started it!

That was Sen. Orrin Hatchs (R-UT) message in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday, when he attempted to defend his partys refusal to consider anyone nominated by President Obama to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In response to a speech by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who noted that there is no precedent in this century for the Senate refusing to give a Supreme Court nominee a confirmation hearing, Hatch raised the specter of Robert Bork.

As Franken and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) swiftly pointed out, Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a bipartisan 58-42 v**e in 1987, received both a v**e and a hearing. Nevertheless, Hatch maintained that this v**e was a turning point in the politics of Supreme Court nominations. Bork, Hatch claimed, was one of the greatest legal minds weve had, and Borks rejection was the beginning of the cycle of escalating efforts by both parties to keep the other partys nominees off the Supreme Court, according to Hatch.

Hatch does have a point. Republicans have long viewed Bork as a fallen martyr, and Hatch is hardly the first Republican to cite the Bork v**e in order to justify obstructionist tactics against Democratic nominees. Indeed, the GOPs repeated insistence that Bork was unfairly treated says as much about why theyve erected such an extraordinary roadblock in front of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland as anything else Republicans have offered to explain their actions.

Judge Borks opponents made a weighty case against his nomination in 1987. Bork, a judge on the court where Garland currently serves, previously served as United States Solicitor General and was an influential scholar of antitrust law. He also had a long history of criticizing progressive Supreme Court decisions. Bork opposed the doctrine of one person/one v**e, which eliminated malapportionment of state legislatures that gave rural v**es far more representation than urban v**ers. He criticized decisions striking down racial covenants in housing and those banning v**er literacy tests. He attacked a decision invalidating poll taxes. And he opposed Supreme Court decisions saying that the Constitution forbids the government from discriminating against women arguing instead that the Equal Protection Clause probably should be kept to things like race and ethnicity.

Borks most well-known statement, however, most likely came from a 1963 article he published in the New Republic, which opposed federal bans on race discrimination by businesses. The principle behind such laws, Bork argued, is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness. (Bork later repudiated this statement although he did not repudiate many of his other previously expressed views.)

So when Hatch and other Republicans place themselves on the side of Robert Bork, they embrace the view that vocal and strident opposition to the ban on w****s-only lunch counters should not disqualify an individual from service on the Supreme Court. Its easy to see why someone who holds this unusual viewpoint would be unwilling to accept anyone nominated by President Obama.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It should be pointed out that, the year prior to Bork's being rejected for the SCOTUS, ultimate conservative Judge Antonin Scalia had received a unanimous confirmation by the the U.S. Senate.

JMHO Loc: Utah

slatten49 wrote:

You started it!

That was Sen. Orrin Hatchs (R-UT) message in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday, when he attempted to defend his partys refusal to consider anyone nominated by President Obama to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In response to a speech by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who noted that there is no precedent in this century for the Senate refusing to give a Supreme Court nominee a confirmation hearing, Hatch raised the specter of Robert Bork.

As Franken and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) swiftly pointed out, Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a bipartisan 58-42 v**e in 1987, received both a v**e and a hearing. Nevertheless, Hatch maintained that this v**e was a turning point in the politics of Supreme Court nominations. Bork, Hatch claimed, was one of the greatest legal minds weve had, and Borks rejection was the beginning of the cycle of escalating efforts by both parties to keep the other partys nominees off the Supreme Court, according to Hatch.

Hatch does have a point. Republicans have long viewed Bork as a fallen martyr, and Hatch is hardly the first Republican to cite the Bork v**e in order to justify obstructionist tactics against Democratic nominees. Indeed, the GOPs repeated insistence that Bork was unfairly treated says as much about why theyve erected such an extraordinary roadblock in front of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland as anything else Republicans have offered to explain their actions.

Judge Borks opponents made a weighty case against his nomination in 1987. Bork, a judge on the court where Garland currently serves, previously served as United States Solicitor General and was an influential scholar of antitrust law. He also had a long history of criticizing progressive Supreme Court decisions. Bork opposed the doctrine of one person/one v**e, which eliminated malapportionment of state legislatures that gave rural v**es far more representation than urban v**ers. He criticized decisions striking down racial covenants in housing and those banning v**er literacy tests. He attacked a decision invalidating poll taxes. And he opposed Supreme Court decisions saying that the Constitution forbids the government from discriminating against women arguing instead that the Equal Protection Clause probably should be kept to things like race and ethnicity.

Borks most well-known statement, however, most likely came from a 1963 article he published in the New Republic, which opposed federal bans on race discrimination by businesses. The principle behind such laws, Bork argued, is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness. (Bork later repudiated this statement although he did not repudiate many of his other previously expressed views.)

So when Hatch and other Republicans place themselves on the side of Robert Bork, they embrace the view that vocal and strident opposition to the ban on w****s-only lunch counters should not disqualify an individual from service on the Supreme Court. Its easy to see why someone who holds this unusual viewpoint would be unwilling to accept anyone nominated by President Obama.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It should be pointed out that, the year prior to Bork's being rejected for the SCOTUS, ultimate conservative Judge Antonin Scalia had received a unanimous confirmation by the the U.S. Senate.

You started it! br br That was Sen. Orrin Hatchs... (show quote)

No more SCOTUS confirmations while Obama is president. McConnell will not back down, nor should he...get over it.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

JMHO wrote:

No more SCOTUS confirmations while Obama is president. McConnell will not back down, nor should he...get over it.

His history on gun control in DC is enough for me.
Since concealed carry went into effect crime rates there have dropped, if he had his way, well.....

Who ever gets in is going to have to be a champion for the rights of the people, not personal ideals.

Loki Loc: Georgia

slatten49 wrote:

You started it!

That was Sen. Orrin Hatchs (R-UT) message in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday, when he attempted to defend his partys refusal to consider anyone nominated by President Obama to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In response to a speech by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who noted that there is no precedent in this century for the Senate refusing to give a Supreme Court nominee a confirmation hearing, Hatch raised the specter of Robert Bork.

As Franken and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) swiftly pointed out, Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a bipartisan 58-42 v**e in 1987, received both a v**e and a hearing. Nevertheless, Hatch maintained that this v**e was a turning point in the politics of Supreme Court nominations. Bork, Hatch claimed, was one of the greatest legal minds weve had, and Borks rejection was the beginning of the cycle of escalating efforts by both parties to keep the other partys nominees off the Supreme Court, according to Hatch.

Hatch does have a point. Republicans have long viewed Bork as a fallen martyr, and Hatch is hardly the first Republican to cite the Bork v**e in order to justify obstructionist tactics against Democratic nominees. Indeed, the GOPs repeated insistence that Bork was unfairly treated says as much about why theyve erected such an extraordinary roadblock in front of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland as anything else Republicans have offered to explain their actions.

Judge Borks opponents made a weighty case against his nomination in 1987. Bork, a judge on the court where Garland currently serves, previously served as United States Solicitor General and was an influential scholar of antitrust law. He also had a long history of criticizing progressive Supreme Court decisions. Bork opposed the doctrine of one person/one v**e, which eliminated malapportionment of state legislatures that gave rural v**es far more representation than urban v**ers. He criticized decisions striking down racial covenants in housing and those banning v**er literacy tests. He attacked a decision invalidating poll taxes. And he opposed Supreme Court decisions saying that the Constitution forbids the government from discriminating against women arguing instead that the Equal Protection Clause probably should be kept to things like race and ethnicity.

Borks most well-known statement, however, most likely came from a 1963 article he published in the New Republic, which opposed federal bans on race discrimination by businesses. The principle behind such laws, Bork argued, is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness. (Bork later repudiated this statement although he did not repudiate many of his other previously expressed views.)

So when Hatch and other Republicans place themselves on the side of Robert Bork, they embrace the view that vocal and strident opposition to the ban on w****s-only lunch counters should not disqualify an individual from service on the Supreme Court. Its easy to see why someone who holds this unusual viewpoint would be unwilling to accept anyone nominated by President Obama.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It should be pointed out that, the year prior to Bork's being rejected for the SCOTUS, ultimate conservative Judge Antonin Scalia had received a unanimous confirmation by the the U.S. Senate.

You started it! br br That was Sen. Orrin Hatchs... (show quote)

The fact remains that the Senate is completely withing it's rights to ignore any Obama appointee. Obama has a duty to nominate. The Senate has no duty to take any action on the nomination.
Garland would be a horrible choice, and is not nearly as moderate as his supporters would have us believe.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Loki wrote:

The fact remains that the Senate is completely withing it's rights to ignore any Obama appointee. Obama has a duty to nominate. The Senate has no duty to take any action on the nomination.
Garland would be a horrible choice, and is not nearly as moderate as his supporters would have us believe.

I would not argue your points, Loki...other than my belief he is indeed a moderate, by former (pre-Bork?) standards. For most, if not all, ideological purists...no nominee would be considered a moderate. :|

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

JMHO wrote:

No more SCOTUS confirmations while Obama is president. McConnell will not back down, nor should he...get over it.

I have learned, over the decades, to "get over" things of which I have no control. I will lose no sleep over confirmation/denial of SCOTUS nominees by any president...however I may perceive of them. But, like many, I sometimes offer opinions or views ...mine or otherwise...of such matters. That is, after all, the purpose of OPP. :wink:

Loki Loc: Georgia

slatten49 wrote:

I would not argue your points, Loki...other than my belief he is indeed a moderate, by former (pre-Bork?) standards. For most, if not all, ideological purists...no nominee would be considered a moderate. :|

I don't see how you can believe anyone who wants to "revisit" a Supreme Court decision confirming an individual right to keep and bear arms is "moderate." How about if he wants to "revisit" the Fourth or Tenth Amendment next? Or maybe the First? I do not trust revisionists.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

slatten49 wrote:

You started it!

That was Sen. Orrin Hatchs (R-UT) message in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday, when he attempted to defend his partys refusal to consider anyone nominated by President Obama to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In response to a speech by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who noted that there is no precedent in this century for the Senate refusing to give a Supreme Court nominee a confirmation hearing, Hatch raised the specter of Robert Bork.

As Franken and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) swiftly pointed out, Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a bipartisan 58-42 v**e in 1987, received both a v**e and a hearing. Nevertheless, Hatch maintained that this v**e was a turning point in the politics of Supreme Court nominations. Bork, Hatch claimed, was one of the greatest legal minds weve had, and Borks rejection was the beginning of the cycle of escalating efforts by both parties to keep the other partys nominees off the Supreme Court, according to Hatch.

Hatch does have a point. Republicans have long viewed Bork as a fallen martyr, and Hatch is hardly the first Republican to cite the Bork v**e in order to justify obstructionist tactics against Democratic nominees. Indeed, the GOPs repeated insistence that Bork was unfairly treated says as much about why theyve erected such an extraordinary roadblock in front of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland as anything else Republicans have offered to explain their actions.

Judge Borks opponents made a weighty case against his nomination in 1987. Bork, a judge on the court where Garland currently serves, previously served as United States Solicitor General and was an influential scholar of antitrust law. He also had a long history of criticizing progressive Supreme Court decisions. Bork opposed the doctrine of one person/one v**e, which eliminated malapportionment of state legislatures that gave rural v**es far more representation than urban v**ers. He criticized decisions striking down racial covenants in housing and those banning v**er literacy tests. He attacked a decision invalidating poll taxes. And he opposed Supreme Court decisions saying that the Constitution forbids the government from discriminating against women arguing instead that the Equal Protection Clause probably should be kept to things like race and ethnicity.

Borks most well-known statement, however, most likely came from a 1963 article he published in the New Republic, which opposed federal bans on race discrimination by businesses. The principle behind such laws, Bork argued, is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness. (Bork later repudiated this statement although he did not repudiate many of his other previously expressed views.)

So when Hatch and other Republicans place themselves on the side of Robert Bork, they embrace the view that vocal and strident opposition to the ban on w****s-only lunch counters should not disqualify an individual from service on the Supreme Court. Its easy to see why someone who holds this unusual viewpoint would be unwilling to accept anyone nominated by President Obama.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It should be pointed out that, the year prior to Bork's being rejected for the SCOTUS, ultimate conservative Judge Antonin Scalia had received a unanimous confirmation by the the U.S. Senate.

You started it! br br That was Sen. Orrin Hatchs... (show quote)

When Scalia was confirmed, Democrats had control of the Senate - 30 years later - the GOP has finally gotten some payback for Bork. Isn't that a little long for adults to hold a grudge? Sorry, I forgot who we were talking about. For MOST adults, it is way too long, for GOP politicians, well, I guess the payback is just starting. :lol:

JMHO Loc: Utah

lpnmajor wrote:

When Scalia was confirmed, Democrats had control of the Senate - 30 years later - the GOP has finally gotten some payback for Bork. Isn't that a little long for adults to hold a grudge? Sorry, I forgot who we were talking about. For MOST adults, it is way too long, for GOP politicians, well, I guess the payback is just starting. :lol:

Payback??? Are you ready for a liberal control of the SCOTUS for the next 25 years? I'm sure not. We need another conservative to replace Scalia...period.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Loki wrote:

I don't see how you can believe anyone who wants to "revisit" a Supreme Court decision confirming an individual right to keep and bear arms is "moderate." How about if he wants to "revisit" the Fourth or Tenth Amendment next? Or maybe the First? I do not trust revisionists.

Shockingly enough (like you), I don't align with a lot of beliefs by others, SCOTUS members included, on any number of issues. Fortunately, though, we haven't been entrusted with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution as has the SCOTUS. Flawed as any of them may be in our eyes, they are each eminently more qualified than we laypersons. :wink:

JMHO Loc: Utah

slatten49 wrote:

Shockingly enough (like you), I don't align with a lot of beliefs by others, SCOTUS members included, on any number of issues. Fortunately, though, we haven't been entrusted with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution as has the SCOTUS. Flawed as any of them may be in our eyes, they are each eminently more qualified than we laypersons. :wink:

Interpretation of the Constitution is one thing, but when they make their own law, which the liberals do, is another.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

JMHO wrote:

Interpretation of the Constitution is one thing, but when they make their own law, which the liberals do, is another.

Am I to assume you are saying that courts of a conservative lean never "make their own law?" :shock: One could assume that was written with a certain degree of naivete. Assuming a greater knowledge of the U.S. Constitution than SCOTUS members would be absurd. :roll:

JMHO Loc: Utah

slatten49 wrote:

Am I to assume you are saying that courts of a conservative lean never "make their own law?" :shock: One could assume that was written with a certain degree of naivete. Assuming a greater knowledge of the U.S. Constitution than SCOTUS members would be absurd. :roll:

That's right! They interpret the Constitution! They didn't try and make law concerning a******n, gay marriage, et al! Like the libtards did!

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

JMHO wrote:

No more SCOTUS confirmations while Obama is president. McConnell will not back down, nor should he...get over it.

My feeling about it all.........

JMHO Loc: Utah

PaulPisces wrote:

My feeling about it all.........

McConnell is working, and doing exactly what he was elected to do, moron.