IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 8,112
- Reactions
- 5,414
The Supreme Court nominations changes was under Trump 2017
I tend to stay well clear of Wiki, so my goto was the US Senate site:
e.g.
https://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/...under-nuclear-option-minority-will-be-crushed
Na dems did it after gop thought about it.The Supreme Court nominations changes was under Trump 2017
But for the vast majority of American history, nominees for nation's highest court effectively needed at least 60 votes, which often required some bipartisan support for the president's pick. Otherwise, a filibuster could hold up a nomination indefinitely.
So what happened? How did we go from 60 votes to 51?
Enter the "nuclear option"
It wasn't just Supreme Court nominees who needed 60 votes – federal judges and cabinet secretaries needed them as well.
But this arrangement had always been profoundly irritating to the party in power, particularly given the political polarization of recent decades. Time and time again, the party in control of the Senate and White House saw their selections for powerful positions filibustered by their opponents in the minority.
Under President George W. Bush, however, Republicans began toying with a way to get around the filibuster: a simple change to the Senate rules, which required just 51 votes, that would allow judicial nominees to pass with a simple majority.
In 2003, the GOP controlled the White House and had the same 51-vote majority in the Senate they have today. But Democrats had begun filibustering a number of Bush's judicial nominees, which Republicans saw as an affront to their agenda.
So Senate Republicans began toying around with an idea they called "the Hulk," a secret plan to remove the 60-vote threshold via a rule change. But it was the former Republican leader, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, who reportedly gave it the name that stuck:"the nuclear option."
Did they use the nuclear option?
No. Republicans increased their Senate majority in the 2004 elections and the nuclear option was largely taken off the table. However, in 2013, Democrats were in charge of the Senate and White House, and it was the minority Republicans who were filibustering their judicial picks en masse.
So the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Nevada's Harry Reid, decided to pull the trigger. The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be confirmed with just 51 votes. Republicans cried foul, despite threatening the nuclear option in the past, and Democrats who had been opposed to such a rule change quickly changed their tune. Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time, "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."
I find it curious, this habit of jumping to the defence of a man who has been accused of sexual assault..... Yes, in some cases perhaps the man is innocent, but in most they are not, or the allegations would not exist in the first place. Surely there's better causes out there to be passionate about?
I guess the Trump-loving herd will do his bidding without question.
Na dems did it after gop thought about it.
Ahh so it was noted under bushNope, Supreme Court 2017 under Trump, your quote is for filler buster and the below statement note federal judgeships isn't the Supreme Court, still no moral high ground here for either side.
"The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be confirmed with just 51 votes."
Agree, there are real victims that deserve our full attention.I think we should be more concerned about the 50 or so women killed in Australia each year by their partners or ex partners instead of what silly old Brett Kavanaugh allegedly did 35 years ago and that his alleged victim waited that long to say anything.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ls-extent-of-domestic-violence-crisis/9492026
Mens mental health seems to be a problem out of control that doesn't really rally much support.I think we should be more concerned about the 50 or so women killed in Australia each year by their partners or ex partners instead of what silly old Brett Kavanaugh allegedly did 35 years ago and that his alleged victim waited that long to say anything.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ls-extent-of-domestic-violence-crisis/9492026
Intetesting
Intetesting
Interesting, published by Mish, written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.
Twenty-three years ago I crossed swords with a younger Brett Kavanaugh in one of the weirdest and most disturbing episodes of my career as a journalist.
What happened leaves me in no doubt that he lacks judicial character and is unfit to serve on the US Supreme Court for the next thirty years or more, whatever his political ideology.
a long article follows concluding with:
Mr Kavanaugh went on to write the Starr Report on the Foster death. But Mr Knowlton got the last word, literally. He filed a 511-page report at the US Federal Court with evidence alleging a pattern of skullduggery, and asked that it be attached to the Starr Report.
The three top judges did not agree but they ordered that a shorter 20-page version be attached at the end, despite vehement protest from the Starr office. This had never happened before in the history of the office of the independent council.
This summary asserts that the FBI had “concealed the true facts”, that there had been witness tampering, and that the report had wilfully ignored facts that refuted its own conclusions. There it sits in perpetuity, a strange rebuke for Mr Kavanaugh by his own fellow judges on the federal bench.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sinister-battle-brett-kavanaugh-over-202425923.html
If you go to the link it's quite detailed. it seems that the investigation was corrupted.Any detail on what they crossed swords on or with?
If you go to the link it's quite detailed. it seems that the investigation was corrupted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?