Kavanaugh: Now & The Aftermath
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 09:25:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  Kavanaugh: Now & The Aftermath
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Kavanaugh: Now & The Aftermath  (Read 4580 times)
GM Team Member and Senator WB
weatherboy1102
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,834
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 27, 2018, 12:12:58 PM »

NUT
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,617
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 27, 2018, 09:00:06 PM »

Do you have a time machine or something? Except for Graham, he's Kavanaugh's staunchest defender.
Logged
Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 27, 2018, 09:18:17 PM »

Do you have a time machine or something? Except for Graham, he's Kavanaugh's staunchest defender.
Logged
Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️
The Impartial Spectator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,846


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 27, 2018, 11:33:41 PM »

Do you have a time machine or something? Except for Graham, he's Kavanaugh's staunchest defender.

We need to know what's next. Write on!
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,717
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 29, 2018, 12:58:57 AM »


Mhmm lol thanks


I wish!


You're welcome?

Do you have a time machine or something? Except for Graham, he's Kavanaugh's staunchest defender.

Yeah, I honestly only picked Graham b/c when the allegations first came out, I thought I remembered hearing something about him being more open to hearing about them than other Republicans; boy have the tides turned.

Do you have a time machine or something? Except for Graham, he's Kavanaugh's staunchest defender.

We need to know what's next. Write on!

Coming right up...
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,717
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 29, 2018, 08:48:26 PM »
« Edited: September 30, 2018, 07:26:36 PM by brucejoel99 »


THE DEMOCRATS' SUPREME COURT GAMBLE IS PAYING OFF: DEMS UNLIKELY TO END SCOTUS BLOCKADE SOON

WASHINGTON (November 9, 2018) -- The Senate Republican leadership came back Thursday, thundering at Democrats about their refusal to even consider a Supreme Court nominee after Tuesday's midterm election. With the Republican electoral defeat, the nomination of President Trump's second nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, seemingly all-but-died with the election of a renewed Democratic majority in the Senate.

As of now, it appears that the prospect is that Barrett will be waiting as a nominee, perhaps in vain, for up to 2 years, well over the 293-day wait President Obama's 2016 nominee, Merrick Garland, experienced before his nomination expired.

To sum up events to date, after Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement last June, President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in July to fill the vacancy that had been created. After his nomination eventually fell apart in September and failed in the wake of sexual assault allegations, however, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, last month.

But ever since Democrats regained a majority in the Senate, however, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has proclaimed that there will be no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever, on any Supreme Court nomination until the American people got to vote on a new president in 2020 unless and until President Trump nominated Judge Garland himself to the Supreme Court. The idea, of course, is that if the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee were to win the presidency, he or she would fill the vacancy instead of President Trump, unless he were willing to nominate President Obama's own former pick to the Supreme Court.

Since then, Schumer has brooked no serious opposition. For instance, when Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, poked her nose out earlier this week after being safely re-elected to suggest that Democrats might hold hearings on the Barrett nomination sometime during the next Congress, the next day -- her nose pretty obviously smashed in -- she quickly backtracked.

If President Trump fails in his 2020 re-election bid, then the Barrett nomination will truly be dead. And moreover, the next president is, at least by the actuarial numbers, likely to have more vacancies to fill in the future. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85, and Justice Stephen Breyer is 80.

Of course, how all this balances out is important as well. If Schumer sticks to his guns and doesn't allow a vote for two years, the Supreme Court will remain short-handed and sometimes tied on important issues for years to come.

The president elected in 2020 would likely announce a nominee's name in February 2021, two-and-a-half years after Kennedy's retirement. Next would come confirmation hearings, followed by written questions, a committee vote, and a floor debate and vote. Add all that up, and even Barrett herself would only be able to hear the last oral arguments of the October 2020 court term, in April 2021. So, for all practical purposes, there would have been a Supreme Court vacancy for nearly three terms. And that is a new normal that scares a lot of people -- Republicans especially right now.
Logged
libertpaulian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,611
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 29, 2018, 09:05:58 PM »

The lame duck session is going to be a freakshow...
Logged
Cold War Liberal
KennedyWannabe99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,284
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -6.53

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 29, 2018, 11:09:36 PM »

The president elected in 2020 would likely announce a nominee's name in February 2021, two-and-a-half years after Kennedy's death.
Whoops

Pedantry aside, I really enjoy this though!
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,717
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 30, 2018, 07:25:00 PM »
« Edited: September 30, 2018, 07:30:35 PM by brucejoel99 »


HOW TRUMP AND SCHUMER CAME CLOSE TO A SUPREME COURT DEAL OVER CHEESEBURGERS

WASHINGTON (December 14, 2018) -- President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, apparently come close to an agreement to facilitate a Supreme Court confirmation after having lunch on Friday. But their consensus broke down later in the day when the President and his Chief of Staff demanded more concessions on appointment provisions, according to people on both sides familiar with the lunch and follow-up calls between President Trump and Senator Schumer.

The negotiations between President Trump and Senator Schumer, fellow New Yorkers who have known each other for years, began when the President called Senator Schumer on Friday morning, giving the White House staff almost no heads-up. In a lengthy phone conversation, both men agreed to attempt to seek a deal on a Supreme Court appointment rather than continue the up-to-two-year delay currently being forced by Democratic Senators on Capitol Hill.

Less than an hour later, Senator Schumer was meeting with President Trump over cheeseburgers in the President's study next to the Oval Office. The White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly, was there, as was Senator Schumer's chief of staff, Mike Lynch.

As the meal progressed, an outline of an agreement was struck, according to one person familiar with the discussion: Senator Schumer said yes to setting the court at ten members and discussed the possibility of providing a swift confirmation for the currently pending nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy on the court created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy earlier this year. In exchange, the President agreed to nominate Judge Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and President Barack Obama's 2016 nominee to fill the vacancy on the court created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia (eventually filled by President Trump's nominee, Neil Gorsuch), to the new seat that is to be created, on the condition that one of the proposed-to-be 10 seats from the Supreme Court would be eliminated as it becomes vacant upon the next death, resignation, or retirement of a justice, thus reducing the size of the court back to nine justices.

Senator Schumer left the White House believing he had managed to make a deal with the President that his predecessor as majority leader, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, never could: facilitate as the Senate majority, and benefit politically from, the confirmation of an opposition-party President's Supreme Court nomination, which would also include the added benefit of not having the Supreme Court be short-handed for up-to-two years, even if such benefit came with an ideologically tied Court.

"In my heart, I thought we might have a deal today," Senator Schumer recalled later that day on the Senate floor, shortly after he had been greeted with a surprisingly blistering White House statement that "Senate Democrats own the Supreme Schumer Showdown."

President Trump, a onetime real estate mogul whose book "The Art of the Deal" proclaimed his mastery of negotiation, has struggled at times to seal deals as President. He inserted himself into health care negotiations in March 2017, only to see talks in the House collapse. In September 2017, a deal-making dinner with "Chuck and Nancy" -- Senator Schumer and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, then the House minority leader and currently Speaker-designate -- later devolved into angry recriminations. Last January, a proposed deal over government funding saw a government shutdown ensue after talks with Senator Schumer and the then-Senate Democratic minority collapsed. And he has so far failed to bring his promised trade talks to a close.

On Friday afternoon, when Senator Schumer was back on Capitol Hill, President Trump called Senator Schumer, a person familiar with the call said, and told him that he understood they had agreed on the creation of two new Supreme Court seats, not one, and thus the confirmation of three new Justices in total, including Judge Barrett, Judge Garland, and an as-yet-to-be-named choice for the President to decide. Senator Schumer told the President, the person said, that Democrats would oppose the creation of two new Supreme Court seats rather than one because they saw it, in addition to the nomination of Judge Barrett, as the facilitation of a conservative majority.

A White House official said that Senator Schumer raised the possibility of withdrawing Judge Barrett's nomination and nominating a moderate centrist to fill the Kennedy vacancy instead, rather than facilitating any Court enlargening, but President Trump told Senator Schumer to work out the details of any further agreement with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader.

A short time later, Senator Schumer called the President, the person said, but the conversation drove the pair even further apart. The proposals offered by Democrats thus far were not good enough, President Trump told Senator Schumer. The President said he needed to be able to tell his base of political support that he understood "that the best defense of our liberty is a judicial branch immune from political prejudice where judges that apply the Constitution as written."

As the day wore on, Senator Schumer got a call from Kelly that seemingly dashed all hopes for a Trump-Schumer deal in regards to the Supreme Court. Kelly, supposedly a behind-the-scenes hard-liner on ensuring judicial appointments continue to ensure Republican support for President Trump, the person familiar with the call said, outlined a long list of White House objections to the deal.

A White House official familiar with the call said Kelly urged Senator Schumer to work out details of any agreement with Senator McConnell.

In a Twitter post at 4:28 p.m., President Trump vented his pessimism on Twitter, returning to his administration's efforts to try to make sure that Democrats receive the blame from voters angry about two years with a short-handed Supreme Court.

"Not looking good for our great Judiciary on the Supreme Court right now," President Trump wrote. "Dems want a Vacancy in order to hopefully get the pick if they beat me in 2020 (they WON'T and CAN'T), and they don't realize the people aren't with them."

With talks between President Trump and Senator Schumer over, Senator Schumer lamented the failure to reach a deal with the president, and blamed President Trump for abandoning an agreement that was within reach.

"What happened to the President Trump who asked us to come up with a deal to make the Supreme Court work and promised to take the heat for it?" Senator Schumer asked on the Senate floor. "What happened to that President Trump?"

The invitation for Senator Schumer to come to the White House for a face-to-face with the president had been a heart-stopping moment for conservatives that conjured up their worst fears: a closed-door deal between Mr. Trump and the wily Democrat.

With President Trump impatient to begin a golf-and-fund-raising weekend at Bedminster, his New Jersey golf club, there was the prospect that the President would publicly side with his Democratic adversaries, who refused to facilitate any Supreme Court confirmation for any potential nominee except for Judge Garland.

Privately, President Trump's impulses had led him to ignore political protocols and his own Republican allies, like Senator McConnell, who had groused about the President in recent days that the Senate shouldn't consider any Supreme Court nominee "unless it's somebody who's actually of his own choosing."

The lack of any success between Senator Schumer and President Trump was a failure of what might have been.

Once, in the days after the 2016 election, Senator Schumer saw a path toward working with President Trump. Just as Senator McConnell did at the time, Senator Schumer believed he would be able to guide Mr. Trump -- who has few fixed positions -- toward his own initiatives.

Senator Schumer is one of the few elected officials in Washington with whom President Trump had something of a bond before he won the presidency. An adviser to President Trump once pointed out that if the President had to choose between spending time with Senator Schumer or Senator McConnell, he would pick the Democratic leader almost every time.

Senator Schumer appeared on a Season 5 episode of "The Apprentice," the reality TV show that helped President Trump create a brand in the eyes of millions of voters as a take-charge businessman. During the show, Senator Schumer predicted that the then-businessman Trump was "going to go places."

During the transition, Senator Schumer appeared on a panel at an event held by the Partnership for New York City, a business group, where Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, also spoke. Senator Schumer told attendees that the Democrats had stymied their chances with a message that failed to track more closely with President Trump's calls for fair trade.

After the failed negotiations on Capitol Hill and at the White House, Democrats predicted that the public would blame President Trump and his Republican allies for the Supreme Court vacancy, citing the past example of the Republicans' decision to decline to consider Judge Garland's nomination in March 2016.

Throughout the day, President Trump told aides that he knows he is going to get blamed for the vacancy, regardless of what happens and how it goes down.

But at the White House, President Trump's aides maneuvered to try to shield the President from any political damage. At the same time, they waged an intense public relations campaign to argue that Democrats should shoulder the responsibility for not keeping the functions of the judicial branch operating.

President Trump delayed his afternoon departure for Bedminster, and aides said he had called members of both parties in hope of averting a two-year vacancy that could have unpredictable repercussions for the presidential election.

In the morning, Kelly seemed resigned to failure, promising to "manage the vacancy differently" than President Barack Obama's administration did in 2016. He accused President Obama of "weaponizing" that vacancy in an attempt to maximize outrage against Republicans.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,717
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 30, 2018, 07:26:10 PM »

The lame duck session is going to be a freakshow...


Yup.

The president elected in 2020 would likely announce a nominee's name in February 2021, two-and-a-half years after Kennedy's death.
Whoops

Pedantry aside, I really enjoy this though!

Whoops indeed, thanks for letting me know though so I can fix it lol
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,717
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: October 01, 2018, 12:46:14 PM »
« Edited: May 25, 2021, 10:55:29 PM by brucejoel99 »


AMY CONEY BARRETT'S SUPREME COURT NOMINATION JUST DIED WITH THE OLD CONGRESS

WASHINGTON (January 3, 2019) -- The gamble by Senate Democrats is paying off: Judge Amy Coney Barrett has waited 78 days, and that's just the beginning. Her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has sat gathering dust in the Senate for that long, expired at noon Thursday -- just as the 116th Congress was sworn in on the first day of its legislative session.

As he said he would on Oct. 17, the day Barrett was nominated to fill the vacancy left by Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement and the subsequent rejection of the initial nominee, Judge Brett Kavanuagh, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) refused to consider a nominee for any Supreme Court vacancy that existed while a Democratic majority held the Senate unless and until Judge Merrick Garland was nominated and confirmed to the Court, in retribution for the Republicans' previously-unprecedented blockade of Judge Garland's nomination to the Court in 2016 when he was President Barack Obama's pick to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia that was ultimately successfully filled by a nominee selected by President Donald Trump, Neil Gorsuch. And all Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the Senate Judiciary Committee chairwoman, played along.

The tactic has worked thus far, and it now appears that President Trump will no longer have the opportunity to pick Kennedy's replacement for the duration of his term (potentially the first of two) in office. With help from his inner circle, word is that he's considering his options moving forward in regards to the Court.

During a holiday celebration last month, President Trump acknowledged Barrett for her distinguished service as a judge of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a position to which Trump nominated her to earlier in his term -- all but confirming that it was the end of the road for his nominee.

Barrett, for her part, has yet to put herself back on the calendar of the Seventh Circuit -- a strong signal that she's all up for continuing to drag on this fight over the course of the next two years rather than go back quietly into the night by resuming her lifetime appointment on the Seventh Circuit. President Trump, however, has yet to confirm that he intends to renominate Barrett to the Court with the sitting of the new Congress in light of the initial nomination's expiration.

Some still held fast to the hope, however remote, that Trump would attempt to invoke his recess-appointment power and put Barrett on the Supreme Court for up to a year. But that shortsighted (and potentially unconstitutional) play would've created a crucial vacancy on the Seventh Circuit, which currently has a firm Republican-appointed majority that may face some risk were it to be short-handed for the foreseeable future.

Still, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders lamented Thursday (in perhaps a bit of unironic irony in the eyes of Democrats) that Barrett has not gotten a chance to make her case to the American public and the Senate on why she has the credentials to serve on the nation's highest court, which has remained short-handed since Kennedy's retirement.

"Amy Coney Barrett is a patriot, and she deserves far better treatment than she's receiving from Democrats in the United States Senate," Sanders said. "But because she's the bigger man, she's ready to continue to hope to serve this country with honor and distinction as a nominee, pending confirmation, for appointment to the United States Supreme Court."

She added that the inaction on Barrett could create complications for Democrats' own legislative initiatives -- solely by virtue of the party of the nominating president.

"Democratic senators are blocking an eminently qualified Supreme Court nominee, whose qualifications are not in question, simply because she was nominated by President Trump," Sanders said. "How then can Democrats go to Republican senators and say that they should support legislation put forward by the Democrats in Congress?"

In a lengthy statement from the Senate floor last month, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, actually said (with a straight face) that he'd never seen anything like the Barrett blockade in his more than four decades in Congress.

"Democrats got to roll the dice this year, subjecting the Supreme Court and the American people to their purely political gamble," Grassley said. "They will tell us they have won for the time being. But there is no victor -- for their partisan game, this body, the Supreme Court and the American people all suffer."

Trump argued as much in a tweet he sent out in October. "We CAN'T allow this to become the New Normal," he said of the Barrett gridlock.

The last time the White House tweeted about the judge -- from an account created specifically to promote the nominee -- was Nov. 6. That's the same day a major effort on behalf of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative campaign to get the nominee confirmed, went all-but-dormant for the time being.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,617
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: October 01, 2018, 02:01:47 PM »

This is going to backfire very badly for Dems
Logged
OBD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,570
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: October 05, 2018, 03:03:33 PM »

RIP FF
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,095
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: October 05, 2018, 07:33:49 PM »

Obviously not.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,717
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: October 06, 2018, 08:25:54 AM »



Ok, from here on out this timeline goes on as the timeline that should've been lol
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.134 seconds with 12 queries.