Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
That_Guy

Naked Republican hypocrisy is destroying trust in Supreme Court: Reagan, Bush lawyers

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

That_Guy

Naked Republican hypocrisy is destroying trust in Supreme Court: Reagan, Bush lawyers

Republicans are using a deeply unfair process to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Build faith in democracy by letting the people decide.

Donald B. Ayer and Alan Charles Raul  Opinion contributors

USA Today   October 12, 2020

 

When a vacancy on the Supreme Court arose nine months ahead of the election in 2016, Sen. Mitch McConnell said in no uncertain terms: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Now, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than two months before Election Day, as voters are already casting ballots in many states, McConnell has reversed his position. His naked hypocrisy threatens the future credibility of our federal judiciary. 

Our opposition is not partisan, quite the opposite. We served at upper levels of government inside Republican administrations and we are united in our opposition to the rushed nomination, hearing, and confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. Our concern is not related to the qualifications of Judge Barrett. Rather, we believe that the process being pursued is fundamentally unfair and will greatly undermine public trust upon which our democracy depends. 

Indeed, if Senate Republicans force Judge Barrett through in the waning weeks before a presidential election — after denying President Obama any opportunity for Senate consideration of his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland nearly a year before the 2016 election — the American people will unavoidably see the Supreme Court as just another forum for power politics and political players.

<snip>

If the Senate moves forward with Barrett’s confirmation with such crass and naked hypocrisy, then more people will lose faith in our democracy. And as we’ve seen throughout history, democracies crumble when people lose faith in them. Just think of the consequences for credibility if an election-related dispute makes its way to the Supreme Court and the vote of a newly installed Justice Barrett decides the case.

Sometimes the rule of law calls for restraint in the exercise of lawful power in order to assure public confidence and respect. Greater comity — or self-restraint in pushing political power to the max — strengthens American democracy and makes our institutions more successful.  

In today’s partisan and polarized world, it’s easy to resign ourselves to cynicism. But all we need is for the esteemed members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to hold a hearing for any Supreme Court nominee before the election on Nov. 3 in order to set things right. If that fails, then just two more Republican senators could slow the march toward further politicizing the court.

If the Republican Senators bind themselves to the principle that they themselves invoked four years ago — to let the people decide — then they will advance the people’s faith in democracy. If not, then they will undermine it. For all our sakes, we hope they make the right decision.

LINK

Edited by That_Guy
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LongKnife

It seems that as long as the court is weighted more toward the Marxist liberal ideology, everything is in balance. Anything else is polarized.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

Whatever, That_Guy. 

It took you long enough to find a RINO Uncle Tom that you could use as a prop to spew your fake claims. 

Next. 

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mliff1

And we all know that if it was reversed the democrats would wait until after the election and after the signing in right?

  • Agree (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aldojon

i believe the term of POTUS runs for 4 years, not 3.  Even rbg said that.  The issue is if the opposite party controls the senate you don't get what you want and that is what happened with garland THANK GOD!  in this case POTUS and SENATE are of same party so whats the big deal.  you can't tell me that if democraps were in control of POTUS and SENATE at this time they wouldn't be doing the same thing.  so take your stupid article and shove it!

  • Best Post (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
42 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

Naked Republican hypocrisy is destroying trust in Supreme Court: Reagan, Bush lawyers

Republicans are using a deeply unfair process to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Build faith in democracy by letting the people decide.

Donald B. Ayer and Alan Charles Raul  Opinion contributors

USA Today   October 12, 2020

 

When a vacancy on the Supreme Court arose nine months ahead of the election in 2016, Sen. Mitch McConnell said in no uncertain terms: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Now, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than two months before Election Day, as voters are already casting ballots in many states, McConnell has reversed his position. His naked hypocrisy threatens the future credibility of our federal judiciary. 

Our opposition is not partisan, quite the opposite. We served at upper levels of government inside Republican administrations and we are united in our opposition to the rushed nomination, hearing, and confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. Our concern is not related to the qualifications of Judge Barrett. Rather, we believe that the process being pursued is fundamentally unfair and will greatly undermine public trust upon which our democracy depends. 

Indeed, if Senate Republicans force Judge Barrett through in the waning weeks before a presidential election — after denying President Obama any opportunity for Senate consideration of his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland nearly a year before the 2016 election — the American people will unavoidably see the Supreme Court as just another forum for power politics and political players.

<snip>

If the Senate moves forward with Barrett’s confirmation with such crass and naked hypocrisy, then more people will lose faith in our democracy. And as we’ve seen throughout history, democracies crumble when people lose faith in them. Just think of the consequences for credibility if an election-related dispute makes its way to the Supreme Court and the vote of a newly installed Justice Barrett decides the case.

Sometimes the rule of law calls for restraint in the exercise of lawful power in order to assure public confidence and respect. Greater comity — or self-restraint in pushing political power to the max — strengthens American democracy and makes our institutions more successful.  

In today’s partisan and polarized world, it’s easy to resign ourselves to cynicism. But all we need is for the esteemed members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to hold a hearing for any Supreme Court nominee before the election on Nov. 3 in order to set things right. If that fails, then just two more Republican senators could slow the march toward further politicizing the court.

If the Republican Senators bind themselves to the principle that they themselves invoked four years ago — to let the people decide — then they will advance the people’s faith in democracy. If not, then they will undermine it. For all our sakes, we hope they make the right decision.

LINK

:yawn:

And your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skipjack

I believe that Ayer and Raul are two of the RINO swamp turds who have endorsed Biden. Some nonsense about 'restoring honesty and integrity' if I'm not mistaken. You can't take them seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grimreefer

:yawn:

All points about any hypocrisy have been thoroughly dismantled and understood by people without a grudge, but do go on with the theatrics. Losing another activist justice is a bitter pill to swallow for the left so I understand their frustration, but I don't care because the country is gaining. Nevertrumpers can also pound sand IMHO. :rolleyes:

As far as destroying trust in government goes, the current batch of democrats in power have no equal... and since "trust" in the SCOTUS is being used as a euphemism here...

:chili: :happydance::banana:

 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

Another classic fail by Hamilton_Burger, T_G, esq. wannabe. In his bleck, baby-butchering heart he knows he’s wrong, but bless his bleck little heart, he just can’t help himself. 
 

Spare us another 400 post trip to nowhere, Hamilton. Go troll somewhere else. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
39 minutes ago, Martin said:

Are you joking, That Guy?  After the Democrats turned Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings into a circus of slander and character assassination, it is more than comical for anyone either Democrat or Never-Trump to complain that Trump is lowering public trust in the Supreme Court.  Nor is the Supreme Court itself concerned with public opinion.  If they were, they would not have flouted public opinion by imposing same-sex marriage on the country in the face of referenda and legislation which prohibited it.  

Trump's election is a clear demonstration that the established politicians, including a dozen Republicans, squandered public trust in the federal government, which is now at its lowest point in history according to Gallup.  Our government, including the Supreme Court, does not have a trust problem.  They have a trustworthiness problem.  Trump has capitalized on it but he did not cause it.  

 

:clap: :clap: :clap: 

 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Italian Biker

I have admitted that this issue, moving forward is blatant hypocrisy on McConnell's part.  But it's completely justifiable after what they tried to do to with Kavanaugh.  They found some one to lie about him trying to rape her.  They turned the hearings into a media circus.  

  • Agree (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeansToTheRight

Sen. Mitch McConnell said in no uncertain terms: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

 

BULLS   HIT.   It was VERY CERTAIN what the terms were - The Executive branch and the Senate were controlled by DIFFERING political parties, and just like the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the time this has happened in our history, the Senate would not take up the issue until after the election.  Again, THIS IS WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THAT EXACT SAME SITUATION AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE TIME.

 

’in no uncertain terms” please.  Lying out of the gate is no way to gain readership through the rest of the article.  I stopped after that lie.  No need to go any further.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
3 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

 

:clap: :clap: :clap: 

 

I blush through my router.  

The authors of this column, Ayer and Raul, have between them no less than five degrees from either Harvard or Yale.  They are super-credentialed.  What they lack is the insight to see how disappointed Americans are with Ivy League government.  After Reagan, we got Bush I (Yale), Clinton (Yale), Bush II (Yale and Harvard), Obama (Harvard).  No wonder credentialists like Ayer (Harvard MA, Harvard JD) and Raul (Harvard BA, Harvard MPA, Yale JD) complain that Merrick Garland (Harvard BA, Harvard JD) wasn't confirmed to the Supreme Court.  

Unfortunately, there is a big difference between convincing a group of left-wing professors that you deserve a degree and convincing the electorate that they should trust you.  The credentialists listed above have done the former brilliantly well. At the latter, they have failed completely.  

  • Best Post (+1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones
3 hours ago, That_Guy said:

Naked Republican hypocrisy is destroying trust in Supreme Court: Reagan, Bush lawyers

Republicans are using a deeply unfair process to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Build faith in democracy by letting the people decide.

Donald B. Ayer and Alan Charles Raul  Opinion contributors

USA Today   October 12, 2020

 

When a vacancy on the Supreme Court arose nine months ahead of the election in 2016, Sen. Mitch McConnell said in no uncertain terms: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Now, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than two months before Election Day, as voters are already casting ballots in many states, McConnell has reversed his position. His naked hypocrisy threatens the future credibility of our federal judiciary. 

Our opposition is not partisan, quite the opposite. We served at upper levels of government inside Republican administrations and we are united in our opposition to the rushed nomination, hearing, and confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. Our concern is not related to the qualifications of Judge Barrett. Rather, we believe that the process being pursued is fundamentally unfair and will greatly undermine public trust upon which our democracy depends. 

Indeed, if Senate Republicans force Judge Barrett through in the waning weeks before a presidential election — after denying President Obama any opportunity for Senate consideration of his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland nearly a year before the 2016 election — the American people will unavoidably see the Supreme Court as just another forum for power politics and political players.

<snip>

If the Senate moves forward with Barrett’s confirmation with such crass and naked hypocrisy, then more people will lose faith in our democracy. And as we’ve seen throughout history, democracies crumble when people lose faith in them. Just think of the consequences for credibility if an election-related dispute makes its way to the Supreme Court and the vote of a newly installed Justice Barrett decides the case.

Sometimes the rule of law calls for restraint in the exercise of lawful power in order to assure public confidence and respect. Greater comity — or self-restraint in pushing political power to the max — strengthens American democracy and makes our institutions more successful.  

In today’s partisan and polarized world, it’s easy to resign ourselves to cynicism. But all we need is for the esteemed members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to hold a hearing for any Supreme Court nominee before the election on Nov. 3 in order to set things right. If that fails, then just two more Republican senators could slow the march toward further politicizing the court.

If the Republican Senators bind themselves to the principle that they themselves invoked four years ago — to let the people decide — then they will advance the people’s faith in democracy. If not, then they will undermine it. For all our sakes, we hope they make the right decision.

LINK

Who cares. It’s politics. Progs would do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. 

Eric, I’ve known you for 17 years. If you had ever shown some sign of intellectual honesty, I’d say you may have a debatable point.

But you haven’t, so you don’t. Suck on the big one, Huckleberry. And try not to gag. 

😘

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
7 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Seems like we are missing a key ingredient in this recipe of irony stew. The Republican's were in control of the Senate and the Democrats in control of the POTUS. Therefore Obama did what he Constitutionally was required to do, and the Republican's chose not to advise nor consent. Thus Garland will not be nominated to anything other than where he is now. On the other hand this time the Senate and POTUS are held by the same party and along with the other 19 or so times, the person will get a hearing and a vote. Just like we would have seen if the DNC had held sway over the Senate back then. Elections have consequences. Oh and at the time you lefties thought you were going to win the election so there is that too.

Irony Stew...been a lot of that served up lately...

Kestrel...

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
6 minutes ago, kestrel said:

Irony Stew...been a lot of that served up lately...

Kestrel...

Right up there with Crow Chowder. If they want to win actual elections then maybe offering a plan other than "we will take everything you own, and give it to third worlder's that will vote for us in perpetuity" would be appropriate? Nah never mind that's crazy talk!

  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

Opinions are like (  )*(  ), but then you of all people know that, right?

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
45 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Seems like we are missing a key ingredient in this recipe of irony stew. The Republican's were in control of the Senate and the Democrats in control of the POTUS. Therefore Obama did what he Constitutionally was required to do, and the Republican's chose not to advise nor consent. Thus Garland will not be nominated to anything other than where he is now. On the other hand this time the Senate and POTUS are held by the same party and along with the other 19 or so times, the person will get a hearing and a vote. Just like we would have seen if the DNC had held sway over the Senate back then. Elections have consequences. Oh and at the time you lefties thought you were going to win the election so there is that too.

This.  Whine about "hypocrisy" all you want.  The true hypocrisy is that the T_G sheep of the world, pushed by and their leftist masters who are currently haveing the vapors, would have confirmed Garland about 30 seconds flat had they had the Senate.  Everyone knows that.  

Want to be pissed off and indignant?  Aim it RBG who could have, and should have, retired by with the one was President.  She wanted a woman president, or absent a woman, HRC, to nominate her replacement.  Actions and decisions have consequences, just like elections.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
33 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Right up there with Crow Chowder. If they want to win actual elections then maybe offering a plan other than "we will take everything you own, and give it to third worlder's that will vote for us in perpetuity" would be appropriate? Nah never mind that's crazy talk!

It gets them half of the vote as is and if they ever succeed in getting statehood for PR or DC or expand 3rd world immigration, we are well and truly F'd.  They are pretty close to achieving their goals with nothing more than "we hate white people and republicans are racist and the rich (except for ours) are evil and not giving you your share."

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...