... to the bullshit the Uber Fuhrer Baby Snatcher is pulling.

We don't have to be civil towards those bastards

set it at nine. Are we going to overturn a 149 year old law?

FDR considered expanding the court to 12.

Me, I'm ready for serious bare-knuckled nazi-punching.

Whatever. Either way, FIGHT.

All we had was the US Constitution.

The Senate can grant (or withhold) consent however it chooses.

The Senate never gave Obama "Advice and Consent" as stipulated in the Constitution. Which comes under "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate..."

There is no statutory nor Constitutional provision that defines how the Senate grants or withholds their consent. It's slimy, but neither illegal nor unconstitutional to withhold consent by not holding a vote.

Note before answering - you must deal with the question "what is the Constitutional difference between 'advice and consent' when dealing with Supreme Court vs lower court nominees?"

It requires a Senate vote, advice and consent. Not another president.

That was the Republicans' claim years ago - it went nowhere.

Did you think that it wasn't obvious why you dodged the question?

What is the Constitutional difference between advice and consent with the USSC vs federal appellate courts?

"The people" are the ultimate source of authority,

We pick the Senate we want in regards to confirmations.

There's no mechanism to enforce the words.

We don't pick Supreme Court justices in election years.

We'll have to do this some ofhter way

Based on words.

"We don't vote on Supreme Court justices in election years."

It was based on power. They held the majority.

They could have held a vote and simply said "no"... but instead they chose not to vote at all.

At the time... many Democrats were pleased.

Funny what seems to please "many Democrats."

"Many Democrats" WANTED to nomination held up because we expected to win the White House. Hillary was going to pick more progressive judges and we were going to take back the Senate.

We were even arguing here on DU on how we could stop Republicans from lame-duck voting on him after they lost.

The point was, if Hillary won we'd still pick the Supreme Court justice.

We were looking for best-case scenarios.

Like we should be doing NOW!

I was referring to the question you keep dodging.

What's the constitutional difference between confirming the two types of judges?

The point was, if Hillary won we'd still pick the Supreme Court justice.

Nope. The point was that Garland was a moderate and most DUers didn't want him. We wanted Clinton to pick someone else.

We were looking for best-case scenarios.

The best case scenario is that Trump picks someone with literal skeletons in his closet and the whole thing goes down in flames... perhaps twice... until he's forced to pick someone more moderate.

Republicans do care about it. They came up with it.

... about, if it doesn't get them thrown in jail they're game ... period.

And everyone knew that it was just a way around voting down a nominee and having to take the fallout on election day.

“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction."

THAT year it was a presidential election. This year it's a Senate election. Co-equal branches on this matter, so it seems.

Do the people have a say?

Even the Washington Post says this is nonsense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/27/democrats-bogus-argument-about-what-the-gop-said-about-supreme-court-nominees-in-an-election-year/?utm_term=.6f6fabd0e21c

I would argue Democrats don't protest enough.

Both McConnell and Ryan argued "the people should have a say."

Am I wrong to agree?

Now that we have precedent.

All these arguments you are presenting for capitulation on this subject are compelling! If I was a Republican!

McConnell clrearly stated "the people" should have a voice in the selection. This is an election year. The representatives who will confirm any nominee are up in the air. Do we not have a voice?

But we're going to accuse him of hypocrisy, right? But not Schumer (who got rid of the filibuster option for most judicial nominations in the first place)?

Why not admit it? There is no legal/constitutional/moral precedent involved. We just don't want another conservative judge on the court for 30+ years, and will latch on to ANY theory that might keep it from happening.

I get it. I agree emotionally... but denying reality has never succeeded in making me feel better. I hope you have more success.

TRUMP controls the Executive, the Judicial, and both houses of Congress.

It's over.

Enemies of our enemy.

I wouldn't be willing to wager on that bet not in an election year in a state Trump got 70% of the vote in.

They will probably do whatever they have to as those are ruby red states. Trump and the Reich Wing Fundie White Nationalist goon squads will pour into the voting booths and vote them out I fear if they end up being the blocks.

We are so fucked.

McConnell hasn't been willing to kill the filibuster, but if ever there was a time to dare him to, it is now.

behind them.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

... bastards

It's as effective as anything else we might try and distracts me from the shitstorm

...as we not-so-slowly move towards a one-party, authoritarian state. See Poland. Turkey. Hungary. Russia, of course. At some point, Dems are either going to continue recognizing the legitimacy of what the GOP regards as "legal"--or we're going to have to decide for ourselves what constitutes legality.

... don't even think about "civility" or the whining's of the KGOP.

Fuck them,

McConnell changed rules inside and out, whatever is legal is doable when they get in power

And it's been a slow boil for over 40 years now. The only way to get our country back is to vote every single one of them out. But I don't think that can be done.

Get them to vote with the Democrats to block Trump's nominee.

dumping a truckload of manure in front of McConnell's driveway might be fun, but it's not legal so it doesn't count in this context...

Elections have consequences.

Jill Stein's white privilege largely insulates her from any fallout from any Trump decision or action, a shame that the people she claims to speak for aren't so lucky.