Former MSNBC host calls on Justice Sotomayor to step down from SCOTUS

I’ve had it 2 times, and TBH, it was a basic cold both times.

 

As long as it was a choice, I agree.

But we have given all real rights to corporations so workers in many instances had no real “right” to decline it because most of them needed their jobs

 

Businesses have requirements. I've walked off a few jobs in my life.

 

Well, here we are, only a couple of miles off-topic. I'm still hoping that just one (ONE) Democrat poster in this forum can tell the rest of us what they're going to do about their "Kamala" problem! Leave her on the ticket with "Big Guy"...? Seems awful damned unlikely.

They all recoil at the suggestion that Sotomayor will retire after the end of this SCOTUS session and that the Democrat 'insiders' will stick Kamala on the court. So.... What's up, Demo's? Are you really gonna put up a ticket in August with Kamala-la-la on it?! This ought to be good....

 

As long as the Republicans insist on putting Dumpster on the ticket then I'll vote for whoever the Democrats put up.
I may not be happy about it, but I'll be happier with the Democrat as President then I could ever be with Donny boy in there.

 

No, I don't, but I do not expect them to mislead. When asked about Roe, they should have said "I cannot comment on a subject which is likely to be under review'. When asked about stare decisis, they should have said "most of the time I do, but it's not absolute, Dred Scott, case in point".

But no, they had to say they respect 'stare decisis', WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, giving us the misleading idea that they wouldn't harm Roe.

Do you understand?

No, we need justices who are not disingenuous who do not mislead.

Do you understand?

 

My question does directly to your point:

He did the same thing as the Democrats that came before him.

If that is true, then you can answer question because only that would be an apples to apples comparison.

That you can't, proves your claim is false.

 

"unlikely"? LMFreakinAO!
It is 100% LIKELY that Harris will be the Dem. Nominee for VP...

Obviously, Biden/Harris WILL be the ticket...
Anything to the contrary is egregiously misinformed and misguided...

 

Thank you, Andy, for your honesty and courage. For devious reasons of my own, I actually HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT!

 

I respect your opinion, and appreciate your willingness to express it. I'm no Trump "enthusiast" by a LONG shot, but I was hoping that the Democrats could come up with something a hell of a lot better than Biden/Harris for 2024.

Nevertheless, as I've been predicting for several months, no matter who Democrats eventually decide to put on their ticket, those two people (whoever they are) will be elected! Trump has zero chance of getting 270 votes in the Electoral College -- make book on that if nothing else!

Truth? The only real winners I see as a result of this year's election in the United States are Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and the Islamo-Nazi zealots in Tehran.

 

I genuinely don't remember the judges being asked about Roe directly. You are claiming it happened, and not just an oblique reference to stare decisis?

 

He used his authority to block the nomination. It makes no difference if they don't hold a hearing or blackmail their base with being primaried and not funding their campaigns if they break ranks (without permission) on an issue this large. There is no chance Garland moved forward; the Senate Majority Leader of either party would have stepped in and made sure of it one way or another. Crying about the specific manner in which they blocked it is illogical. Both parties would have used their authority to prevent the nomination from being confirmed. I've shown you the numbers and how this has happened historically. With the level of partisanship during Garland's nomination, there was zero chance of him moving forward. You're still stuck on the emotional attachment of not getting a hearing for some absurd reason, and you're ignoring the fact that McConnell did exactly what Schumer promised he would do; he used his leadership role to block the nomination during an election year... just like Democrats have done to Republican nominations in the past. In fact, Schumer was incensed at the hypothethical thought of a Republican potentially even having the gall to nominate someone during an election year while Democrats controlled the Senate.

Would you prefer they found a mentally unstable conservative who made ridiculous sexual assault allegations against him, supported pro bono by a litany of RNC attorneys, before voting against him like Democrats would have done? Is that a better way of handling it?

 

At no time in our history has the Majority Leader of the Senate announced, before a nominee is even picked, that they will not hold hearings on the nominee.

That was bad enough, but then McConnell gave the excuse of it being an election year and that the American People, "should have a say" in the nomination process. The people HAD a say, that's why Obama was President. The excuse was absolute BS

THEN during the last months of Trump's term, another vacancy came up and McConnell had no problem pushing through Amy Coney Barrett. None. No mention of giving the American People "a say". The hypocrisy was mind numbing.

 

Democrats ask conservative justices about Roe all the time and their response is typically that they cannot comment on an issue that could come before the court. I forget who it was, but during one fo the recent nomination hearings for a Trump pick someone responded with the fact that Democrats on the committee kept asking about it proves that the issue is still very much alive. And then they go to their typical response, that you cited, that they respect stare decisis and its importance in our judicial system. But, that doesn't mean that they will always rule based solely on stare decisis when the previous courts have so clearly gotten an issue wrong and there's no legislation to pull from.

 

Here's one example: Hayes (R) nominated Matthews to the Supreme Court during an election year and the Senate, with a Democrat majority, ignored the nomination and took no action on it.

The President doesn't have the "right to appoint a SC Justice."

There are instances throughout our history in which the Senate has taken no action on a nomination. There also an instance where a nomination for promotion was fillibustered and withdrawn. Nominations, promotions, and confirmations are not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.

 

Sorry, this is not an apples to apples comparison.

Hayes nominated Matthews in the final days of his presidency and he was ignored by the Senate. IN the final days of a presidency, the Senate Majority leader has a legitimate argument. When Garfield became president, he renominated Matthews who was confirmed.

But, in Obama's case, is was almost a year out before Obama's presidency ended. And when the shoe was on the other foot, during the election year of Trump, McConnell did not apply the same standard of reasoning to Barrett.

I meant 'nominate'. You know what I meant.

There are no examples of any Democrat Senate not giving a Republic President's nomination for the Supreme Court a hearing and a vote a year before the end of his presidency.

yes, nominations are denied, blocked, but there are no 'en masse blockings, without hearings and a vote' by dems, which occured in Obama's last year.

 

The tradition has always been to give the incumbent the nomination for a second term, who has the right to choose his VP. So, Biden is keeping Harris. And I don't see why not.

 

VP Harris is your problem, no one else's.

 

I know. Nothing will illicit such an emotional response as McConnell not having a hearing for a Democrat nominee... That's not something I can solve for you though.

We don't have to go too far back before we hit a post in which you claimed a president has the "RIGHT TO APPOINT A SC JUSTICE" in response to a Republican controlled Senate not affirming said "right" of a Democrat president during an election year.

I guess that right doesn't exist when it's close to an election anymore. Holy cow, we've finally come full circle. The only thing we're lacking is emotional attachment and applying your stated standards evenly.

Additionally, saying "the final days" is disingenuous. He was nominated at the end of January and his term ended towards the beginning of March. Either the president has the "right" as you claimed, or they don't. It's very obvious that when it's a Republican president you believe they don't have the right to "appoint" a Supreme Court Justice during their presidential term. You asked for an example and an example was provided. Then you changed your standard.

This is my shocked face.

 

Sorry, no matter how hard you try to spend it.It's not an apples to apple's comparison

 

And now for the next scene of this orchestrated little schauspiel -- "Democrats resist calls for Sotomayor to retire."
The story appears today at the Left-leaning Axios website: https://www.axios.com/2024/04/11/supreme-court-sonia-sotomayor-retire-democrats-refuse

First, Democrats send up "trial-balloons" to see what reaction there would be to nudging Sonia into retirement. Then the countervailing chorus responds, "Oh, no! Please, Justice Sotomayor -- we love you! Don't retire!" But this gush of support is likely to be temporary as more news about the sudden seriousness of her diabetes trickles down from the same news media that started sending up those trial-balloons a couple of weeks ago.... Look for it!

And, of course, it still may not happen. Justice Sotomayor may sit on the court for many years to come -- but I still say that when Democrats huddle among themselves, secretly they agonize over what to do about having Kamala-la-la on their ticket in 2024! What's interesting is to read comments about Kamala in this same thread -- from liberals! Some have come right out and said that there's no way that Kamala Harris could by any measurement be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court... but... I would counter with, "...but then, you on the Left still think she's qualified to be VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES...?!" .

 

First, Democrats send up "trial-balloons"
Maybe it's time to consider your sources.

 

Never been to a Bunraku puppet show? Keep watching Democrat power-brokers at work between now and August. It should be a masterful performance....

 

Does anyone honestly believe that just b/c a person serves as VP that they are qualified to sit on the SC?
That is a new one...
Paging Dan Quayle...

 

Thanks for confirming my suspicions about your sources.