Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

[Rate This]

The difference today compared to not that long ago is that the Senate now makes its advise and consent decisions based purely on politics rather than on qualifications.

Remember these votes?
98-0 John Paul Stevens
99-0 Sandra Day O'Connor
98-0 Antonin Scalia
97-0 Anthony Kennedy
90-9 David Souter
96-3 RBG
87-9 Stephen Bryer

Sure, there were exceptions (Bork and Thomas), but most judges were confirmed with flying colors.

Then when GW Bush took office it all went downhill from there. Every nomination this century has received at least 22 "no" votes.

An incredibly contested election does that.

[Rate This]

RT:

Your "view points" are entertaining.

Your memes no longer are.

[Matt]

The difference today compared to not that long ago is that the Senate now makes its advise and consent decisions based purely on politics rather than on qualifications.

Remember these votes?
98-0 John Paul Stevens
99-0 Sandra Day O'Connor
98-0 Antonin Scalia
97-0 Anthony Kennedy
90-9 David Souter
96-3 RBG
87-9 Stephen Bryer

Sure, there were exceptions (Bork and Thomas), but most judges were confirmed with flying colors.

Then when GW Bush took office it all went downhill from there. Every nomination this century has received at least 22 "no" votes.

An incredibly contested election does that.

Except Bush's nominees came in the second term after he clearly won re-election.

[Rate This]

The difference today compared to not that long ago is that the Senate now makes its advise and consent decisions based purely on politics rather than on qualifications.

Remember these votes?
98-0 John Paul Stevens
99-0 Sandra Day O'Connor
98-0 Antonin Scalia
97-0 Anthony Kennedy
90-9 David Souter
96-3 RBG
87-9 Stephen Bryer

Sure, there were exceptions (Bork and Thomas), but most judges were confirmed with flying colors.

Then when GW Bush took office it all went downhill from there. Every nomination this century has received at least 22 "no" votes.

An incredibly contested election does that.

Except Bush's nominees came in the second term after he clearly won re-election.

And the hyperpartisanship was well underway by then as a result of the 2000 election. W made for a divisive figure.

[audiophile]

I don't think GWB was a particularly divisive candidate, especially prior to the first term.

[Rate This]

I don't think GWB was a particularly divisive candidate, especially prior to the first term.

No but the 2000 election was so bitter that it did damage as did 9/11 and the Iraq war...

[UP906]

I don't think GWB was a particularly divisive candidate, especially prior to the first term.

No but the 2000 election was so bitter that it did damage as did 9/11 and the Iraq war...

Oh stop. How old were you when 9/11 happened?

If you knew anything about it, you'd know that Dubya's handling of 9/11 afforded him some of the highest approval rates seen by ANY President EVER.

Stop pulling things out of your ass, you look stupid.

[UP906]

Dubya was a rock star back then, and he could throw a baseball.

https://youtu.be/NjGcCI9ByWw

[Matt]

Dubya was a rock star back then, and he could throw a baseball.

https://youtu.be/NjGcCI9ByWw

Do you have any pitching videos of the "athletic" failure that followed W? We all know he sucks at basketball.

In terms of 9/11, for RT's benefit, Bush was at 89% approval. There is no way you can call that divisive.

[UP906]

Let's also not forget that Clinton and Biden both voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

But hey... they are stellar Americans, right?

[zzand]

The announcement of the nominee will be made Friday or Saturday.

[km1125]

It would be nice if Congress (both House and Senate) did their jobs independent of election cycle timing. Isn't that why the founders staggered the replacements?

[audiophile]

The announcement of the nominee will be made Friday or Saturday.

That's his job.

[Rate This]

Dubya was a rock star back then, and he could throw a baseball.

https://youtu.be/NjGcCI9ByWw

Do you have any pitching videos of the "athletic" failure that followed W? We all know he sucks at basketball.

In terms of 9/11, for RT's benefit, Bush was at 89% approval. There is no way you can call that divisive.

In the beginning this was true, and the war in Afghanistan was broadly popular. Then we expanded the “war on terror” to include Iraq and those approval ratings began to fall. Slowly but surely a divisive debate over civil liberties vs. national security emerged. Absent 9/11 none of these things would have happened. That one attack altered history essentially.

To deny that 9/11 hurt the country severely is to have a rectal-cranial inversion in full effect.

[UP906]

We were talking specifically about GW as a divisive character, but you go ahead and move the goalposts all you want kid... it's all you've got.