"Remember in 2013 when Harry Reid used the ‘nuclear option’ to confirm judges? Harry Reid’s new rule was that no filibusters could be used to stop judges below the Supreme Court. All it took was a simple majority to confirm them. Harry Reid changed a long-standing tradition in service of Democrat partisanship. Fast forward to 2017. Republicans will have a simple majority in the Senate. And there are over 100 empty judge spots below the Supreme Court" http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/1...ump-to-fill-over-100-court-vacancies-quickly/ Trump will be able to fill 103 vacancies .
What goes around, comes around. Don't worry. The Dems will scream that Trump is using it for racist purposes, whereas they used it to improve diversity or some bullsh.. like that. The MSM will play it up, of course.
The interesting question will be whether the Senate amends the rules again to prohibit filibusters for SCOTUS appointments.
It was a stupid move by Reid, and it's going to backfire on them right away. I don't see any reason why the GOP would exempt Supreme Court nominees.
I think it will happen. After Republicans blocked the Merrick Garland nomination, Dems will go out of their way to prevent any conservative judge from being confirmed. It's going to get ugly.
Going to get ugly? Many would say what Reid and the Dems did in 2013 was pretty ugly Although most Dems thought it was a great move back then since they apparently thought they would always be in power
The gloves have come off, and the pretenses are gone. The Supreme Court is being viewed now as a policy making and political institution, not a judicial body. Though I understand why that has occurred, it's scary.
Mr D I do not pretend to know but I would like to ask. Is it possible that some want the court to not be policy makers and legislate from the bench but to concentrate on applying the Constitution to the issues brought before Them? Or has the court always been in policy making and the results only depend on how the courts Splits?
Some do want the court not to be policy makers, but politics and policy making have always impacted the Court's decisions. That's not new, nor has it been limited to the Left. (For example, conservative justices used the Court as a weapon to strike down economic regulations by state governments in the early 20th Century on questionable grounds.) However, what I think has changed in the last several decades (since the New Deal and especially since the 1950s) is the frequency with which the Court takes hot button issues that voters care about away from the people's elected representatives and substitutes its own social beliefs, and that practice has come overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) from the Left. Sometimes the Constitution warrants overriding the will of the people, but the further the Court gets away from the text of the Constitution in making such rulings, the less legitimacy it has when doing so.
