Letter: Restore normal Senate procedures

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 14, 2018 6:21 a.m.

    To "my_two_cents_worth" ok, here you go:

    John Marshall Harlan II who didn't even make it out of committee.
    Pierce Butler was never even considered by the Senate.
    Thomas Stanley Matthews never was considered by the Senate because it was too close to the end of Rutherford B. Hayes' term.
    Edward A. Bradford, George Edmund Badger, and William C. Micou were nominated by Millard Fillmore and the senate declined to give them hearings.

    There you go 6 SOCTUS nominees that were denied hearings by the Senate.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Sept. 13, 2018 7:17 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    "In fact, there were many that were not given a hearing for the same exact reasoning that the Senate gave Obama regarding Garland."

    Name 'em.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 13, 2018 8:26 a.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" not giving Garland a hearing, as I have pointed out to others, was not a new event. There are multiple SCOTUS nominees that were never given a hearing. In fact, there were many that were not given a hearing for the same exact reasoning that the Senate gave Obama regarding Garland.

    The fact that Democrats swore revenge before anybody was even nominated was a new thing.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2018 2:51 a.m.

    @RedShirtHarvard
    "The Democrats had letters declaring that they would stop whoever Trump nominated BEFORE a nomination was even announced."

    You seem to find this sort of behavior repugnant for some reason. And yet you ask

    "how was the refusal to hear Garland bad?"

    when blocking Garland was a declaration by Republicans that they would refuse to even hold a hearing for whoever the nominee would be. So I feel like you know the answer to your own question.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 12, 2018 11:08 p.m.

    @Susan Storm "I am not comfortable with a Supreme Court nominee that doesn't think a President can't be indicted for crimes while in office."

    Do you prefer indicting someone who has pardon power, and is the head of the branch bringing the indictment? Why not follow the Constitution? The constitutional remedy is impeachment. Once a president has been impeached and removed from office, an indictment can be brought without all the tricky circumstances.

    @Susan Storm "It feels like the President is hand picking a person that will let him get away with anything."

    He is picking a person who knows and follows the Constitution, who has stated clearly, "No one is above the law."

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 12, 2018 6:53 p.m.

    Re: "The country is in a long, steady, but inevitable shift to the left."

    Hmmm. Interesting assertion, that only the Left has a "practical reason" to go nuclear. Seems like the Right has just as practical a reason as did Reid. Harry wanted to aid, enable, and assist the "inevitable" shift to the left. Conservatives want to avoid it.

    You'd think that if this shift were really as inevitable as the Left asserts, it would be content to let it happen, rather than abandon all reason, civility, and decency to push the shift.

    Maybe you know it's not as inevitable as you'd like us to believe, hmmmm?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 12, 2018 4:45 p.m.

    Re: "This will force the current president to nominate a more moderate candidate capable of attaining 60-vote bipartisan support in the Senate."

    And, of course by "more moderate," what the Left actually means is, "less dedicated to the Constitution and the Rule of Law."

    And, of course the next time Democrats get a chance, they'll certainly exercise the "nuclear option." Why wouldn't they? Harry Reid invented it.

    Suggesting that Democrats would somehow hew to a different line than Republicans simply flies in the face of reason. Politics is power. Republicans currently have it, so Democrats are reduced to using disingenuous and bombastic homilies -- like this opinion piece -- on the dire consequences of exercising political power unethically.

    Maybe we ought to listen to them, though -- they've clearly demonstrated by the antics of the Obama-era IRS, EPA/ACOE, FBI, Intelligence Sector -- and most tellingly, the Obama-era [in]Justice Department -- that they know an awful lot about the dire consequences of the unethical exercise of political power.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 12, 2018 2:39 p.m.

    To "Kent C. DeForrest" how was the refusal to hear Garland bad? As I pointed out already, there have been multiple nominees that the Senate refused to even have hearing for or else never made it out of committee.

    But tell us why it was ok for Reid to use the Nuclear option to stop the obstruction but not McConnell? The Democrats had letters declaring that they would stop whoever Trump nominated BEFORE a nomination was even announced.

    FYI, Clinton lost by 77 votes, you see it is the Electoral College that counts, not the popular vote.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Sept. 12, 2018 2:19 p.m.

    Reid went nuclear for a practical reason. The obstructionist GOP was blocking all sorts of ordinary appointments, just because they hated Obama and wanted to undermine the government. Many significant government positions were standing empty, and important work was being impeded. Reid left the Supreme Court appointments at 60 percent because these are very different from most other appointments, and the 60 threshold prevents extremists from getting the court too far out of balance.

    McConnell went nuclear on the Supreme Court for a simple reason. He could see the writing on the wall. The country is in a long, steady, but inevitable shift to the left. He knew that before long his party would be a minority party and would probably not have the opportunity to load the Court for decades to come.

    His refusal to even grant Garland a hearing was inexcusable. His excuse? The people should have a say. Well, the people tried. They voted for Clinton by a margin of almost 3 million votes. But did they get their say? No, because of McConnell's duplicity.

  • Susan Storm Sandy, UT
    Sept. 12, 2018 12:07 p.m.

    I am not comfortable with a Supreme Court nominee that doesn't think a President can't be indicted for crimes while in office.

    It feels like the President is hand picking a person that will let him get away with anything.

    Gross.

  • Black Knight American Fork, UT
    Sept. 12, 2018 9:20 a.m.

    Mr. Jacobs: Do you seriously believe that, if the situation was reversed with a Democrat president and a Dem 51-49 majority in the Senate, the Dems would change back to a 60 vote requirement to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court (especially if that nominee was a liberal in his/her judicial views)? I think the answer is very obvious.

  • Thomas Jefferson Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2018 9:08 a.m.

    Its not going to happen. Statemen dont exist any more. Its all about power and attention.

    Party before country is the new normal.
    For many it isnt even a philosophical difference, it is more like how they choose and cheer for a sports team.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 12, 2018 8:15 a.m.

    I hate to be the one to bring facts into the discussion, but the nuclear option was first enacted by Democrat Harry Reid in 2013.

    To "unrepentant progressive" you are wrong. according to history there were other judges that were nominated but were never considered. There was John Marshall Harlan II who didn't even make it out of committee. Pierce Butler was never even considered by the Senate. Thomas Stanley Matthews never was considered by the Senate because it was too close to the end of Rutherford B. Hayes' term. Millard Fillmore nominated Edward A. Bradford, George Edmund Badger, and William C. Micou and the senate declined to give them hearings. So, what happened to Merrick Garland has happened before.

    To "Karen R." is sounds more like you don't like Republicans doing what Democrats have done before them.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Sept. 12, 2018 7:33 a.m.

    Senator Reid explicitly left the filibuster rule in for Supreme Court nominees. 'Twas O'Connell that decided he wanted extremists on the Supreme Court that would never get Democratic support for a vote to end a filibuster.

    Why do party of trump apologists need to "shade" truth? Are they ashamed of their naked power grabs?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Sept. 12, 2018 5:25 a.m.

    I've given up on what currently stands for the Republican party. IMO we need to accept reality and stop hoping that they are going to do the right thing; that they're going to start honoring the system. They haven't shown this predilection for some time now. They have instead shown a willingness to obstruct, change the rules, and rig the system to ensure that their shrinking numbers nevertheless maintain governing power.

    We need to vote OUT Republicans at every level, state and federal. They have shown their true colors. They don't believe in government of/by/for the people. They believe in government of/by/for people that look like them. Vote these people OUT.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    Sept. 12, 2018 2:19 a.m.

    Unrepentant, Bork was a great nominee who was unnecessarily trashed. He was not an extremist by any definition but your own. Stop trying to re-write history.

    To the Author, no two Senators cannot change the rules. And that rule change would only benefit the left who initiated the "Nuclear option" in the first place.

    The 60 vote rule was a relatively recent invention anyway and has resulted in much legislation (good and bad) simply dying un-debated and unvoted on in the Senate. The Constitution does not establish any vote margin except on amendments and impeachments, the house doesn't use one so why should the Senate.

    The nomination process has been trashed by the left. It should be used to identify real shortcomings in a nominee. I.E. legal and ethical issues. Not political biases, This is why Hatch would always ask tough questions but always voted to confirm. Because legal and ethical issues were not found in the nominees, just as they have not been found in Kavanaugh. That partisan politics can leave our courts understaffed and allow for the Borking and attempted Borking of highly qualified nominees is the real travesty, not the elimination of the 60 vote barrier.

  • Boberino Farmington, UT
    Sept. 11, 2018 11:21 p.m.

    Thank Senator Reid for the current state of affairs for confirming nominees in the senate. We don’t need anyone on the court except those who are willing to follow the constitution. Judge Kavanaugh seems to be that kind of person.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Sept. 11, 2018 10:11 p.m.

    Bork got his hearing, No Names. Merrick Garland was not even asked to a hearing. Bork did not have the votes to be elevated to the Supreme Court. And with good reason, he was after all and extremist and a lackey for disgraced President Nixon.

    The point of 60 votes is to have a candidate who is more central than extreme. Until the man who occupies the Merrick Garland seat, this was practice in modern times. It suited the party of trump to erase even that fig leaf of respectability. To their never ending shame.

    We don't need one more extremist on the Supreme Court. We have 4 already, and probably will have a fifth soon as the party of trump changed the rules in a naked display of power.

    After all, is it not a fact that power is all that matters now with the party of trump? Ethics, morality, honor and democratic traditions don't matter anymore to the trump party. Only power.

    That is how we lose our democracy.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Sept. 11, 2018 9:40 p.m.

    It is always so easy to demand the other side do the right thing. An honest man would demand his own party do the right thing.

    Democrats invented the practice of Borking nominees. They opposed Kavanaugh before he was even named.

    Democrats, do the right thing by voting to confirm a well qualified candidate who doesn't share your world view.