Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

The chick on the left looks like she just swallowed a turd when they cut back from Pete.

And yeah, he should have been the nominee, but the DNC is averse to actually winning.

Having situations where lapdogs rubber stamping nominees because they're on the same side is "check and balance"?

I absolutely believe if the situation is reversed, I fully expect the same shenanigans from the Democrats abusing their power. That's politics and there lay the core issue.

The SCOTUS should be as apolitical as possible. A system where the people or the other parties CAN get no say by design... that's madness. That's a broken system that need to be fixed.

The founding fathers or the Constitution may have faith in the system. But today, there's ample proof that their faith is misplaced. Hyper-partisanship has FUBAR everything in Washington.

Such utter bullshit and *lies
There are currently 89 nominees awaiting confirmation or refusals, not 129, and another 15 announced but not formally nominated by Trump so not eligible. He's had 510 confirmed (with many quickly leaving or being removed for cause). He bragged about not filling positions before, leaving most departments leaderless or at best with temporary heads with minimal powers to run their departments. There are over 1200 positions he should have filled in January 2017 but couldn't or wouldn't. So much for having the best people, he has the least complete administration ever in our history....couldn't find enough yes men I suppose.

Contrary to Trump's lies, he does not have the power to adjourn congress either unless the house or the Senate adjourn first and the other refuses to adjourn, or if they can't agree on a date. Adjourning the Senate now is something Moscow Mitch said he's not considering, they've got work to do. There is an agreed upon adjournment date, Jan 3 2021, which means Trump has zero power to force adjournment.

This impeached lame duck president should be barred from any new nominations, he's squandered those he started with and with Moscow Mitch's help already stole one Supreme Court seat that wasn't his and filled an extraordinarily high number of federal judge positions. If designated acting heads were fine until now, they're fine until January.

Say it ain't so.
Let's hope that 1. Bloomberg isn't the nominee, he's a nightmare candidate and 2. This rumor is just another Fox opinion lie, that's where you heard it, right? All reports I can find reference them as the source.
No single person has the ability to get Republicans out to get Trump elected more than Hillary Clinton. She already proved that once. Please let's not retest that theory....pretty please.

You're welcome. I was surprised to see it being a nominee and winner.

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

+++++(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

+++++(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

+++++(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Date 5/17/17 General Rod J. Rosenstein


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.justice.gov/sco

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Related:
S.582 - Office of Special Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2017
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/582




GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD
GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD
GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD


++ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
WORKED UNDER JEFF SESSIONS AND WAS APPOINTED BY DONALD JOHN TRUMP


++THE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN SENATE IN 2017
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL


++THE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IN 2017
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL


+++JEFF SESSIONS
LITERALLY THE FIRST SENATOR TO PUBLICLY SUPPORT TRUMP'S ELECTION PRIMARY BID

HE IS ALSO A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN AND THE ONE WHO PUT ROSENSTEIN IN CHARGE


========================================================


ROBERT MULLER
+LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/07/30/fbi-nominee-lauded-for-tenacity/e2012e09-379e-479f-8bd3-8c2aef36152a/

"Mueller, 56, is a registered Republican, yet a striking number of people describe him as apolitical." - July 30, 2001


========================================================


ROBERT MULLER IS PUT IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION

HE FINDS (AMONG MANY OTHER PIECES OF EVIDENCE)

JANUARY 2016
+++++++++++++
Trump Signs the Letter of Intent on behalf of the Trump Organization - “intended to facilitate further discussions” in order to “attempt to enter into a mutually acceptable agreement” related to the Trump-branded project in Moscow.


MARCH 2016
+++++++++++++
Papadopoulos told the group that he had learned through his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet with candidate Trumpand that these connections could help arrange that meeting.

PAPADOPOLOUS CONTINUES CONVERSATIONS OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS AND MAKES TRIPS TO RUSSIA WHICH BEGINS TO RAISE FLAGS WITHIN THE CAMPAIGN

Manafort forwarded the message to another Campaign official, without including Papadopoulos, and stated: “Let[’]s discuss. We need someone to communicate that [Trump] is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the Campaign so as not to send any signal.”

APRIL 2016
+++++++++++++
Papadopoulos admitted telling at least one individual outside of the Campaign—specifically,the then-Greek foreign minister—about Russia’s obtaining Clinton-related emails.

Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

========================================================



THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 OTHER CONTACTS COORDINATING ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP

THE ENTIRE REPORT IS PEPPERED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES

HERE IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE CHARGED BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION

U.S. v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (1:19-cr-18, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael Cohen (1:18-cr-850, Southern District of New York)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)
U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)



========================================================

DO I NEED TO REPEAT THAT?

========================================================
THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 OTHER CONTACTS COORDINATING ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP

HERE IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE CHARGED BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
U.S. v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (1:19-cr-18, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael Cohen (1:18-cr-850, Southern District of New York)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)
U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)


========================================================



STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES


THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T START THE INVESTIGATION INTO DONALD TRUMP


THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS STARTED BY THE REPUBLICANS IN POWER IN 2017 TURNED UP A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AND LANDED DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN JAIL ALL WHILE ACTING AS HUMAN SHIELDS FOR DONALD TRUMP


SEE FOR YOURSELF
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

FOR EVIDENCE OF SPECIFICALLY WHICH LAWS WERE BROKEN AND SPECIFICALLY HOW THEY WERE BROKEN AND BY WHOM, LOOK AT THE

APPLICATION SECTION

PAGE 181 (note page 189-190 are all redacted bc ongoing matter)

OF THE MULLER REPORT, COMPLETE WITH EXTENSIVE CITATIONS.

100% Russian propaganda from the Kremlin tied propaganda network.

So much for the excuse that the investigation didn't happen so there's no bribery, right? Apparently it's been ongoing since Giuliani started pushing them in 2016, but the prosecutor investigating was just fired, having found no Biden crimes, so a new investigation can start with a focus on Biden, who's not accused of anything criminal, his boss is.

Bobski, if receiving money from corrupt Ukrainians is a problem, it's one Trump has far worse than Biden....who won't be the nominee anyway. Trump as president directly took truckloads of Ukrainian money from Russian tied Ukrainian separatists, our enemies, (they've been forced to admit it) then did their bidding, firing an ambassador that stopped some of their corruption.

Biden worked for a company run in part by a man that had previously been accused of using his Ukrainian government position to self deal, a crime that's exactly like what the Trumps have done in China, Scotland, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Canada, and elsewhere. His father, Joe, as part of an official public bipartisan American and international policy then pushed to remove the corrupt prosecutor that man had bribed to drop the corruption case. It's asinine to pretend he pushed to remove the prosecutor to protect his son or his son's boss, to do that he just needed to sit back and let the corrupt prosecutor stay. Only morons repeat this nonsense.

Facts? You don't understand the term, obvious from your posting anything from OAN, the Kremlin's news network that hires Kremlin employed propagandists. *facepalm

Interesting, but I would have liked to have seem how many nominees/appointees the ABA ranked as Unqualified.

There are some portions of the GND that could work, how well I don't know, but they could in theory. My biggest issue with it, beyond the more ludicrous parts, is that it doesn't allow for reality.

It is very much like the Soviet 5 year plans in that there are a series of grand ideas but when they fail they would just rehash and move on to the next set of ideas. It's kind of like Trump's promises about the border wall.

Any logical person knew that Mexico was never going to pay for it and that it would probably never be built, but there are a fuckton of illogical people out there and logical people are as vulnerable to mob peer pressure as anyone else. He might even win a repeat term because there is still a huge rift between the more logical conservative Dems and the pie in the sky ultra progressives. Hell, in the confusion its even been mentioned on CNN that Hillary might toss her hat in again or try to lend weight to a conservative Dem nominee so as to 'trump' the progressives.

Your idea sounds fair, but I could only see something like that working in a country like China, where the 'incentives' are that you don't get stood against the wall.

After seeing his temperament on display, that's probably a good thing.
It's odd to me that a terrorised reluctant witness was incredibly more composed and professional than an applicant for a job that requires calm detachment and a firm control over one's emotions, during what is essentially his job interview.
Instead of remaining calm, he went so far as to attack the senators in his answers, not a good move in a job interview and a clear indication he's not able to put aside personal feelings to judge fairly or professionally.

I hope the next nominee has less baggage and is closer to center, or we'll likely repeat this process.

I feel that he probably won't make it. Sadly once you are accused of sexual anything with a female, you are pretty much fucked. There is no more innocent until proven guilty. Were I him, even though it has been scientifically proven that lie detector tests are inherently flawed, I would have volunteered to take one just to push past this.

On the flip side, the possible next nominee is Judge Amy Coney Barrett and there is precedent for them to completely skip the committee vote, so there is a good possibility that we can still get a conservative judge on the court. She has not been as harsh towards abortion rights either, so there is a silver lining.

It's far more honest and honorable that outright stealing a nomination, neglecting their constitutional obligations for pure partisan gains, degrading and abusing our system of government. Wanting a full vetting of a lifetime appointment to the highest court is the norm, making these appointments pure political spectacle and obstructing procedure is 100% the methodology of Republicans....you're just pissed the Democrats are finally learning to play the game republicans have been playing for decades. I can only hope they continue that MO when the Democrats seize congress next month.

Republicans are now insisting on an FBI investigation or they'll vote no. We will have a new justice, but it may not be Kavanaugh....it might not be a right winger.

I believe there's a question about who to believe. I believe that question disqualifies the nominee. Justices should be above reproach and their morality unquestionable, he fails on both counts. If you have just a reasonable doubt about his innocence, and no reasonable person wouldn't at this point, that's enough to disqualify any nominee.

@Mordhaus, btw, it looks like another woman has come forward.

Again, this isn't proof, but it certainly strengthens the case for investigation.