SC nominations used to be evaluated on merit - when did it change

[Russ]

As Trump is about to nominate a new SC Justice, and virtually all Dems are stating they will vote "No" no matter who it is, or what their qualifications are, I recall that it didn't use to be like this. Nominations used to evaluated on merit, not on partisan crap.

When did it change? My opinion is that it all changed during the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. He was highly qualified (despite the ratty beard) but Dems voted against him anyway. That is the first time I'd ever heard of Senators voting against someone's nomination just because of politics. Things descended from there.

Notice that the first time was started by Dems. And each time things got worse, it was because of the Dems.

Clarence Thomas got put through the ringer by a sketchy accusation by one person, and got a lot of "NOs"

Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sono-whatever got confirmed with 90-plus votes. Alito barely got confirmed. Gorsuch barely got confirmed. Both had equal merit to Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sonia. Notice a pattern?

And don't forget that the only reason the Republicans can get a vote on the next SC Justice is because Harry Reid pulled the nuclear option, back when the Dems had the majority.

Anyway, anyone else have any suggestions on when the hyper-partisanship started?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It's official, it's Kavanaugh.

[aboutime]

Now....if we thought Trump Derangement Syndrome was bad....Just wait, and watch to see what a REAL WITCH HUNT looks like from Schumer, and Durban the Turban, WHO instructed challenged Liberal Senators to FALL ON THEIR PAPER SWORDS.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

LET THE MELT DOWN BEGIN...

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Haven't seen much of our board leftist pool toys... must be having rough time. Not a good time to be a little cry baby, protesting, screaming helplessly at the sky, radical liberals nowadays, when everything you do and everything you stand for is being REJECTED by the majority of Americans...

[aboutime]

It's a FINE TIME to M.A.G.A. and the Left can't change it!

[Russ]

So if I were a scum-sucking bottom-feeder DNC apparatchnik, I would start making offers to every female clerk that has ever worked for Kavanaugh.

Offer to pay her mortgage if she will say one or more of these things:

1) Kavanaugh groped her in a drunken stupor during a Christmas party
2) Kavanaugh told inappropriate, sexual-harassment jokes
3) Kavanaugh made some racist or antigay comment(s) at some point 20 years ago


How soon before we hear one of these accusations, even though no one's ever said anything before?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

He is the BUSH judge. He certainly wasn't my first pick. I wanted Coney Barrett.

I think Trump kinda picked the worst one of the 4... IMO.

[Black Diamond]

He is the BUSH judge. He certainly wasn't my first pick. I wanted Coney Barrett.

I think Trump kinda picked the worst one of the 4... IMO.

There will be more.

[gabosaurus]

If I had to pick among the four finalists, Kavanaugh would have been my choice. I like this statement in particular that he made tonight.

My judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written. And a judge must interpret the constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.”

In an earlier district court case involving abortion right, Kavanaugh drew the ire of the religious right with this opinion:

all parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow.

I don't think he will have much trouble getting confirmed.

[Bilgerat]

LET THE MELT DOWN BEGIN...

[Gunny]

As Trump is about to nominate a new SC Justice, and virtually all Dems are stating they will vote "No" no matter who it is, or what their qualifications are, I recall that it didn't use to be like this. Nominations used to evaluated on merit, not on partisan crap.

When did it change? My opinion is that it all changed during the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. He was highly qualified (despite the ratty beard) but Dems voted against him anyway. That is the first time I'd ever heard of Senators voting against someone's nomination just because of politics. Things descended from there.

Notice that the first time was started by Dems. And each time things got worse, it was because of the Dems.

Clarence Thomas got put through the ringer by a sketchy accusation by one person, and got a lot of "NOs"

Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sono-whatever got confirmed with 90-plus votes. Alito barely got confirmed. Gorsuch barely got confirmed. Both had equal merit to Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sonia. Notice a pattern?

And don't forget that the only reason the Republicans can get a vote on the next SC Justice is because Harry Reid pulled the nuclear option, back when the Dems had the majority.

Anyway, anyone else have any suggestions on when the hyper-partisanship started?

Clarence Thomas and the fortune Anita Hill made from a baseless and unproven allegation. THAT is the first time I noticed it going downhill.

It also isn't as noticeable when the left just shoves its activists down the Right's throats because they right doesn't carry on and cry the way the left does. The last two Dem appointees are completely unhinged, leftwingnut loons.