Joe Summer
Footballguy
What "roles" would we hypothetically be talking about here? Because the GOP had a triple majority in 2017, didn't they? Couldn't they have used their powers to expand the SC at that time?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
bigbottom
Footballguy
But they hadn’t had a Supreme Court stolen at that point. Now, of course the Republicans would do it. Which is why it’s completely fine for the Dems to do it (at least that’s the basic argument I’ve been hearing over the last couple days).
Silver lining. The discussion about Democrats possibly increasing the number of Justices makes me feel a bit less dejected about the prospect of a Trump reelection.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thunderlips
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
So if Obamacare gets struck down in January and with it go preexisting coverage protections, bans on lifetime coverage caps (which could really hurt cancer patients), keeping your kid on your plan until age 26, etc. couldn’t this really backfire on Republicans?
edit: American Cancer Society on The Affordable Care Act - How it Helps People with Cancer and their Families:
https://www.cancer.org/treatment/finding-and-paying-for-treatment/understanding-health-insurance/health-insurance-laws/the-health-care-law.html
edit: American Cancer Society on The Affordable Care Act - How it Helps People with Cancer and their Families:
https://www.cancer.org/treatment/finding-and-paying-for-treatment/understanding-health-insurance/health-insurance-laws/the-health-care-law.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Can we end the rhetoric about how the Republicans stole a seat? That's not what McConnell did. If McConnell had done exactly what he was supposed to do by scheduling hearings and a vote for Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court would look exactly the same.
Garland was not going to be confirmed. Numerous Senators were going to vote to disconfirm a qualified candidate from the opposing party just like Obama did when he was a Senator.
The only difference would be that Garland would have lost 55-45 or whatever instead of simply "N/A."
The "stolen seat" rhetoric is bad not only because it's false, but also because it's going to be used to justify ruining democracy even more.
Hasn't democracy been ruined enough lately? Maybe we should reverse that trend instead of continuing it?
Garland was not going to be confirmed. Numerous Senators were going to vote to disconfirm a qualified candidate from the opposing party just like Obama did when he was a Senator.
The only difference would be that Garland would have lost 55-45 or whatever instead of simply "N/A."
The "stolen seat" rhetoric is bad not only because it's false, but also because it's going to be used to justify ruining democracy even more.
Hasn't democracy been ruined enough lately? Maybe we should reverse that trend instead of continuing it?
dawgtrails
Footballguy
This is a pretty big difference though, right? I do agree that the stolen seat thing is a bit of an oversell though
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
I'm not much on history. Has the senate ever kicked the can down the road for 10 months in anticipation of an election before?
skol asylum
Footballguy
Except that is not how it has worked historically. Garland was seen as a very moderate pick. Historically the Senate has set aside their political leanings and approved justices from both sides of the aisle. Mitch should have allowed the vote and Garland should have been approved. And then Trump should have had his pick approved now as well, assuming he didn't nominate some extreme candidate. That's how it is supposed to work.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
Mitch offered political cover to every Republican by doing this. There could have been consequences had they voted against a moderate justice.
The tradition of voting against qualified candidates for ideological reasons would not have started with Garland if he'd been put to a vote. Senator Obama voted against Alito and Roberts, for example, which deprives him of standing to complain about it happening to his own nominee. The most famous example is still Bork.
bigbottom
Footballguy
To the extent you are referring to me (maybe you’re not), that isn’t my point at all. I’m on record that I think Trump should nominate his candidate and the current Senate should move ahead with holding hearings and a confirmation vote. What I was criticizing is the current justification of the obvious hypocrisy of certain Republican senators that it’s okay because the Dems would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. I think that’s a lame argument. And because it leads to further escalation I’m pretty sure you think it’s lame as well. My example of the Dems justifying expanding the number of Justices because “hey the Republicans stole a seat and they would do the same thing if the roles were reversed” is designed to show the fallacy of such a justification, not to support it. And I used the stole a seat phrase as part of the fallacious argument that would be made.
As an aside, I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusion that Garland would have been voted down had hearings been held. I think there was a real risk that he could have been confirmed, which is why Mitch did what he did and a whole bunch of Senators made the arguments that they did about why Garland should be denied a hearing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
It was more than that. Here's what he said: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court...It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."
In 2014, the voters flipped control of the Senate previously in favor of the Democrats to the Republicans by 9 seats. If that's not an indication from voters wanted Obama checked, I don't know what is. Conversely, Trump isn't a lame-duck President and in the most recent National Election the voters added 2 seats to the Senate Republicans. The context here isn't the same.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Mitch indicated at the time he was prepared to kick the can down the road for an entire Hillary Clinton 4 year term if she won.
The Commish
Footballguy
You seem to be changing the subject. My point isn't that what McConnell did was right and proper; it's that it didn't amount to stealing a seat.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
So you think the senate would have voted against every nomination bought forward over the next 10 months? Has this been done in the past in order to get to the next election?
It wasn't in response to you, and I agree with all of that.
My gut feeling is that, given the political climate at the time (which has only gotten worse since then), no Obama nominee was going to be confirmed by a Republican Senate in 2016. I haven't tried to quantify what odds I'd have to be offered in order to take the other side of that bet, but at even odds I'd feel pretty good betting on the nays.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
These mental gymnastics are unnecessary. McConnell didn't want Garland voted on because he was a non-conservative choice and he thought (correctly) that he could hold off through the election. We both know that's true. None of this other stuff really matters.
Sand
Footballguy
It's a political process and the standard by which impeachment is initiated and decided is fully in the hands of the House.
In other words, they can absolutely just make up charges if they chose to do so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
If the Democrats want to start impeachment, they don't have to make up stuff. They held over stuff from last time.
(Not that I'm in favor of that play because I'm not.)
(Not that I'm in favor of that play because I'm not.)
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
One better. In 1866, President Andrew Johnson nominated Stanbery for a seat on the United States Supreme Court. The Republicans who controlled Congress were at odds with Johnson over post-Civil War Reconstruction, and rather than confirm Stanbery, they passed a law reducing the size of the court.
jm192
Footballguy
Can they? Yes.
Do we the people want the house to use Impeachment for this? I mean holy hell, I can’t imagine the bad optics on that.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
To be fair, the confusion was over different people speculating on what Pelosi's "arrows in the quiver" comment referenced, and that ended up starting two parallel discussions, one regarding what Pelosi/Democrats could do to prevent the confirmation of a nominee and another regarding whether Pelosi/Democrats meant packing the court next year. When reading any specific quote without going back through that portion of the conversation, it was easy to misconstrue a comment on one of those two discussions as applying to the other.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You’re proposing that the Founding Fathers imagined that the ability to choose USSC justices would be predicated on the most preceding Senate election, as much as 2 years prior?
That’s worse that tenuous, and it also has never been applied. That’s worse than McConnell’s (as it turns out fraudulent) claim that the selection should be paused for the next President.
But even *if you accept that, it’s just redundant because it presumes the whole =>Senate<= gets the choice, not that of a singular Senator forming less than half of the full delegation from his rural state.
Tell Madison, Hamilton & Jay’s ghosts that they were surreptitiously ceding Control of the Supreme Court to a single Senator from say Georgia in 1789 & they’d likely throw a poltergeist.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shutout
Footballguy
She was asked about the possibility towards the president and the Attorney General and her response was that they "have weapons/options" in their arsenal and she was not going to discuss those with the interviewer. I think people kind of put words in her mouth there.
Shutout
Footballguy
Pulling this from another thread on the SC since there seems to be several posts regarding Mitch McConnell's support now vs. his non-support in 2016 of a nomination. There are lots of words being thrown around that suggest its a hypocritical move, its heinous, its a precedent being set, etc.
So, the idea that is a precedent isn't really one at all. I, myself, had said to someone mentioning this as a Mitch McConnell thing that it was more of a Strom Thurmond thing, then Joe Biden thing, then Mitch but it goes farther back than that. All the way back to the beginning, in fact.
So, in the history of our United States:
-There have been 29 times in which a vacancy came up during an election year.
Of those 29 times, the sitting president has nominated a replacement 29 times. That's batting 1000 for us sports fans playing at home. Every single time, the sitting president has made a nomination.
-Of those 29 times, the parties between the sitting president and the senate has been split (e.g., Dem president and republican controlled senate) 10 times.
Of those 10 times, 6 nominations were made before the election and 4 were made after but before the inauguration (the lame duck scenario).
Of those 10 nominations, 1 was confirmed (Cleveland administration).
-Of those 29 times, 19 nominations were made when the White House and the Senate were controlled by the same party.
Of those, 10 were nominated before the election with 9 confirmed. The other 9 were in the lame duck period.
So, it's not really unprecedented at all. It just happens to be much more magnified right now as we live in this hyper-partisan environment and the results are very much what you expect in that the parties in power, when unified, succeed and the when not, they typically don't. No one would be shocked by that.
So, the idea that is a precedent isn't really one at all. I, myself, had said to someone mentioning this as a Mitch McConnell thing that it was more of a Strom Thurmond thing, then Joe Biden thing, then Mitch but it goes farther back than that. All the way back to the beginning, in fact.
So, in the history of our United States:
-There have been 29 times in which a vacancy came up during an election year.
Of those 29 times, the sitting president has nominated a replacement 29 times. That's batting 1000 for us sports fans playing at home. Every single time, the sitting president has made a nomination.
-Of those 29 times, the parties between the sitting president and the senate has been split (e.g., Dem president and republican controlled senate) 10 times.
Of those 10 times, 6 nominations were made before the election and 4 were made after but before the inauguration (the lame duck scenario).
Of those 10 nominations, 1 was confirmed (Cleveland administration).
-Of those 29 times, 19 nominations were made when the White House and the Senate were controlled by the same party.
Of those, 10 were nominated before the election with 9 confirmed. The other 9 were in the lame duck period.
So, it's not really unprecedented at all. It just happens to be much more magnified right now as we live in this hyper-partisan environment and the results are very much what you expect in that the parties in power, when unified, succeed and the when not, they typically don't. No one would be shocked by that.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Just to be clear, I didn't say it was a good option. I was merely responding to the question of what the House could (theoretically) do to slow down or prevent the confirmation of a nominee.
dawgtrails
Footballguy
The most recent national election was in 2016, wasn't it? In that same election that Trump won, the dems gained 2 seats in the senate
Sand
Footballguy
Oh, I agree completely. Just noting that it is a completely political process - "high crimes and misdemeanors" is what the House says it is.
Shutout
Footballguy
With the ending of the Fiscal year at the end of the month, they could also choose to force a government shutdown and stall the process. Or, senators could simply fail to show and force the hand of the Sergeant at arms.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I was thinking this morning how things might have been different if the dates that Justices Ginsberg and Scalia died were swapped. Maybe it would be the same but I think things could be different.
No doubt those on the right didn’t want Obama replacing Scalia anymore than the left wants Trump replacing Ginsberg. I think had Ginsberg died in early 2016 there would be much less backing for McConnell to block a Garland nomination to replace Ginsberg. Granted Obama may well have gone with another more liberal nominee in that circumstance. However, I think it’s very possible Garland could have been approved and if so, there would be much less opposition to Trump replacing Scalia had he just died in 2020.
Both Scalia and Ginsberg were admired by those who shared their philosophies. It just so happens each died late in the term of a President from the party philosophically opposed to their views.
No doubt those on the right didn’t want Obama replacing Scalia anymore than the left wants Trump replacing Ginsberg. I think had Ginsberg died in early 2016 there would be much less backing for McConnell to block a Garland nomination to replace Ginsberg. Granted Obama may well have gone with another more liberal nominee in that circumstance. However, I think it’s very possible Garland could have been approved and if so, there would be much less opposition to Trump replacing Scalia had he just died in 2020.
Both Scalia and Ginsberg were admired by those who shared their philosophies. It just so happens each died late in the term of a President from the party philosophically opposed to their views.
Shutout
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
The Founding Fathers said that the President nominates a SC Justice with advice and consent of the Senate. The rule isn't the President nominates a SC Justice and the Senate must confirm. Elections have consequences and the 2014 mid-term elections allowed the Republican Senate to gain control of the confirmation process. The Senate could have gone through a sham meetings with Garland, a sham proceeding and then a sham vote to not confirmed Garland. Sure, the Republicans would now look better in that situation, but the Garland results would have been the same. You can agree or disagree on the reasoning, but the reasoning isn't really all that important.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
dawgtrails
Footballguy
Just confused by your word choice. Aren't our only national elections the presidential kind?
dawgtrails
Footballguy
Shutout
Footballguy
ok, just saw that as i was skimming through. I probably didn't read enough to see what you guys were digging into. Please disregard.
gianmarco
Footballguy
To counter this, if they had voted and denied Garland a seat, Obama could still have nominated another candidate that may have been more suited to pass through. But he was never given that opportunity. So you could still argue the "stolen seat" rhetoric from that standpoint, no?
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
No, because Obama had that same option in 2016. He could have withdrawn Garland's name and submitted a more moderate (or more conservative) judge.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Well, except the Republicans were on record stating that Garland wasn't given a vote because it was an election year, not because they had reservations about his qualifications (or moderacy).
The Commish
Footballguy
Guess I am just a pessimist....I don't think there is a chance McConnell brings to the floor a confirmation of ANYONE Obama nominated unless it was someone squarely in the "conservative" camp which was never going to happen. McConnell made crystal clear his desire to work with the Obama administration on ANYTHING just days after Obama won.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I was considering the context of where we were in 2016 at that time. The vast majority of people thought Clinton was going to win. I think the justice he was replacing had lots to do with it. Sure, Hillary could have gone further left with a nominee, but to replace Scalia, McConnell had very little to lose. Had it been Ginsberg's seat and what was at the time a likely Clinton win, I think the calculus could have been different. Just my opinion though and something nobody can know for sure.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
Now that it's going to be 6-3 Conservative, I can't see how abortion and Obamacare will not be challenged. The Dems only chance would be to increase to atleast 11 and add two liberal leaning judges.
Assuming Obama was not going to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, there was nobody more palatable to Republicans than Garland should have been. I believe the Republicans would have voted to disconfirm anyone Obama nominated.
If you want to criticize them for that, I'm right there with you. I hate the practice of voting against eminently qualified nominees just because they're in the opposite party.
But in that case, the criticism amounts to, "Hey, Republicans did to Obama exactly what Obama did to Republicans when, as a Senator, he voted against confirming Alito and Roberts." It's not like Roberts was some nutcase extremist. So that criticism loses some rhetorical force. The "stole a seat" mantra implies that the Republicans did something novel -- not that they simply followed in Obama's own footsteps.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I just want to point out a couple things:
- You’ve blown by my point about the duty and power weighing on and belonging to the Senate, not one man. The Senate has other onuses upon them - impeachment, when it happens, appointments of federal judges, funding the government, etc., as provided for in Sec. I. It’s a violation of duty to ignore those. Having violated one such duty once it has caused a rippling inequity which has caused disturbance in our system, which is precisely what the Founders sought to avoid.
- The way you describe essentially republican/democratic (lower cap) duties as a ‘sham’ is disturbing. Yes I think Senators doing their job per their oath is a sacrosanct responsibility and shrugging it off like this is itself shameful. McConnell’s corruption of a system that for a long time was built on fairness, honor and tradition is sadly despicable.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
I wouldn't bother. In this thread they seem to be equating Obama voting against a couple SC justices that were going to be slam dunk entries, the same as what McConnel did. The fact that they cannot differentiate between these two acts makes it futile to argue this point.
