Justice Scalia Dead (2 Viewers)

[Higgs]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

The Senate does not have to confirm the nominee. Just look at the Reagan and Nixon years.

 

[timschochet]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

The Senate does not have to confirm the nominee. Just look at the Reagan and Nixon years.

Is there a case of them refusing to confirm a moderate on either side? It seems like the only time they refuse is if they're extremist (like Bork) or if there's some obvious controversy (Ginsberg)

 

[jonessed]

Wow. How quick is the turn around on replacing them? Was he expected to retire soon?

He was not going to retire with Obama being able to nominate a replacement. Obama will likely give a quick name but the Senate will hold it up as much as possible.

They will hold it up at least until the next President is elected. 100% chance.

I'll take that bet. The Republicans do anything to stop the President from doing his job, the Republicans can say good-bye to the House, Senate, and Presidency in November.

 

[Higgs]

Over the last 120 years the only Supreme Court nominees to have been rejected came from Republican Presidents, and if I'm not mistaken I believe the Senate composition in each case had a Democratic majority.

Fortas for Chief Justice.

-QG

I'm not positive but I don't think there was a vacancy on the court. I think in that case it was a current SC Justice being nominated for the Chief Justice position for a guy who was retiring at a later date. Not certain about this though.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

The Senate does not have to confirm the nominee. Just look at the Reagan and Nixon years.

I suspect that Ursa M meant "confirm or reject" rather than just confirm. The point is that there's no good reason to delay.

 

[pinequick]

Over the last 120 years the only Supreme Court nominees to have been rejected came from Republican Presidents, and if I'm not mistaken I believe the Senate composition in each case had a Democratic majority.

Fortas for Chief Justice.

-QG

I'm not positive but I don't think there was a vacancy on the court. I think in that case it was a current SC Justice being nominated for the Chief Justice position for a guy who was retiring at a later date. Not certain about this though.

??? You can't get nominated if there isn't a(n announced) vacancy. Earl Warren (Chief Justice) announced his retirement. Fortas was an Associate Justice, now nominated for the Chief Justice position by LBJ. Fortas was rejected by a Democratic Senate.

 

[Higgs]

Wow. How quick is the turn around on replacing them? Was he expected to retire soon?

He was not going to retire with Obama being able to nominate a replacement. Obama will likely give a quick name but the Senate will hold it up as much as possible.

They will hold it up at least until the next President is elected. 100% chance.

If they do, I think that backfires on them. Gives more ammunition to the "Republicans are the party of obstructionism" crowd. They've been trying like heck to show that they can govern.

People care about a government shutdown. It affects their lives. I don't think they care too much about a Supreme Court having to function with 8 Justices instead of 9. The Court won't stop working. It may not work as effectively, but I don't think the common person would care all that much. I could be wrong though, and the optics of it could certainly be spun against the Republicans. I think we'll see.

 

[pinequick]

Wow. How quick is the turn around on replacing them? Was he expected to retire soon?

He was not going to retire with Obama being able to nominate a replacement. Obama will likely give a quick name but the Senate will hold it up as much as possible.

They will hold it up at least until the next President is elected. 100% chance.

If they do, I think that backfires on them. Gives more ammunition to the "Republicans are the party of obstructionism" crowd. They've been trying like heck to show that they can govern.

People care about a government shutdown. It affects their lives. I don't think they care too much about a Supreme Court having to function with 8 Justices instead of 9. The Court won't stop working. It may not work as effectively, but I don't think the common person would care all that much. I could be wrong though, and the optics of it could certainly be spun against the Republicans. I think we'll see.

Disagree. Every time a Court decision rolls out 4-4, even Joe Sixpack is going to be saying, "WTF?"

 

[timschochet]

Really hard to predict how this ends up.

All I can guess is that the Republicans will be under a TON of pressure from their base to either delay or reject the nominee whoever it is.

ETA- that being said, the Senate is much more well-equipped to resist that sort of pressure than is the House- which is how the Founding Fathers designed it to be.

 

[Higgs]

Over the last 120 years the only Supreme Court nominees to have been rejected came from Republican Presidents, and if I'm not mistaken I believe the Senate composition in each case had a Democratic majority.

Fortas for Chief Justice.-QG

I'm not positive but I don't think there was a vacancy on the court. I think in that case it was a current SC Justice being nominated for the Chief Justice position for a guy who was retiring at a later date. Not certain about this though.

??? You can't get nominated if there isn't a(n announced) vacancy. Earl Warren (Chief Justice) announced his retirement. Fortas was an Associate Justice, now nominated for the Chief Justice position by LBJ. Fortas was rejected by a Democratic Senate.

It wasn't a nomination to fill a vacancy. It was a nomination for a promotion. It's my understanding the nomination for the filling of the new Associate Justice position wasn't made during that election year.

 

[cosjobs]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

I think the argument that I am hearing is: if it hasn't happened in 80 years, that establishes is a precedent that circumvents the intent of the constitution

 

[pinequick]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

I think the argument that I am hearing is: if it hasn't happened in 80 years, that establishes is a precedent that circumvents the intent of the constitution

That argument is completely lacking factual foundation. It has happened twice in the past 80 years, and 5 times (of a possible 7) in the past 100.

 

[timschochet]

But they're really caught between a rock and a hard place. The Republican senators who are up for re=election in "vulnerable" states- if they allow a nomination to go through, they probably run the risk of being "primaried" by an angry base. If they don't allow a nomination to go through, they run the risk of losing the election. What to do?

 

[Higgs]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/gop-candidates-to-senate-don-1364649168953398.html

These answers are meme's waiting to happen. Talk about the Constitution this, and Constitution that, but when its time to follow the Constitution, what do each of these guys say? "Let's wait for the election to occur even though it is 9 months away."

For shame.

Bush gave a good answer.

Rubio mentioned "ramming down our throats" again. (I think it was The Daily Show that put together a zillion clips of him using that phrase.)

He should have Cruz's porn star do a commercial with him on it.

 

[pinequick]

But they're really caught between a rock and a hard place. The Republican senators who are up for re=election in "vulnerable" states- if they allow a nomination to go through, they probably run the risk of being "primaried" by an angry base. If they don't allow a nomination to go through, they run the risk of losing the election. What to do?

This.

 

[metoo]

I assume Clarence Thomas has had no comment?

He's dead so how can he talk?

 

[Rove!]

Thurmond rule

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

 

[Rirruto]

Thurmond rule

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

If this were mid-summer, that rule might apply.

 

[pinequick]

Thurmond rule

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

If this were mid-summer, that rule might apply.

Quite frankly, no, it would not. It's not a rule. At all.

 

[NREC34]

But they're really caught between a rock and a hard place. The Republican senators who are up for re=election in "vulnerable" states- if they allow a nomination to go through, they probably run the risk of being "primaried" by an angry base. If they don't allow a nomination to go through, they run the risk of losing the election. What to do?

Their job?

 

[cosjobs]

But they're really caught between a rock and a hard place. The Republican senators who are up for re=election in "vulnerable" states- if they allow a nomination to go through, they probably run the risk of being "primaried" by an angry base. If they don't allow a nomination to go through, they run the risk of losing the election. What to do?

Maybe focus on doing their job, rather than strategize which decision will get them re-elected?

 

[Rove!]

Thurmond rulehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

If this were mid-summer, that rule might apply.

Either way, it's dumb...

I guess they will try to extend the Thurmond rule a few months....depending upon how long the selection process takes

It almost forces the President to go moderate. If the nominee is too far left and they find a reason to block him, it may become too close to the election for a second try....

 

[pinequick]

But they're really caught between a rock and a hard place. The Republican senators who are up for re=election in "vulnerable" states- if they allow a nomination to go through, they probably run the risk of being "primaried" by an angry base. If they don't allow a nomination to go through, they run the risk of losing the election. What to do?

Maybe focus on doing their job, rather than strategize which decision will get them re-elected?

You, sir, are an under-appreciated comic genius. Kudos to you!

 

[timschochet]

But they're really caught between a rock and a hard place. The Republican senators who are up for re=election in "vulnerable" states- if they allow a nomination to go through, they probably run the risk of being "primaried" by an angry base. If they don't allow a nomination to go through, they run the risk of losing the election. What to do?

Maybe focus on doing their job, rather than strategize which decision will get them re-elected?

Yeah OK. To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School, this isn't Fantasyland.

 

[Mario Kart]

Thurmond rule

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

If this were mid-summer, that rule might apply.

Or, it may not since "the rule" doesn't even follow its own rules.

 

[timschochet]

Thurmond rule

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

If this were mid-summer, that rule might apply.

Quite frankly, no, it would not. It's not a rule. At all.

But I do think it makes sense at some point. September, October, certainly after November 2.

But it doesn't make sense now.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Yeah, its amusing to hear "Constitutionalist" Ted Cruz talk about the (mythical) 80 year precedent. Where does the Constitution specify that rule?

 

[pinequick]

Thurmond rule

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

If this were mid-summer, that rule might apply.

Quite frankly, no, it would not. It's not a rule. At all.

But I do think it makes sense at some point. September, October, certainly after November 2.

But it doesn't make sense now.

Agreed. It makes sense if the opening occurs close enough to an election to not allow a thorough vetting of the nominee. That is most clearly not the case here.

Plus, presidents have lists of "the bullpen" for stuff like this. Obama *could* (he won't) nominate someone tomorrow if he needed to.

 

[timschochet]

McConnell already throwing down the gauntlet:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,”

He and Grassley can stop it. They can simply prevent it from ever coming to a vote. If they choose, that is.

 

[cosjobs]

But they're really caught between a rock and a hard place. The Republican senators who are up for re=election in "vulnerable" states- if they allow a nomination to go through, they probably run the risk of being "primaried" by an angry base. If they don't allow a nomination to go through, they run the risk of losing the election. What to do?

Maybe focus on doing their job, rather than strategize which decision will get them re-elected?

You, sir, are an under-appreciated comic genius. Kudos to you!

That means a lot to me, coming from not only one of the smartest posters here, but a keen judge of character.

 

[pinequick]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Yeah, its amusing to hear "Constitutionalist" Ted Cruz talk about the (mythical) 80 year precedent. Where does the Constitution specify that rule?

Agreed. Say something enough in the echo-chamber of the ideologically-biased media, and people will believe it. But it IS... NOT... TRUE.

Please relate to any interested individual(s) the following FACT: Supreme Court confirmations have occurred in presidential election years 5 times in the past 100 years, out of 7 possible nominations--the two outlying cases involved 1) Congress being out of session for the year, and 2) alleged crimes committed by the nominee.

When the Senate could do the confirmation... THEY DID.

ETA: Okay, not crimes, but unethical behavior (Fortas allegedly taking cash payments in the run-up to his nomination for Chief Justice in 1968, which along with other accusations ultimately led to his resignation from the Court).

 

[timschochet]

"Senator Rubio, who would you nominate for justice to replace Scalia if you were President?"

"I would consider several conservative candidates who honor Justice Scalia's originalist thinking. There are a few names that come to mind immediately."

"What names?"

"A few names. They come to mind immediately. They are all conservative candidates who honor Justice Scalia's originalist thinking."

"Like who, for instance?"

"Well, there are several that I would consider. Some of them, a few of them you know, came right to my my mind. Naturally, I'm talking about the ones who find Justice Scalia and his originalist thinking to be honorable. And of course, they have to be conservative."

 

[Higgs]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Yeah, its amusing to hear "Constitutionalist" Ted Cruz talk about the (mythical) 80 year precedent. Where does the Constitution specify that rule?

Agreed. Say something enough in the echo-chamber of the ideologically-biased media, and people will believe it. But it IS... NOT... TRUE.Please relate to any interested individual(s) the following FACT: Supreme Court confirmations have occurred in presidential election years 5 times in the past 100 years, out of 7 possible nominations--the two outlying cases involved 1) Congress being out of session for the year, and 2) alleged crimes committed by the nominee.

When the Senate could do the confirmation... THEY DID.

ETA: Okay, not crimes, but unethical behavior (Fortas taking cash payments in the run-up to his nomination for Chief Justice in 1968).

You keep saying this but it's not what we have here. What we have here is a vacancy occurring during an election year in a divided Government. And this hasn't happened since 1880. So there really is no recent precedent for this.

 

[pinequick]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Yeah, its amusing to hear "Constitutionalist" Ted Cruz talk about the (mythical) 80 year precedent. Where does the Constitution specify that rule?

Agreed. Say something enough in the echo-chamber of the ideologically-biased media, and people will believe it. But it IS... NOT... TRUE.Please relate to any interested individual(s) the following FACT: Supreme Court confirmations have occurred in presidential election years 5 times in the past 100 years, out of 7 possible nominations--the two outlying cases involved 1) Congress being out of session for the year, and 2) alleged crimes committed by the nominee.

When the Senate could do the confirmation... THEY DID.

ETA: Okay, not crimes, but unethical behavior (Fortas taking cash payments in the run-up to his nomination for Chief Justice in 1968).

You keep saying this but it's not what we have here. What we have here is a vacancy occurring during an election year in a divided Government. And this hasn't happened since 1880. So there really is no recent precedent for this.

No precedent for what?

If you want to make the criteria specific enough, you can make "no precedent" for anything you want. This is a silly line of argument.

ETA: Example--"We've never had a black president make a nomination for the Supreme Court in the last year of his presidency. There really is no precedent for this." See how that works?

 

[Insomniac]

Marco Rubio said tonight that it's been 80 years since a lame duck President appointed a Supreme Court. That's not true is it?

Current Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic party majority Senate in 1988. Justice Rehnquist and Justice Powell were approved in 1972, also by a Democratic majority Senate.

So - No it isn't true.

 

[Higgs]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Yeah, its amusing to hear "Constitutionalist" Ted Cruz talk about the (mythical) 80 year precedent. Where does the Constitution specify that rule?

Agreed. Say something enough in the echo-chamber of the ideologically-biased media, and people will believe it. But it IS... NOT... TRUE.Please relate to any interested individual(s) the following FACT: Supreme Court confirmations have occurred in presidential election years 5 times in the past 100 years, out of 7 possible nominations--the two outlying cases involved 1) Congress being out of session for the year, and 2) alleged crimes committed by the nominee.

When the Senate could do the confirmation... THEY DID.

ETA: Okay, not crimes, but unethical behavior (Fortas taking cash payments in the run-up to his nomination for Chief Justice in 1968).

You keep saying this but it's not what we have here. What we have here is a vacancy occurring during an election year in a divided Government. And this hasn't happened since 1880. So there really is no recent precedent for this.

No precedent for what?If you want to make the criteria specific enough, you can make "no precedent" for anything you want. This is a silly line of argument.

ETA: Example--"We've never had a black president make a nomination for the Supreme Court in the last year of his presidency. There really is no precedent for this." See how that works?

You were implying that this situation has happened before and you know it. What you did there was just as disingenuous as what you were calling out Cruz for doing. I'm just trying to present the facts that are pertinent to this particular situation, that's all. If you don't like the word precedent let's keep it simple - this hasn't happened since 1880.

 

[nittanylion]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Maurile, what do you (or anyone else posting here) know about Strom Thurmond (interestingly enough, a Democrat, at least for a time), and the longstanding Senate Tradition called 'The Thurmond Rule', where the Senate stops confirming nominees for lifetime appointments, starting the summer before a Presidential Election?

It's a real thing, and worth researching, for the sake of transparency and accuracy in this discussion, IMO...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

Also, is it so hard for people to vet their sources prior to using them to support their positions? For example, cos - you spew all this vitriol regarding Scalia, and finally someone makes at least a halfhearted effort to ask you to offer some support for your scathing (and IMO, over the line) criticisms of the man, and you're going to cite something from Mother Jones?

It would improve the quality of the discussions around here immensely, if we were to identify/agree upon which media sources were considered legitimate/reasonably close to objective, or at least center-left / center-right, and only offer supporting evidence from those sources when attempting to reinforce one's stance on an issue. I actively try to avoid posting links to articles/commentary emanating from Fox News, because I know how they will be perceived, right or wrong, by my friends from across the aisle...the same way I perceive anything emanting from Mother Jones, Daily Kos and Huffington Post: overwhelmingly biased, to say the least; full of crap, to say the most.

You know, when President Reagan nominated Justice Scalia in 1986, he was unanimously confirmed...I think the greatest thing ever would be if all parties involved put partisan politics aside, and as an homage to Justice Scalia, somehow found a nominee who could be unanimously confirmed. Things are so divided/have become so divisive over the past decade or so, anything even faintly resembling Statesmanship would really be something to behold...

 

[pinequick]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Maurile, what do you (or anyone else posting here) know about Strom Thurmond (interestingly enough, a Democrat, at least for a time), and the longstanding Senate Tradition called 'The Thurmond Rule', where the Senate stops confirming nominees for lifetime appointments, starting the summer before a Presidential Election?

It's a real thing, and worth researching, for the sake of transparency and accuracy in this discussion, IMO...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

Also, is it so hard for people to vet their sources prior to using them to support their positions? For example, cos - you spew all this vitriol regarding Scalia, and finally someone makes at least a halfhearted effort to ask you to offer some support for your scathing (and IMO, over the line) criticisms of the man, and you're going to cite something from Mother Jones?

It would improve the quality of the discussions around here immensely, if we were to identify/agree upon which media sources were considered legitimate/reasonably close to objective, or at least center-left / center-right, and only offer supporting evidence from those sources when attempting to reinforce one's stance on an issue. I actively try to avoid posting links to articles/commentary emanating from Fox News, because I know how they will be perceived, right or wrong, by my friends from across the aisle...the same way I perceive anything emanting from Mother Jones, Daily Kos and Huffington Post: overwhelmingly biased, to say the least; full of crap, to say the most.

You know, when President Reagan nominated Justice Scalia in 1986, he was unanimously confirmed...I think the greatest thing ever would be if all parties involved put partisan politics aside, and as an homage to Justice Scalia, somehow found a nominee who could be unanimously confirmed. Things are so divided/have become so divisive over the past decade or so, anything even faintly resembling Statesmanship would really be something to behold...

Did you read any posts in this thread? (see above for link to the Strom Thurmond "rule")

Did you read the link you posted? The Strom Thurmond is not a rule at all. He didn't even follow it.

 

[pinequick]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Yeah, its amusing to hear "Constitutionalist" Ted Cruz talk about the (mythical) 80 year precedent. Where does the Constitution specify that rule?

Agreed. Say something enough in the echo-chamber of the ideologically-biased media, and people will believe it. But it IS... NOT... TRUE.Please relate to any interested individual(s) the following FACT: Supreme Court confirmations have occurred in presidential election years 5 times in the past 100 years, out of 7 possible nominations--the two outlying cases involved 1) Congress being out of session for the year, and 2) alleged crimes committed by the nominee.

When the Senate could do the confirmation... THEY DID.

ETA: Okay, not crimes, but unethical behavior (Fortas taking cash payments in the run-up to his nomination for Chief Justice in 1968).

You keep saying this but it's not what we have here. What we have here is a vacancy occurring during an election year in a divided Government. And this hasn't happened since 1880. So there really is no recent precedent for this.

No precedent for what?If you want to make the criteria specific enough, you can make "no precedent" for anything you want. This is a silly line of argument.

ETA: Example--"We've never had a black president make a nomination for the Supreme Court in the last year of his presidency. There really is no precedent for this." See how that works?

You were implying that this situation has happened before and you know it. What you did there was just as disingenuous as what you were calling out Cruz for doing. I'm just trying to present the facts that are pertinent to this particular situation, that's all. If you don't like the word precedent let's keep it simple - this hasn't happened since 1880.

Two thoughts:

1) "This situation" means what? The parties involved did not to my knowledge discuss divided government once--Grassley sure didn't in the press release I cited above. He was talking about how "confirmation votes don't happen in presidential election years." FALSE. You injected "divided government" in this scenario.

2) What does divided government have to do with this? Please explain.

 

[Mario Kart]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Maurile, what do you (or anyone else posting here) know about Strom Thurmond (interestingly enough, a Democrat, at least for a time), and the longstanding Senate Tradition called 'The Thurmond Rule', where the Senate stops confirming nominees for lifetime appointments, starting the summer before a Presidential Election?

It's a real thing, and worth researching, for the sake of transparency and accuracy in this discussion, IMO...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

Also, is it so hard for people to vet their sources prior to using them to support their positions? For example, cos - you spew all this vitriol regarding Scalia, and finally someone makes at least a halfhearted effort to ask you to offer some support for your scathing (and IMO, over the line) criticisms of the man, and you're going to cite something from Mother Jones?

It would improve the quality of the discussions around here immensely, if we were to identify/agree upon which media sources were considered legitimate/reasonably close to objective, or at least center-left / center-right, and only offer supporting evidence from those sources when attempting to reinforce one's stance on an issue. I actively try to avoid posting links to articles/commentary emanating from Fox News, because I know how they will be perceived, right or wrong, by my friends from across the aisle...the same way I perceive anything emanting from Mother Jones, Daily Kos and Huffington Post: overwhelmingly biased, to say the least; full of crap, to say the most.

You know, when President Reagan nominated Justice Scalia in 1986, he was unanimously confirmed...I think the greatest thing ever would be if all parties involved put partisan politics aside, and as an homage to Justice Scalia, somehow found a nominee who could be unanimously confirmed. Things are so divided/have become so divisive over the past decade or so, anything even faintly resembling Statesmanship would really be something to behold...

Its summer now?

 

[Higgs]

"This situation" means a vacancy occurring in the Supreme Court during an election year in a divided government, where the Presidential nomination and the Senate appointment both have to take place in the election year. And by divided government I mean a President in one party and the Senate in another party. We wouldn't be having an issue if the Senate was Democrat controlled. This situation hasn't happened since 1880. Grassley has screwed this up, as has Cruz and Rubio. I'm not sure where their "80" number comes from. Maybe they were prepped right before the debate and told 1880 and flubbed it by saying "the last 80 years" during the heat of the moment.

 

[pinequick]

"This situation" means a vacancy occurring in the Supreme Court during an election year in a divided government, where the Presidential nomination and the Senate appointment both have to take place in the election year. And by divided government I mean a President in one party and the Senate in another party. We wouldn't be having an issue if the Senate was Democrat controlled. This situation hasn't happened since 1880. Grassley has screwed this up, as has Cruz and Rubio. I'm not sure where their "80" number comes from. Maybe they were prepped right before the debate and told 1880 and flubbed it by saying "the last 80 years" during the heat of the moment.

"This situation" means a vacancy occurring in the Supreme Court during an election year in a divided government, where the Presidential nomination and the Senate appointment both have to take place in the election year.

Ummmm... yeah. That's kind of what I already said. If you put enough conditions on it, you can make "no precedent" for almost anything. It would help if some of your conditions were actually germane.

I know what a divided government IS--I'm asking you why you think it is relevant? How does partisan control of the executive/legislative branches have anything to do with the Senate following their constitutionally-mandated duties?

 

[Mario Kart]

"This situation" means a vacancy occurring in the Supreme Court during an election year in a divided government, where the Presidential nomination and the Senate appointment both have to take place in the election year. And by divided government I mean a President in one party and the Senate in another party. We wouldn't be having an issue if the Senate was Democrat controlled. This situation hasn't happened since 1880. Grassley has screwed this up, as has Cruz and Rubio. I'm not sure where their "80" number comes from. Maybe they were prepped right before the debate and told 1880 and flubbed it by saying "the last 80 years" during the heat of the moment.

All of what you stated means nothing. This process takes around three months to complete and has taken that amount of time for the last dozen or so nominations. The President has the duty and responsibility to nominate someone for the Supreme Court per his stated job in the Constittution. Whatever numbers and "facts" that may be presented offer little else than just being simple numbers. Let the man get buried before all this hoopla begins but even the most extreme Tea Party person cannot deny that the nomination should occur. Anyone who says it shouldn't needs some warm milk and a nap after they throw their hissy fit.

 

[cosjobs]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Also, is it so hard for people to vet their sources prior to using them to support their positions? For example, cos - you spew all this vitriol regarding Scalia, and finally someone makes at least a halfhearted effort to ask you to offer some support for your scathing (and IMO, over the line) criticisms of the man, and you're going to cite something from Mother Jones?

wtmf are you referring to?

 

[pinequick]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Also, is it so hard for people to vet their sources prior to using them to support their positions? For example, cos - you spew all this vitriol regarding Scalia, and finally someone makes at least a halfhearted effort to ask you to offer some support for your scathing (and IMO, over the line) criticisms of the man, and you're going to cite something from Mother Jones?

wtmf are you referring to?

Pretty sure he means this guy...

 

[Higgs]

"This situation" means a vacancy occurring in the Supreme Court during an election year in a divided government, where the Presidential nomination and the Senate appointment both have to take place in the election year. And by divided government I mean a President in one party and the Senate in another party. We wouldn't be having an issue if the Senate was Democrat controlled. This situation hasn't happened since 1880. Grassley has screwed this up, as has Cruz and Rubio. I'm not sure where their "80" number comes from. Maybe they were prepped right before the debate and told 1880 and flubbed it by saying "the last 80 years" during the heat of the moment.

"This situation" means a vacancy occurring in the Supreme Court during an election year in a divided government, where the Presidential nomination and the Senate appointment both have to take place in the election year.Ummmm... yeah. That's kind of what I already said. If you put enough conditions on it, you can make "no precedent" for almost anything. It would help if some of your conditions were actually germane.

I know what a divided government IS--I'm asking you why you think it is relevant? How does partisan control of the executive/legislative branches have anything to do with the Senate following their constitutionally-mandated duties?

Because the Senate is not constitutionally bound to approve a President's nomination. Technically I don't think they even have to deliberate over it within a prescribed period of time. So that's where custom, precedence, and politics factors in.

 

[Higgs]

"This situation" means a vacancy occurring in the Supreme Court during an election year in a divided government, where the Presidential nomination and the Senate appointment both have to take place in the election year. And by divided government I mean a President in one party and the Senate in another party. We wouldn't be having an issue if the Senate was Democrat controlled. This situation hasn't happened since 1880. Grassley has screwed this up, as has Cruz and Rubio. I'm not sure where their "80" number comes from. Maybe they were prepped right before the debate and told 1880 and flubbed it by saying "the last 80 years" during the heat of the moment.

All of what you stated means nothing. This process takes around three months to complete and has taken that amount of time for the last dozen or so nominations. The President has the duty and responsibility to nominate someone for the Supreme Court per his stated job in the Constittution. Whatever numbers and "facts" that may be presented offer little else than just being simple numbers. Let the man get buried before all this hoopla begins but even the most extreme Tea Party person cannot deny that the nomination should occur. Anyone who says it shouldn't needs some warm milk and a nap after they throw their hissy fit.

I don't think anyone is saying that Obama shouldn't nominate someone.

 

[cosjobs]

Precedent, my ###. The president is supposed to nominate to a vacancy and the Senate is supposed to confirm it after due discussion. It doesn't matter two hoots what year it is.

Is there a principled counterargument to this? (I honestly can't think of one.)

Also, is it so hard for people to vet their sources prior to using them to support their positions? For example, cos - you spew all this vitriol regarding Scalia, and finally someone makes at least a halfhearted effort to ask you to offer some support for your scathing (and IMO, over the line) criticisms of the man, and you're going to cite something from Mother Jones?

wtmf are you referring to?

Pretty sure he means this guy...

He's confusing me with Denzel Washington?

 

[cosjobs]

"This situation" means a vacancy occurring in the Supreme Court during an election year in a divided government, where the Presidential nomination and the Senate appointment both have to take place in the election year. And by divided government I mean a President in one party and the Senate in another party. We wouldn't be having an issue if the Senate was Democrat controlled. This situation hasn't happened since 1880. Grassley has screwed this up, as has Cruz and Rubio. I'm not sure where their "80" number comes from. Maybe they were prepped right before the debate and told 1880 and flubbed it by saying "the last 80 years" during the heat of the moment.

All of what you stated means nothing. This process takes around three months to complete and has taken that amount of time for the last dozen or so nominations. The President has the duty and responsibility to nominate someone for the Supreme Court per his stated job in the Constittution. Whatever numbers and "facts" that may be presented offer little else than just being simple numbers. Let the man get buried before all this hoopla begins but even the most extreme Tea Party person cannot deny that the nomination should occur. Anyone who says it shouldn't needs some warm milk and a nap after they throw their hissy fit.

I don't think anyone is saying that Obama shouldn't nominate someone.

Read the news, then report back. Pretty sure all the Repub candidates, the Speaker of the House and the Head of the Judicial Committee all suggested or demanded it.

 

[pinequick]

"This situation" means a vacancy occurring in the Supreme Court during an election year in a divided government, where the Presidential nomination and the Senate appointment both have to take place in the election year. And by divided government I mean a President in one party and the Senate in another party. We wouldn't be having an issue if the Senate was Democrat controlled. This situation hasn't happened since 1880. Grassley has screwed this up, as has Cruz and Rubio. I'm not sure where their "80" number comes from. Maybe they were prepped right before the debate and told 1880 and flubbed it by saying "the last 80 years" during the heat of the moment.

"This situation" means a vacancy occurring in the Supreme Court during an election year in a divided government, where the Presidential nomination and the Senate appointment both have to take place in the election year.Ummmm... yeah. That's kind of what I already said. If you put enough conditions on it, you can make "no precedent" for almost anything. It would help if some of your conditions were actually germane.

I know what a divided government IS--I'm asking you why you think it is relevant? How does partisan control of the executive/legislative branches have anything to do with the Senate following their constitutionally-mandated duties?

Because the Senate is not constitutionally bound to approve a President's nomination. Technically I don't think they even have to deliberate over it within a prescribed period of time. So that's where custom, precedence, and politics factors in.

Sure, I get that this is political. But to hide behind "there is no precedent for this" by creating a hypothetical scenario WHICH HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE (seriously, it's not like it has been possible and the Senate chose not to confirm, IT HASN'T BEEN POSSIBLE) in the past 100 years is intellectually disingenuous.

7 times in the past 100 years there have been openings on the Supreme Court in a presidential election year. 5 times the Senate has confirmed those nominees. That is a fact.