SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[fskimospy]

Just following the Biden/Obama/Schumer Rule. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Naturally Obama and Biden would know that it is okay, one is a "constitutional professor" (lol) and the other was on the judiciary committee.

You guys were checkmated by your own party's dirty deeds in the last two decades. The "Biden Rule", how fucking glorious.

Eat the crow, bitch, eat it all.

"Biden Rule"? lol.

Can you explain why later in that same speech Biden explicitly said he would consider Bush I's nominees during the election year?

I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate, Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.

Funny how that was left out. Since we're now apparently following the 'Biden Rule' if Obama nominates a moderate as a justice Republicans are required to consider them.

Eat the crow, bitch. lol

 

[FerrelGeek]

Irrespective of this discussion, the next president has the possibility of putting up 3 Justices. Breyer, Kennedy, and Ginsburg are getting up there.

 

[werepossum]

If that happens it won't matter. The wealthy left won't vote for a guy who is going to raise their taxes by 10-15%. So you have the entire left centrists gone.

Plus the faith in the entire DNC is gone. It will all fall and the gop wins.

Dws know this. Obama knows this. That's why there won't be an indictment.

That and what Hillary did is just a more blatant, more open version of what the Pubbies have done. As a political talking point it's great for them; as legal precedent, it's likely to bite they shiny metal asses as well, not to mention give the Dem nomination to the much more honest and much less hated Sanders. The FBI would have to buck both sides of the aisle to indict. Hell, it would have to indict practically the entire D.C. ruling circle to be consistent. Never going to happen. It absolutely SHOULD happen, but it won't.

 

[theeedude]

Irrespective of this discussion, the next president has the possibility of putting up 3 Justices. Breyer, Kennedy, and Ginsburg are getting up there.

Democrats can filibuster too, you know, and nothing special about 1 year.

 

[CountZero]

To be fair to the repub partisans--this current crop of imbeciles were elected explicitly to not do their job. Their only platform was to "block the president from doing anything." So, LK and his 8 year-old playground friends are correct: "the people" did speak wrg to electing this Congress.

That is true though I tend to associate that behavior more with the house than the senate due to the moderating effect of it being a statewide election.

 

[fskimospy]

Democrats can filibuster too, you know, and nothing special about 1 year.

That won't happen. If the Democrats try to filibuster the nomination then the Republicans will remove the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations. I also fully anticipate that the Republicans would eliminate the filibuster for regular legislation if it stands in the way of them accomplishing a major policy goal.

I'm actually fine with this as the filibuster should have died a long time ago, but that's also why the Democrats should have just nuked the whole thing awhile back.

 

[nickqt]

I say it is worse than that. Our media has largely become a private run state media. For as much as the right likes to talk about the left wing media. That left wing media had no problem spewing out the lies of a Bush administration to convince the people we need to go to war for the next two decades. They have become a mouthpiece for the govt.

Well, when you're the largest, most powerful Empire in history, War = Money. Look at how the media cheerled it. It was about money, and status. Look at the media people embedded. They sold all sorts of commercials, made all sorts of money, and acquired all sorts of status.

They are stenographers.

 

[glenn1]

I get your point but 2 big differences. in 1992 there was already a working court. Also vacancy never happened so things moved on.

Now we have a dysfunctional court caused by a death. Just like a similar speech given by Chuck Schumer that he qualified with "unless there are unusual circumstances"

Death on a current court is unusual.

Vacancy never happened in 1992, and a nomination hasn't happened so far in 2016 so both sides are in the posturing stage. Then as now, it's puffery designed as a hail mary in the slim chance it might influence the calculus used by the POTUS in deliberating the choice and ideally obtain a more favorable pick (from the speaker's perspective).

 

[fskimospy]

I say it is worse than that. Our media has largely become a private run state media. For as much as the right likes to talk about the left wing media. That left wing media had no problem spewing out the lies of a Bush administration to convince the people we need to go to war for the next two decades. They have become a mouthpiece for the govt.

I would definitely agree with this. There is a very strong bias in the media to adopt the stance of the government, regardless of what party is running it.

Part of it seems kind of inevitable as the government is the source of so much information, etc, but it's something they have still done a very poor job of fighting against.

 

[werepossum]

The court can function as is. If there were multiple vacancies I agree with you that it becomes increasingly dysfunctional. But in all reality dysfunctional is a matter of opinion. And the court can function right now in its current form IMO.

And there are really two ways a supreme court justice leaves. Death or resignation\retirement. Neither are unusual circumstances. So Schumer really said is we shouldnt confirm any Bush nominee. Because unusual would be something like multiple deaths. Death is not unusual. We have had 112 Justices and about ~45 of them have died while serving on the bench. Schumer is full of shit as usual.

That said I think the GOP should look at Obamas nominee. If he nominates a moderate that wont gut Heller move ahead with great vigor. If Obama nominates a bomb thrower move to the next President.

Exactly. Regardless of both sides' rhetoric, considering and voting on a nominee is their job, one of the Senate's relatively few Constitutional duties. If they want to vote down the nominee, fine; the criteria for approval isn't spelled out. Nor should it be. But they need to do their damned job. Vet, debate, vote up or down. No holds, no filibusters, no ignoring the issue. Almost nine months should be plenty of time for Obama to nominate and the Senate to approve or reject, especially since they aren't going to recess anyway with a recess appointment held over their heads.

 

[theeedude]

Exactly. Regardless of both sides' rhetoric, considering and voting on a nominee is their job, one of the Senate's relatively few Constitutional duties. If they want to vote down the nominee, fine; the criteria for approval isn't spelled out. Nor should it be. But they need to do their damned job. Vet, debate, vote up or down. No holds, no filibusters, no ignoring the issue. Almost nine months should be plenty of time for Obama to nominate and the Senate to approve or reject, especially since they aren't going to recess anyway with a recess appointment held over their heads.

:thumbsup:

 

[theeedude]

That won't happen. If the Democrats try to filibuster the nomination then the Republicans will remove the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations. I also fully anticipate that the Republicans would eliminate the filibuster for regular legislation if it stands in the way of them accomplishing a major policy goal.

I'm actually fine with this as the filibuster should have died a long time ago, but that's also why the Democrats should have just nuked the whole thing awhile back.

Fine, but I am sure the Democrats will remove SCOTUS filibuster too next year if they get the Senate back. And then they can get through a far more liberal justice than they could get through now. So it's a double edged sword for GOP, they can get a moderate like Srinivasan now and move on with their lives. Or they can piss off Asians for decades, lose the Senate, and then get a young liberal as a reward.

 

[umbrella39]

If you think a few politicians posturing will look the same to the general population as actually putting it into practice.

It's going to be fun watching the brain defect that is conservatism crash and burn because of it and their tiny little sheep suck that shit through their pursed lips as the tears roll down their faces.... delicious!

The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years. The inane attempt at history revision displayed here is fucking hilarious!

 

[zinfamous]

That is true though I tend to associate that behavior more with the house than the senate due to the moderating effect of it being a statewide election.

good point. It really was the House that saw the major injection of young, inexperienced and uneducated rednecks voted in to stop the "secret muslim." And this is the Senate's duty, not the House.

Though I get the feeling that current Senate repubs over the last couple of years have been jealous of the blossoming bromance developing among their similar-minded House brethren.

 

[Brainonska511]

This should be interesting:
http://nyti.ms/1TxhQ9F

WASHINGTON — Senate Republican leaders, trying to slam shut any prospects for an election-year Supreme Court confirmation, said on Tuesday they would not even meet with President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, urged the president to reconsider even submitting a name.

At the same time, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans unanimously rejected any confirmation hearings.

 

[theeedude]

This should be interesting:
http://nyti.ms/1TxhQ9F

They will refuse to even meet with (likely) the first Asian American nominated to the Supreme Court? That is their stand?

 

[Jhhnn]

Fine, but I am sure the Democrats will remove SCOTUS filibuster too next year if they get the Senate back. And then they can get through a far more liberal justice than they could get through now. So it's a double edged sword for GOP, they can get a moderate like Srinivasan now and move on with their lives. Or they can piss off Asians for decades, lose the Senate, and then get a young liberal as a reward.

Why project that action onto Dems?

 

[TheVrolok]

This should be interesting:
http://nyti.ms/1TxhQ9F

I got the NYT update as well. I'd like to be composed, but honestly I don't have the energy at this point; these guys are pieces of shit. That simple.

 

[werepossum]

This should be interesting:
http://nyti.ms/1TxhQ9F

Meh. If they can dissuade Obama from nominating, then they win at least a chance to appoint the next Scalia. But Obama will nominate someone; the political benefit for forcing the Republicans' hand is too juicy to pass up. And he'll nominate someone designed to maximize the Pubbies' political hit for not considering. Hell, he might even nominate someone reasonable; political chicken occasionally produces reasonable results. The GOP Senate posturing is nothing different from the previous years' Democrat Senate posturing, and everyone knows it, including Obama.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

They will refuse to even meet with (likely) the first Asian American nominated to the Supreme Court? That is their stand?

They've basically just given that person legal standing to sue for the constitutionally mandated "advice and consent" due them by the senate. And it only takes 4 justices to grant cert. Turning this into an actual SCOTUS battle would be glorious.

 

[theeedude]

They've basically just given that person legal standing to sue for the constitutionally mandated "advice and consent" due them by the senate. And it only takes 4 justices to grant cert. Turning this into an actual SCOTUS battle would be glorious.

Not going to happen. But there will be a qualified candidate nominated soon, if Senate GOP wants to defend not giving that person a fair hearing going into election where they are the only ones defending battleground Senate seats, that's fine.

 

[michal1980]

Why project that action onto Dems?

why not? They fired the first shot with Bork. They planed against Bush nominations, and worked to delay them.

Now the republicans continued the esculation, and you are surprised? Why don't you bitch about your party every once in a while.

 

[michal1980]

Not going to happen. But there will be a qualified candidate nominated soon, if Senate GOP wants to defend not giving that person a fair hearing going into election where they are the only ones defending battleground Senate seats, that's fine.

define qualified?

According to Obama just being qualified is not enough.

 

[JSt0rm]

why not? They fired the first shot with Bork. They planed against Bush nominations, and worked to delay them.

Now the republicans continued the esculation, and you are surprised? Why don't you bitch about your party every once in a while.

Didn't they vote Bork down? That's what they are supposed to do.

 

[theeedude]

define qualified?
According to Obama just being qualified is not enough.

GOP can argue that the nominee is not qualified if it wants to. But since they rejected him or her before they even know who it is, that's going to be hard to convince voters of.