SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[ivwshane]

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

You are talking to p&n's biggest troll and dumbest poster, he has zero clue as to what's going on. He only has one mode: hate all dems! He's the epitome of the idiot right wing supporter.

 

[nickqt]

You are talking to p&n's biggest troll and dumbest poster, he has zero clue as to what's going on. He only has one mode: hate all dems! He's the epitome of the idiot right wing supporter.

Not to mention that Bork wasn't some "moderate" candidate.

Perhaps had Nixon not resigned, he could have appointed Bork to the Supreme Court for firing the Special Prosecutor then investigating Nixon.

Poor, poor Bork. Break the law for Nixon, and afterwards, no Supreme Court appointment until St. Reagan tried and failed 14 years later.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Has *any* president been flat out denied an appointment before? I know specific nominees have been stymied, but has any president ever not been able to fill a vacancy or replace an outgoing justice with *somebody* that they nominated?

 

[theeedude]

It's all going to come down to the battleground Senate races. I don't think there will be much movement until we are out of the primary season, since GOP Senators are afraid of getting primaried. But after that, if it looks like this stance will cost them the Senate, they are going to bail on it.

 

[MrPickins]

It's all going to come down to the battleground Senate races. I don't think there will be much movement until we are out of the primary season, since GOP Senators are afraid of getting primaried. But after that, if it looks like this stance will cost them the Senate, they are going to bail on it.

Please link your sources so we have some context (especially when the map isn't titled).

Here: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

 

[UberNeuman]

So, rightwingers bitching that their party didn't get to have a say in the creation of the ACA are now also refusing to have input into the selection of the next Justice for the Supreme Court?

oh, the irony!

\stamping their feet all the way...

 

[michal1980]

You are talking to p&n's biggest troll and dumbest poster, he has zero clue as to what's going on. He only has one mode: hate all dems! He's the epitome of the idiot right wing supporter.

big words from a dem puppet. DNC check come in the mail this week?

 

[LegendKiller]

"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?



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

But we both know Obama isn't going to compromise. So yeah, no apples to apples. Or crows to crows as it were.

 

[Aegeon]

Please link your sources so we have some context (especially when the map isn't titled).

Here: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

It also should be noted that the map seems misleadingly optimistic in practice for Republican Senators in at least several cases.

For example this listing of the most vulnerable Senators has Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania as the 3rd most vulnerable Senator. Pennsylvania is simply a rather blue state at this point especially in Presidential election years.
http://atr.rollcall.com/10-vulnerable-senators-2016/

Not even putting it in the toss-up category seems to clearly understate how much at risk Toomey actually is.

The same listing has Richard Burr of North Carolina as the 7th most vulnerable Senator, even though the map in question actually states it is a likely Republican hold. By contrast, the Democratic Senator in the leans Democratic list (Michael Bennett of Colorado) is actually only rated 10 in the list I linked to. Basically Burr has lousy poll numbers and the state went for Obama in the 2008 election with it still basically remaining in the swing state category.

The listing also has Ray Blunt of Missouri as the 8th most vulnerable Senator even though the map has it him likely Republican hold. Essentially its a case of particularly strong Democratic challenger and a incumbent Senator in not an especially strong position. While the state actually did go barely for Obama in 2008, its probably fair to say it is a case where the inherent leanings of the state would still help the incumbent so the challenger is likely going to have to outperform the Presidential vote to actually win though. (Although it should be noted the state has voted in Democrats in circumstances where it went Republican in Presidential races in the past.)

Basically the big picture is the map really tends to understate the vulnerability of some Republican Senators and how many of them are truly potentially vulnerable in this election. My assessment is especially given the political trends of recent years, most scenarios where Hillary wins the Presidency will see at least a 50/50 Senate if not an even more favorable outcome for Democrats. This is especially true if the Republicans stick with refusing to confirm a candidate until after the election which should definitely be a political problem for Republican incumbents and even just candidates in blue leaning states and swing states of various sorts. (I expect Obama to pick a nominee which makes this position especially problematic for Republicans to defend.)

 

[Aegeon]

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

Not to mention that statement completely ignores there was measurable Republican opposition to Bork with six Republican Senators voting against him. (Since it was a Republican minority in the Senate at the time that represents a higher ratio than you might initially assume.) It clearly doesn't even remotely resemble the current situation with the blockage purely being a Republican affair (at least baring a complete shocker of a nominee pick in this situation) and at least couple of Republican Senators publicly disagreeing with their party's current official position on the matter.

 

[Balt]

But we both know Obama isn't going to compromise. So yeah, no apples to apples. Or crows to crows as it were.

Such a definitive statement for something you really have no idea about. One of the people supposedly on the shortlist was confirmed 97-0 in the Senate back in 2013 for the DC circuit court.

The Republicans have flat-out stated that they aren't going to compromise or consider any pick at all. But continue believing whatever nonsense you want.

 

[xgsound]

So, rightwingers bitching that their party didn't get to have a say in the creation of the ACA are now also refusing to have input into the selection of the next Justice for the Supreme Court?

oh, the irony!

\stamping their feet all the way...

The senate never gets input to the selection of a candidate, they only advise and consent. They are saying there will be no consent.
I can't imagine that anyone would think it would be any different. The Democrats have done the same.

Jim

 

[UberNeuman]

The senate never gets input to the selection of a candidate, they only advise and consent. They are saying there will be no consent.
I can't imagine that anyone would think it would be any different. The Democrats have done the same.

Jim

If you could split a hair finer it would be at the quantum level...

 

[umbrella39]

The senate never gets input to the selection of a candidate, they only advise and consent. They are saying there will be no consent.
I can't imagine that anyone would think it would be any different. The Democrats have done the same.

Jim

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.

 

[CitizenKain]

The senate never gets input to the selection of a candidate, they only advise and consent. They are saying there will be no consent.
I can't imagine that anyone would think it would be any different. The Democrats have done the same.

Jim

Well no, but dishonest people like yourself will invent stories like that to feel better.

 

[theeedude]

It also should be noted that the map seems misleadingly optimistic in practice for Republican Senators in at least several cases.

For example this listing of the most vulnerable Senators has Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania as the 3rd most vulnerable Senator. Pennsylvania is simply a rather blue state at this point especially in Presidential election years.
http://atr.rollcall.com/10-vulnerable-senators-2016/

Not even putting it in the toss-up category seems to clearly understate how much at risk Toomey actually is.

The same listing has Richard Burr of North Carolina as the 7th most vulnerable Senator, even though the map in question actually states it is a likely Republican hold. By contrast, the Democratic Senator in the leans Democratic list (Michael Bennett of Colorado) is actually only rated 10 in the list I linked to. Basically Burr has lousy poll numbers and the state went for Obama in the 2008 election with it still basically remaining in the swing state category.

The listing also has Ray Blunt of Missouri as the 8th most vulnerable Senator even though the map has it him likely Republican hold. Essentially its a case of particularly strong Democratic challenger and a incumbent Senator in not an especially strong position. While the state actually did go barely for Obama in 2008, its probably fair to say it is a case where the inherent leanings of the state would still help the incumbent so the challenger is likely going to have to outperform the Presidential vote to actually win though. (Although it should be noted the state has voted in Democrats in circumstances where it went Republican in Presidential races in the past.)

Basically the big picture is the map really tends to understate the vulnerability of some Republican Senators and how many of them are truly potentially vulnerable in this election. My assessment is especially given the political trends of recent years, most scenarios where Hillary wins the Presidency will see at least a 50/50 Senate if not an even more favorable outcome for Democrats. This is especially true if the Republicans stick with refusing to confirm a candidate until after the election which should definitely be a political problem for Republican incumbents and even just candidates in blue leaning states and swing states or various sorts. (I expect Obama to pick a nominee which makes this position especially problematic for Republicans to defend.)

Yeah, Sabato is pretty GOP friendly. I think he goes on Fox a lot. But either way you slice it, GOP is on the defense in the Senate, Democrats basically have no seats in battleground states up, since 2010 was not a good year for them.

 

[HomerJS]

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.

You realize with the court as is if a Bush v Gore comes up Bush loses. Decision would be remanded to the last court which was the Fla SC so Gore wins

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Has *any* president been flat out denied an appointment before? I know specific nominees have been stymied, but has any president ever not been able to fill a vacancy or replace an outgoing justice with *somebody* that they nominated?

Since no one has answered this, it looks like the answer is no going back at least 100 years. And it looks like every nominee has in fact gotten an up or down vote in that time as well.

“This is a sad development. This is a striking development. In the century since the Judiciary Committee was formed in the Senate, every single nominee has gotten a hearing, has gotten a vote on the Senate floor and in the committee," the Delaware Democrat said in a segment with MSNBC's "Morning Joe," appearing with Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.).

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/chris-coons-senate-supreme-court-219713
So there is no precedent for this, and despite any past verbal posturing, this is entirely on these Republicans.

Edit: I see umbrella39 did answer with this info but here's another source.

 

[Genx87]

You realize with the court as is if a Bush v Gore comes up Bush loses. Decision would be remanded to the last court which was the Fla SC so Gore wins

So what? Does that make the court dysfunctional? I dont think so.

 

[glenn1]

You realize with the court as is if a Bush v Gore comes up Bush loses. Decision would be remanded to the last court which was the Fla SC so Gore wins

No, because (A) Gore still would have lost the recount, and (B) the FL legislature has ultimate say who the electors would be per the Constitution and they could and would have told the FL Supreme Court to go fvck themselves. There was absolutely no way Gore could have won, period full stop.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

[HomerJS]

So what? Does that make the court dysfunctional? I dont think so.

Well with that logic if Hillary wins why would Republicans hold any SC hearings for the next four years. They can just say we will vote when a Republican is President. Its an odd distinction.

If Scalia had died Dec 31 would Republicans still refuse to act?

 

[fskimospy]

No, because (A) Gore still would have lost the recount, and (B) the FL legislature has ultimate say who the electors would be per the Constitution and they could and would have told the FL Supreme Court to go fvck themselves. There was absolutely no way Gore could have won, period full stop.

While I agree that Gore would have lost the recount under most standards it seems unlikely that the legislature could have overruled the court to change the outcome after the election had already taken place. I doubt the federal courts would have allowed that. Hell, the FL Supreme Court might have just struck that down themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

But we both know Obama isn't going to compromise. So yeah, no apples to apples. Or crows to crows as it were.

Of course we don't know that. What gave you such a silly idea? I am quite certain that Republicans will CLAIM whoever he nominates is an extremist, but that doesn't make it so.

I'm highly confident that Obama will nominate a very moderate, highly regarded jurist. It's just the tactically smart thing to do. So yes, he's almost certain to compromise. It's also almost certain that Republicans won't compromise because they are more afraid of their base than losing in a general election.

Now that we know the 'Biden Rule' requires Republicans to consider moderate nominees I'm sure you're 100% onboard with them considering Obama's nominee, right?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Looks like the president's hands aren't completely tied here:
In the United States of America, Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution gives the President of the United States the power to "on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses or either of them."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_session
It wouldn't force a vote, but it would likely force a spectacle.

 

[Genx87]

Well with that logic if Hillary wins why would Republicans hold any SC hearings for the next four years. They can just say we will vote when a Republican is President. Its an odd distinction.

If Scalia had died Dec 31 would Republicans still refuse to act?

It could happen. But I suspect if Republicans tried they would lose at the ballot box in 2018.

I already said Republicans should look at any nomination Obama sends them. So you wont get an argument from me about their blanket refusal to even look at nominee. What I disagree with you about is calling the court dysfunctional. The court is functional with one justice missing. I also disagreed with you about Schumer. Schumer is a lying sack of shit. His statements were clear that any Bush nominee should not get considered. A supreme dying on the bench is not unusual.