SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[Wreckem]

The Republican calls for Obama not to appoint someone goes against any idea of good governance. They are fucking insane.

They aren't saying he shouldn't nominated someone. They are saying they aren't going to vote on his nomination.

FYI, they said last month, the last 4 judicial nominees(of the current 39 pending nominations/81 vacancies) they would vote on would be the ones they vote on in February.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thats not exactly like this scenario. Robert Bork was nominated and shot down by the democrats(what led to the politicalization of the Supreme Court) before Kennedy got nominated. The election cycle that year wasn't as long and it was almost a forgone conclusion a Republican President would be taking over for a Republican President.

So what? The falsity of the statement is historical fact.

 

[Wreckem]

They are on recess right now.

The Senate has not officially been on recess, outside of the official breaks between the two year sessions, for several years now.

The Senate continues to hold pro forma sessions during all of their other recesses. The Supreme Court said pro forma sessions were enough to prevent recess appointments.

There is only a small window(about a two week period in December) for which Obama can legally do a recess appointment and that would be once the two year session closes. Bonus would the recess appointment would serve until the end of the end of the next two year session. Downside is how that would look after the general election.

 

[Wreckem]

So what? The falsity of the statement is historical fact.

It was a completely different political era. And FYI, the Bork disaster gives the GOP historical basis for blocking a nomination based on political ideology.

You can argue that someone being appointed during a Presidential election(which the race didn't really start until January 1988) is enough to say the GOP should allow a nomination. However, the argument regarding the Bork nomination a few months before that to prevent a nomination has just as much merit.

Boths sides have valid arguments.

 

[Jhhnn]

It was a completely different political era.

Again, so what? A false statement is a false statement.

And FYI, the Bork disaster gives the GOP historical basis for blocking a nomination based on political ideology.

Six Repubs voted against Bork who was a right wing ideologue. Reagan knew it when he threw down the gauntlet which the Senate threw back in his face.

Obama likely won't nominate an extremist of any sort, mooting the point you'd love to make.

 

[Aegeon]

Thats not exactly like this scenario. Robert Bork was nominated and shot down by the democrats(what led to the politicalization of the Supreme Court) before Kennedy got nominated.

I would point out a rather significant distinction in that six Senate Republicans also voted against Bork. (That means his nomination could have potentially have been shot down even with a Republican controlled Senate.)

I would be willing to bet a considerable amount of money that in the current situation you won't find any Senate Democrats arguing that the Senate shouldn't vote on a nominee until after the Presidential Election. This time its going to realistically be purely a partisan political situation with regards to the opposition.

 

[Wreckem]

Again, so what? A false statement is a false statement.



Six Repubs voted against Bork who was a right wing ideologue. Reagan knew it when he threw down the gauntlet which the Senate threw back in his face.

Obama likely won't nominate an extremist of any sort, mooting the point you'd love to make.

The point still remains. Regean tried to tip the SCotUS scale by trying to replace a moderate with a far right.

Obama will tip the SCotUS scale from right to left by appointing a left leaning "moderate" to replace the conservative bastion of the court.

Both sides have valid arguments. You are too partisan to see that. You also a clearly delusional if you think the GOP will self immolate themselves in an election year by allowing Obama to appoint anyone. The GOP cannot politically afford to allow an Obama nomination. Their base will have nothing of it. Their base is already in revolt. Them throwing up the white flag, derails and kills any chance of continuing the current GOP. The fractures in the GOP are already deep and widespread, it's always been an uneasy alliance of three different coalitions. That alliance will be decimated if they allow Obama to appoint a Justice to replace Scalia.

Do I wish Obama would be allowed to appoint someone? Yes I do, but as someone who has worked for a member Congress and having a political science background, that isn't going to happen in the current political climate. The political climate was batshit crazy 9 years ago. It's even more batshit crazy today.

 

[glenn1]

Again, so what? A false statement is a false statement.

Six Repubs voted against Bork who was a right wing ideologue. Reagan knew it when he threw down the gauntlet which the Senate threw back in his face.

Obama likely won't nominate an extremist of any sort, mooting the point you'd love to make.

Great, now that we've set the expectation that the Senate is allowed to reject nominations for purely political reasons we know you'll be OK when the Senate rejects Obama's for political reasons. You call Bork a right wing ideologue, they'll declare anyone Obama sends up to be a left wing ideologue. It's not like you are an impartial judge of ideological temperament anyway. Hell, maybe if we are lucky the GOP can Bork several nominations in the next few months.

 

[Sonikku]

What year were you born? You have a habit of declaring things as if the history of the nation started on that day.

That "ultra partisan political hack" was confirmed with a vote of 98-0. I say this is in the nicest way possible, try to educate yourself to a higher standard.

It's true, Dems are not the obstructionists Republicans are. But that was basically my point. There's no way in hell this republican congress would give dems a justice as liberal as Scalia was conservative. Hence they have to nominate someone "moderate" to have any prayer of approval, unlike Republican presidents who get to pick people they damn well know have their parties core wishes at heart. Maybe things like Scalia and the Iraq war would never have happened if the Dems were the stick in the mud their opponents always are.

 

[HomerJS]

I suppose one way to define them is anyone who supports a socialist for president.

or anyone who supports socialism like Social Security or Medicare.

 

[Wreckem]

It's true, Dems are not the obstructionists Republicans are. But that was basically my point. There's no way in hell this republican congress would give dems a justice as liberal as Scalia was conservative. Hence they have to nominate someone "moderate" to have any prayer of approval, unlike Republican presidents who get to pick people they damn well know have their parties core wishes at heart. Maybe things like Scalia and the Iraq war would never have happened if the Dems were the stick in the mud their opponents always are.

The Democrats are the ones who first politicizes the appointment of Justices to SCotUS. They are far from innocent like you are trying to make them.

Both sides are equally to blame the bat shit crazy level of partisanship that has existed for the past ~25 years and continues to get worse.

 

[HomerJS]

Moderate has a chance. Progressive, I would expect Republicans to be highly "obstructionist".

GOP already stated they will reject "anyone" Obama nominates

 

[theeedude]

Then Democrats should reject anyone the next president nominates if that president is a Republican.

 

[Jhhnn]

The point still remains. Regean tried to tip the SCotUS scale by trying to replace a moderate with a far right.

Obama will tip the SCotUS scale from right to left by appointing a left leaning "moderate" to replace the conservative bastion of the court.

So the only people with room to complain is... the far right.

Both sides have valid arguments. You are too partisan to see that. You also a clearly delusional if you think the GOP will self immolate themselves in an election year by allowing Obama to appoint anyone. The GOP cannot politically afford to allow an Obama nomination. Their base will have nothing of it. Their base is already in revolt. Them throwing up the white flag, derails and kills any chance of continuing the current GOP. The fractures in the GOP are already deep and widespread, it's always been an uneasy alliance of three different coalitions. That alliance will be decimated if they allow Obama to appoint a Justice to replace Scalia.

Only if the nominee can be painted as an extremist, highly unlikely given Obama's mien. If Repubs can't do that then the backlash in the election will be fierce. Vulnerable Senate Repubs will play Hell selling it back home. Repubs are already screwed in the Presidential race thanks to the Donald & they can easily screw themselves out of a Senate majority w/o much work.

It's a hail Mary pass, a prayer that a Repub prez will be waiting in the end zone to catch the ball.

Do I wish Obama would be allowed to appoint someone? Yes I do, but as someone who has worked for a member Congress and having a political science background, that isn't going to happen in the current political climate. The political climate was batshit crazy 9 years ago. It's even more batshit crazy today.

That's like blaming a nasty fart in an elevator on the elevator. It's Repubs who have poisoned the atmosphere by championing extremism & embracing spite, hobbling the legitimate operation of the government of the People. This is just another example.

 

[Jhhnn]

Then Democrats should reject anyone the next president nominates if that president is a Republican.

They won't. Their sense of duty to the people & the country is bigger than that. With their hostage taking, Repubs reveal that they really don't care about that. If they can't run the govt the way they want they'll be damned if they'll let anybody else do it well.

 

[glenn1]

So the only people with room to complain is... the far right.



Only if the nominee can be painted as an extremist, highly unlikely given Obama's mien. If Repubs can't do that then the backlash in the election will be fierce. Vulnerable Senate Repubs will play Hell selling it back home. Repubs are already screwed in the Presidential race thanks to the Donald & they can easily screw themselves out of a Senate majority w/o much work.

It's a hail Mary pass, a prayer that a Repub prez will be waiting in the end zone to catch the ball.



That's like blaming a nasty fart in an elevator on the elevator. It's Repubs who have poisoned the atmosphere by championing extremism & embracing spite, hobbling the legitimate operation of the government of the People. This is just another example.

LOL you keep on hoping for a backlash that ain't ever going to happen. Didn't after Bork and won't now. Nobody but Dem partisans much cares if Obama's pick gets rejected or not and it won't change any minds that were not already decided. The "obstruction" charge hasn't worked against Republicans for last couple elections and it won't this one either.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988 which was an election year so there is precedent of the government working as it's supposed to.

Yes however his nomination began in 87. Otherwise I agree its one thing for a President to submit someone in his last 5 months given it takes 3-4 months to vet & approve its not crazy at this time for Obama to nominate someone.

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL you keep on hoping for a backlash that ain't ever going to happen. Didn't after Bork and won't now. Nobody but Dem partisans much cares if Obama's pick gets rejected or not and it won't change any minds that were not already decided. The "obstruction" charge hasn't worked against Republicans for last couple elections and it won't this one either.

You'd have a point if Obama nominates somebody as ideologically extreme as Bork. All your scenarios flow from there & I don't think Obama will do that.

What does it say about Repubs if they need extremists on the Court so that their ideology can prevail?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This thread and the entire political dynamic around these discussions is why we should implement two Constitution changes:

1. Senate confirmation by negative consent. nomination is automatically confirmed after X days unless Senate votes to reject or postpone for another period of X days.

2. "Term limits" for active SCOTUS justices of 18 years. Each President gets to appoint two per term and these election concerns go away. Plus after their 18 year term the justice can go on reserve status so there is a pool of justices to sit in as required when an active justice recused himself from a case, dies, or retires. That way we can almost always have a full bench for every case throughout every term.

Not saying these are bad ideas but what happens if the senate votes on party lines to keep delaying the process? What happens if one Judge resigns and two die during a Presidents second year in office?


We have an interesting political system that's good at finding balance. So lets say Obama replaces a conservative with a liberal judge. I like to think this makes getting a conservative President elected more important so it would be natural for Republicans to find, support and advertise/talk about what great good a conservative President can do to attract more voters. This is the way our system is supposed to work.

**interesting tid bit I just learned. While Scalia & Ginsburg had very different views they were close friends and enjoyed debating each other plus they frequently went to the theater/plays together during recesses'. They appeared to respect each other and enjoy speaking together. We should all learn a lesson from this**

 

[glenn1]

You'd have a point if Obama nominates somebody as ideologically extreme as Bork. All your scenarios flow from there & I don't think Obama will do that.

What does it say about Repubs if they need extremists on the Court so that their ideology can prevail?

Of course someone like you who us driven solely by political concerns and not honesty would say that. Thankfully you won't be the person who makes the call on when Obama's pick is "ideologically extreme" because we already know what your answer would be you political hack. People like you are even more reason to Bork whoever gets sent up.

 

[cbrunny]

I suppose one way to define them is anyone who supports a socialist for president.

America doesn't have a socialist running for president.

 

[Bowfinger]

Looking for that rule in the constitution yet I can't find it.

Perhaps one of these strict constructionists who carry it in their sheet pocket can find it for me?

Not only is there nothing to support it in the Constitution, it isn't really the precedent Republicans now claim. From SCOTUSblog:

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. 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. ...

I don't actually expect the Republican Senate to follow either the Constitution or precedent. I just hope the media will do its job and call them out on their lies.

 

[JSt0rm]

LOL you keep on hoping for a backlash that ain't ever going to happen. Didn't after Bork and won't now. Nobody but Dem partisans much cares if Obama's pick gets rejected or not and it won't change any minds that were not already decided. The "obstruction" charge hasn't worked against Republicans for last couple elections and it won't this one either.

You are out of touch. The best plan for the gop is to talk tough and hope obama nominates someone more conservative then he would have had they not. Its all posturing. The idea that they would risk a bernie sander nomination is LOL. I mean I'm all for it but LOL.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans can not be reformed anymore, they are afraid of getting primaried if they do the obvious decent thing, aka, their jobs. The inmates are running an asylum now in the GOP.

 

[JSt0rm]

thats why they have to talk tough. Then the ones in the safest districts will be the ones who talk about the whys they had to do it and the others will just vote and pray.