Supreme Court Nomination Thread

I am on the fence about Merrick. There is ample history where Congresses have chosen not to push a SCOTUS nominee during a POTUS last year. So while Congress sitting on its hands was both political and historical, the precedent is set, and followed the rules if not du jure then de facto.

I never cared for super-majority to begin with; it holds up too much legislation. And if bad legislation passes because of a simple majority, then just rewrite a new piece and vote again. There would be a lot more compromise when Congress isn't so lopsided with Republicans or Democrats.

The other thing is, none of what's going on is in the Constitution. The Constitution does spell out that the Senate can make its rules of operation, and it has, for over 200 years. So McConnell changed a rule of operation. Not the first; certainly won't be the last.

What bugs me about this whole thing is just how utterly entrenched both sides are. I mean, you have Democrats who have said they would not vote for any nominee of Trump. Then you have short-sighted Republicans who can claim a tactical victory now but will likely suffer a strategic defeat later on when the roles are reversed.
 
Last edited:
Devildoc said:
I am on the fence about Merrick. There is ample history where Congresses have chosen not to push a SCOTUS nominee during a POTUS last year. So while Congress sitting on its hands was both political and historical, the precedent is set, and followed the rules if not du jure then de facto.
Click to expand...
This is not true

The failure to hold a hearing for Garland was pure McConnell obstruction.
 
Salt USMC said:
This is not true

The failure to hold a hearing for Garland was pure McConnell obstruction.
Click to expand...

It is true. You are correct that presidents can nominate right up until January 19 of their last year. I am not saying it wasn't politics; I am saying that there's precedent, and followed the rules set by the Senate (which they can change, as evidenced by today). I am also not saying it's a good idea.
 
Devildoc said:
It is true. You are correct that presidents can nominate right up until January 19 of their last year. I am not saying it wasn't politics; I am saying that there's precedent, and followed the rules set by the Senate (which they can change, as evidenced by today). I am also not saying it's a good idea.
Click to expand...
There isn't "ample history" of the practice because it's happened exactly once before in the past 100 years during a lame duck session, as the article outlines.
 
Salt USMC said:
Apropos of this, there was no actual nominee under consideration. Nor was there a vacancy to consider.
The Biden speech requires some context: In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year
Click to expand...

You are correct on that. However, given the advanced ages of several sitting justices at any time during most administrations (newspeak for "old fuckers"), retirement or death is always a concern. Campaigns are run with this as a talking point. Justices time their retirement to coincide with their favorable administration in power to maximize the likelihood of a like minded successor getting the nom/confirmation. That then-Sen. Biden essentially said "don't even try it, because this is what will happen," is, in my opinion, telling.

Is it right? No. But it has happened before, and will again.
 
Salt USMC said:
There isn't "ample history" of the practice because it's happened exactly once before in the past 100 years during a lame duck session, as the article outlines.
Click to expand...

The Scalia vacancy was the seventh time the Senate held a vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Again, not agreeing with it, merely citing that it has happened and the Senate sets its own rules.

The Garland Precedent Should Not Stop Gorsuch
 
54-45-1

The one abstention was a Republican from Georgia, three Democrats. Makes me think they could have made it work to get the 8 votes if they got those three...but whatever.
 
Last edited:
ThunderHorse said:
54-45-1

The one abstention was a Republican from Georgia, three Democrats. Makes me think they could have made it work to get the 8 votes if they got those three...but whatever.
Click to expand...

They just set a precedent that they will complain about when it happens to them....professional clownery at its finest.
 
Oh it's clown shoes time fore sure. But it would have been interesting if he said we're ending the filibuster to take a vote to see if they had them and if they'd had 60 the Dems would have really taken a beating.
 
Funny how he (Gorsuch) was unanimously confirmed in 2006 w/o objection to replace Scalia in the 10th Circuit. I guess sometime between then and now, he went Jekyll Hyde on everyone........:rolleyes:

No other SCOTUS nominee has ever been filibustered.

Thanks Harry. :thumbsup:
 
Agoge said:
They just set a precedent that they will complain about when it happens to them....professional clownery at its finest.
Click to expand...

They only set the precedent of using the Reid option in a SCOTUS scenario. Harry Reid birthed this Zika-infested botched abortion of a procedure in 2013; the R's have already bitched about it being used against them.
 
racing_kitty said:
They only set the precedent of using the Reid option in a SCOTUS scenario. Harry Reid birthed this Zika-infested botched abortion of a procedure in 2013; the R's have already bitched about it being used against them.
Click to expand...

Good post! I had forgot about that!
 

Similar threads

Salt USMC
Iran discussion
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
11K
Polar Bear
Polar Bear
DA SWO
Decorated Navy SEAL moonlighting as a porn star
2 3
Replies
51
Views
8K
The Hate Ape
The Hate Ape
Ravage
Neil Morris on Sniping
Replies
4
Views
11K
wannabe
wannabe
Diamondback 2/2
Bashing of the M4
2 3
Replies
54
Views
11K
arizonaguide
A
Polar Bear
C.I.A. Detainees
Replies
4
Views
2K
Chopstick
Chopstick
Back
Top