Jump to content

The next Supreme Court justice...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 275
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Worzone said:

Because I believe the supreme court as legislative as it had been  is fairly balanced right now on the views of the general public but would become imbalanced if Obamas nominee was selected.

So a president should delay a Supreme Court nomination for over a year because it might change the balance of the Court.  When has that ever been part of the nominating process?

The president is elected by the public and part of his Constitutional responsibilities involves nominating Supreme Court candidates.  Your personal views about the balance of the Court isn't a justification for the president to leave that vacancy on the possible chance that the next president will appoint a conservative.  And what if the Democrats win in November and the next president nominates someone who will change the balance of the Court anyway?  You've left the vacancy for an entire year for nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JDaveG said:

That cuts both ways. 

 

To a degree yes  but  I have yet to Democrats ever say  that a sitting republican president  should just not even try to fill the spot because they will not even vote on it.

McConnell is basically using his  idea of making Obama a one term president in a different way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

How funny would it be if Clinton won and then appointed Obama to the Supreme Court?

 

 

She could stand there and  say " I  would like to announce the new  supreme court nominee..."  then the lights go out and Obama would come out to The Rocks theme song

The collective republican heads exploding would be seen  from space..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, falconsd56 said:

 

She could stand there and  say " I  would like to announce the new  supreme court nominee..."  then the lights go out and Obama would come out to The Rocks theme song

The collective republican heads exploding would be seen  from space..

 

He grabs the mike and yells, "can you smell what Barack is cooking!?!?!?".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it'd be awesome if Obama could get a moderate republican in there then in good faith the next president whomever they may be  help maintain the political balance for any other open seats. 

Really don't want to see 3 straight conservatives should the right win the white house (or 3 far left judges for that mattter) 

Go ahead an appoint a moderate now then depending on how far apart the next two retirements are maybe they can work out a deal within the senate to not obstruct the 1st nomination too much if the 2nd is of an equally opposing ideology. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I'm sure that's different somehow, and quite justified.  Because I'm assured they wouldn't ever object "to the same degree" Republicans are objecting now, not that anyone knows how it's going to play out yet or anything.  Of course, Republicans don't have to filibuster anything.  They can just vote a nominee down.  Apples and oranges I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

But I'm sure that's different somehow, and quite justified.  Because I'm assured they wouldn't ever object "to the same degree" Republicans are objecting now, not that anyone knows how it's going to play out yet or anything.  Of course, Republicans don't have to filibuster anything.  They can just vote a nominee down.  Apples and oranges I suppose.

There is an important difference here.  I won't say that difference is better or worse than filibustering nominees - which I VERY strongly oppose regardless of which party is doing it.  I've argued for years that they need to competely eliminate the filibuster for all cases.  

But the difference is that Republicans are asserting a broad principle that a president can never nominate a Supreme Court justice "during an election year", to use Charles Grassley's language.  So that automatically rules out the fourth year of a president's term and the eighth year as well.  So a president is prohibited from nominating justices for 25% of his term in office.  

And what about midterm elections where the Senate is up for grabs?  That would put half of a president's term in office out of bounds for nominating justices.  

This could go on...is it the calendar year or a full year prior to the election, which would be November of his 3rd or 7th year?  But the point is that it denies all presidents one of the most important powers available to them for a huge chunk of their entire term in office.  And for what reason?  Some amorphous concept that "the people should have a voice"?  The people have a voice...they elected the president, and the president has the authority to nominate justices.  There is no convincing rationale why that power becomes null for some period in his presidency.  

It's pretty obvious that this based on raw partisan considerations.  And I'm sure if the tables were reversed that Democrats would do something similar.  They pushed the limits with filibusters themselves.  That's the trend with polarization.

However, this is a very bad precedent to set on its own merits and is much different than using an existing parliamentary tactic (the filibuster) to block nominees based on their ideology.  This rules out *any* nominee being appointed by a president for a significant chunk of his term in office.  Is that better or worse than what Democrats did?  Honestly can't say, just pointing out that it's much different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure "Republicans" are asserting any such thing. Perhaps we could start by discussing who is saying what and go from there. Because there isn't any unified voice on what should or should not be done. 

Saying the President shouldn't do something isn't the same as saying he cannot. And one person saying he cannot doesn't implicate everyone of otherwise like mind. 

Republicans are going to try to get another conservative in there by hook or crook. Democrats want a liberal. 

Shocking, I know. But if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd both be doing the opposite and you all know it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JDaveG said:

I'm not sure "Republicans" are asserting any such thing. Perhaps we could start by discussing who is saying what and go from there. Because there isn't any unified voice on what should or should not be done. 

Saying the President shouldn't do something isn't the same as saying he cannot. And one person saying he cannot doesn't implicate everyone of otherwise like mind. 

Republicans are going to try to get another conservative in there by hook or crook. Democrats want a liberal. 

Shocking, I know. But if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd both be doing the opposite and you all know it. 

The Senate majority leader has said, on behalf of the party, that the party will not allow a vote on any nominee.  The chairman of the Judiciary committee has said he will not even allow a hearing to start on any nominee.  The two senators running for president have both promised to filibuster any nominee.  Among the list of other Republican Senators who have declared that no nominee should be allowed are Ron Johnson, Kelly Ayotte, and Richard Burr...vulnerable GOP incumbents running in blue or swing states.  The only person so far who has even opened the door for a replacement is Lindsey Graham, who said a "consensus" candidate might be acceptable.  Of course, Graham's idea of a "consensus" candidate is Orrin Hatch.

In contrast, other than Graham's non-starter suggestion, not a single Republican in the Senate that I know of has said that Obama should be allowed to replace Scalia.  So right now, Republicans are asserting a unified position that Scalia's replacement should be chosen after the election.  

This isn't about the "both sides do it" thing.  I already acknowledged that.  This is about the completely ridiculous claim being made by Republicans right now that a president should not be allowed to fill Supreme Court vacancies for a large chunk of his term in office.  That is very different than what has been done in the past.  Again, not saying it's better or worse.  But it is qualitatively very different than anything we've seen before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The Senate majority leader has said, on behalf of the party, that the party will not allow a vote on any nominee.  The chairman of the Judiciary committee has said he will not even allow a hearing to start on any nominee.  The two senators running for president have both promised to filibuster any nominee.  Among the list of other Republican Senators who have declared that no nominee should be allowed are Ron Johnson, Kelly Ayotte, and Richard Burr...vulnerable GOP incumbents running in blue or swing states.  The only person so far who has even opened the door for a replacement is Lindsey Graham, who said a "consensus" candidate might be acceptable.  Of course, Graham's idea of a "consensus" candidate is Orrin Hatch.

In contrast, other than Graham's non-starter suggestion, not a single Republican in the Senate that I know of has said that Obama should be allowed to replace Scalia.  So right now, Republicans are asserting a unified position that Scalia's replacement should be chosen after the election.  

This isn't about the "both sides do it" thing.  I already acknowledged that.  This is about the completely ridiculous claim being made by Republicans right now that a president should not be allowed to fill Supreme Court vacancies for a large chunk of his term in office.  That is very different than what has been done in the past.  Again, not saying it's better or worse.  But it is qualitatively very different than anything we've seen before.

It really isn't.  Remember when Charles Schumer said in 2007 the Senate should "reverse the presumption of confirmation" and refuse to confirm any more Bush nominees to the Supreme Court absent extraordinary circumstances?  Remember when Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry and numerous other Democrats not only promised, but actually voted to filibuster the Alito nomination?

Remember when you supported the Democrats blocking the Harriet Miers nomination, which ironically brought us the Alito nomination and subsequent filibuster vote to begin with?

Pretending this is just about "right now" conveniently ignores the history that brought us to "right now."  Confirmations have been one-sided for years.  Wasn't it you that pointed out Kennedy's confirmation in February of 1988, an election year?  That's an interesting example, given how Kennedy came to be nominated in the first place.  His predecessor, Lewis Powell, retired in June of 1987.  Remember why it took so long for Kennedy to get confirmed?  Remember that he was the THIRD appointee Reagan nominated?

This is exactly about the "'both sides do it' thing."  One side seems to think it's horrible when the other side does it, but conveniently it's the same side that has been doing it for years.  This is expected, unsurprising, and if it is "ridiculous," it's no more so than what Democrats have been doing for over 30 years now.  Frankly, it's about time the Republicans grew a pair on this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...