SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[umbrella39]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY

One of the replies to that video says it all:

Typical low information republicans. Did you even bother to listen to the clip or do a little research? No. Just typical try to compare an apple to an anvil and call them the same. There was no vacant seat in 2007. Schumer says in the first few seconds that they would only act to confirm under extreme circumstances (such as the death of a sitting justice perhaps?). this was a reaction to Bush's bad habit of nominating political cronies or conservative justices who legislate from the bench (Harriet Miers anyone?). Alito was a prime example of legislating from the bench. A strict originalist who says gays don't have rights by the constitution because the founding fathers would not have conceived of such a thing yet had no issue granting personhood to corporations because clearly the founding fathers intended that.

In July 2004, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch said there was no such thing. And Republican Sen. John Cornyn threatened in 2008 that if Democrats invoked the Thurmond Rule, Republicans would go nuclear: “We could require 60 votes on every single motion, bill, and procedural move before the Senate,” he said at the time.

The Thurmond Rule has never been extended back this far. In 2008, Democrats didn’t invoke it until the late summer; Sen. Dianne Feinstein said it kicks in after the first party convention. It’s February now, and even the longest Supreme Court confirmation in history—that of Justice Brandeis, in 1916—took 125 days. (Brandeis was called a “radical” and bitterly opposed by conservatives, with anti-Semitism even more overt than Fortas later faced.) So this would be an unprecedented expansion of the “Rule.”

Second, the “Rule” has never been applied to Supreme Court vacancies. On the contrary, when President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the court, he was confirmed 97-0 on Feb. 3, 1988, with Sen. McConnell voting in favor.

In short, until this one, an opposing-party Senate has never observed the Thurmond Rule. Not in 1980, not in 1988, not in 1992, not in 2000. There are typically slowdowns in confirmations, but never a standstill. And the rule has never been invoked before the summer, let alone before the cherry blossoms bloom. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we’re in new territory this year, and at new heights of hypocrisy.

 

[dullard]

Unfortunately even self-described small government conservatives embrace authoritarianism as warmly as do progressives.

That sums up the problem that I have with the GOP as it is. They are only small government when it comes to issues that they don't like. But they are as big government as can be with issues that they like.

 

[senseamp]

If GOP filibusters this, Democrats should filibuster any nominee by a Republican president except the ones that majority of Democrats support.

 

[glenn1]

One of the replies to that video says it all:



In July 2004, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch said there was no such thing. And Republican Sen. John Cornyn threatened in 2008 that if Democrats invoked the Thurmond Rule, Republicans would go nuclear: “We could require 60 votes on every single motion, bill, and procedural move before the Senate,” he said at the time.

The Thurmond Rule has never been extended back this far. In 2008, Democrats didn’t invoke it until the late summer; Sen. Dianne Feinstein said it kicks in after the first party convention. It’s February now, and even the longest Supreme Court confirmation in history—that of Justice Brandeis, in 1916—took 125 days. (Brandeis was called a “radical” and bitterly opposed by conservatives, with anti-Semitism even more overt than Fortas later faced.) So this would be an unprecedented expansion of the “Rule.”

Second, the “Rule” has never been applied to Supreme Court vacancies. On the contrary, when President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the court, he was confirmed 97-0 on Feb. 3, 1988, with Sen. McConnell voting in favor.

In short, until this one, an opposing-party Senate has never observed the Thurmond Rule. Not in 1980, not in 1988, not in 1992, not in 2000. There are typically slowdowns in confirmations, but never a standstill. And the rule has never been invoked before the summer, let alone before the cherry blossoms bloom. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we’re in new territory this year, and at new heights of hypocrisy.

Stop with this crap about the election year Kennedy confirmation. The only reason that happened is because the Democrats had already Borked Bork the year before, and then Douglas Ginsburg's nomination was withdrawn because he *gasp* smoked MJ. If Democrats hadn't been utter partisans with Bork then there never would have been an election year nomination of Kennedy to confirm. Which is again why Democrats and Obama would have no standing whatsoever if the current Republican Senate borks the shit out of Obama's nominees all the way up through the election since it will mirror the 8 months that passed between the nomination of Bork on July 1, 1987 and Kennedy's confirmation and oath in mid-February 1988, a span of 8+ months.

 

[Genx87]

If GOP filibusters this, Democrats should filibuster any nominee by a Republican president except the ones that majority of Democrats support.

Ya think?

 

[Genx87]

Stop with this crap about the election year Kennedy confirmation. The only reason that happened is because the Democrats had already Borked Bork the year before, and then Douglas Ginsburg's nomination was withdrawn because he *gasp* smoked MJ. If Democrats hadn't been utter partisans with Bork then there never would have been an election year nomination of Kennedy to confirm. Which is again why Democrats and Obama would have no standing whatsoever if the current Republican Senate borks the shit out of Obama's nominees all the way up through the election since it will mirror the 8 months that passed between the nomination of Bork on July 1, 1987 and Kennedy's confirmation and oath in mid-February 1988, a span of 8+ months.

In all reality there is no time table for congress to approve or disapprove regardless of what the left wants. If Obama nominates a bomb throwing lefty the Republican congress is free to sit on it until after the election and imo should. If Obama nominates a qualified non bomb throwing candidate Republicans should move through the process imo. Until Obama nominates we wont know which way this goes.

 

[Bowfinger]

Stop with this crap about the election year Kennedy confirmation. The only reason that happened is because the Democrats had already Borked Bork the year before, and then Douglas Ginsburg's nomination was withdrawn because he *gasp* smoked MJ. If Democrats hadn't been utter partisans with Bork then there never would have been an election year nomination of Kennedy to confirm. Which is again why Democrats and Obama would have no standing whatsoever if the current Republican Senate borks the shit out of Obama's nominees all the way up through the election since it will mirror the 8 months that passed between the nomination of Bork on July 1, 1987 and Kennedy's confirmation and oath in mid-February 1988, a span of 8+ months.

Similarly, you should stop with this crap about Democrats borking Bork. Six Republican senators voted against him as well. It's disingenuous to whine about "utter partisanship" when the nominee is so bad the President's own party doesn't support him.

 

[sactoking]

I'm intrigued by the prospect of Dems going nuclear if they retake the Senate and lose the WH. There are 17 days between the Congressional session starting and the inauguration, so they would have the presidency and chamber for about 2 weeks. They could theoretically drop the filibuster rule, nominate a very liberal candidate and confirm within that span and say eff off to the President-elect.

If the current Senate elects to block any and all nominees without regard to qualifications simply because they don't like Obama I could see a Dem Senate dropping this hammer.

 

[VRAMdemon]

The irony is that Scalia was a firm believer in originalism, or a strict literal reading of the constitution, which states in unequivocal terms that the president - not the next president - shall have the duty to nominate the members of the court. The constitution takes judicial vacancies seriously and requires the president to appoint nominees whenever vacancies arise. Unfortunately as news of Scalia's death spread, the "leadership" of the Republican party immediately went about ripping up the constitution. Their statements made it clear that they have no intention of fulfilling their duty and service to the American people.

 

[lopri]

Bork was such an unacceptable nominee even by today's Republican standard. You rarely hear them talk about him, unlike they do about Scalia. There are C-SPAN videos of his confirmation hearing and he was as extreme as it gets, iirc. It was right for the Senate to reject him even at the cost of giving Kennedy a seat in SCOTUS.

Obama should nominate a reasonable judge and the Senate should confirm her/him. The next president will have plenty of chances. (Ginsburg 83, Kennedy 80, Breyer 78)

 

[glenn1]

Similarly, you should stop with this crap about Democrats borking Bork. Six Republican senators voted against him as well. It's disingenuous to whine about "utter partisanship" when the nominee is so bad the President's own party doesn't support him.

Democrats had the majority and voted party line so the 6 GOP votes made no difference to the final 58-42 tally. By your logic you should never claim that votes against Obamacare were partisan since 34 Dems voted against it also; it must just be that the law was "so bad" the President's own party didn't support him.

 

[zinfamous]

Stop with this crap about the election year Kennedy confirmation. The only reason that happened is because the Democrats had already Borked Bork the year before, and then Douglas Ginsburg's nomination was withdrawn because he *gasp* smoked MJ. If Democrats hadn't been utter partisans with Bork then there never would have been an election year nomination of Kennedy to confirm. Which is again why Democrats and Obama would have no standing whatsoever if the current Republican Senate borks the shit out of Obama's nominees all the way up through the election since it will mirror the 8 months that passed between the nomination of Bork on July 1, 1987 and Kennedy's confirmation and oath in mid-February 1988, a span of 8+ months.

Bork didn't have enough republican support either. so, not sure what you're bitching about.

 

[glenn1]

Bork didn't have enough republican support either. so, not sure what you're bitching about.

Likewise stop your bitching that Obama's nomination might not have have enough Republican support either. Ironic since this time their votes are the ones that control the fate of the nomination rather than Democrats. See how neatly this has all worked out?

 

[dank69]

...

Obama should nominate a reasonable judge and the Senate should confirm her/him. The next president will have plenty of chances. (Ginsburg 83, Kennedy 80, Breyer 78)

Exactly. If the GOP thinks they are going to take the WH they can fill Ginsburg's seat with Scalia 2.0 and their sacred balance will be restored. If Dems take WH and keep it in 2020, well, that's all she wrote. I don't think Thomas will make it past 2024.

 

[zinfamous]

Likewise stop your bitching that Obama's nomination might not have have enough Republican support either. Ironic since this time their votes are the ones that control the fate of the nomination rather than Democrats. See how neatly this has all worked out?

I'm not bitching about that. I'm bitching that others are whining and moaning about the president doing his constitutional duty, which is hilarious coming from a group of people that have done nothing but accuse him of ignoring his constitutional duties.

Obama has been chosen by the people to make this decision, then the senate has to do their job, as chosen by the people, to vet the nominee.

That's really all there is to it.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not bitching about that. I'm bitching that others are whining and moaning about the president doing his constitutional duty, which is hilarious coming from a group of people that have done nothing but accuse him of ignoring his constitutional duties.

Obama has been chosen by the people to make this decision, then the senate has to do their job, as chosen by the people, to vet the nominee.

That's really all there is to it.

This might provide some additional color on the part about the Senate dynamics.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/democrats-fighting-ghost-robert-bork-year

 

[zinfamous]

This might provide some additional color on the part about the Senate dynamics.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/democrats-fighting-ghost-robert-bork-year

The way I look at those fights is that republicans have (possibly, but doubtfully) learned to look towards qualified justices rather than psychopathic demagogues to legislate from the bench.

The republicans have been on a futile yet entirely angry crusade to strip away personal freedoms left and right, and their aim as been to do this via activist judges. Rightfully, The American public has been voting in legislators over that time period that prevents them from doing this to a catastrophic degree.

Roberts was extremely unpopular among democrats as well, but he has proven to be a well-reasoned, considerate justice when it comes to cases. I disagree with him most of the time, but I feel that his rational in his decisions are sound, from case to case. Scallia was the antithesis of this: he claims strict orginalism and a constitutional theory that was perfect from case to case, yet he never shied away from voting against his own so-called "principals" if he had a chance to vote against social progress--without fail. The only consistent thing about that pussbag was his hypocrisy.

Conservatives don't really care if these people serve as justices serve, if they are consistent and rational in their reasoning, or if they actually give a dick about the consitution: they only care if the person votes the way they want them to. That's it. One wrong vote, and you become a traitor.

Roberts makes one vote in support of Obamacare, despite the clear and impervious logic, and he is now a traitor. Most people would see these repeated instances of "traitors" after they become justices, realize that "Hey, maybe my ideology isn't applied to the role of a supreme court justice" and understand that defending a personal ideology is not their job. Not the GOP, though: the job of SCOTUS is to regress the US population and vote along party lines. Rather than realize that you guys have not engaged in reality over these case year after year after year, you just repeat the mantra "Gee, maybe that guy just isn't conservative enough?"

no--it's that your brand of "conservatism" is fucking poison to a free society.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not bitching about that. I'm bitching that others are whining and moaning about the president doing his constitutional duty, which is hilarious coming from a group of people that have done nothing but accuse him of ignoring his constitutional duties.

Obama has been chosen by the people to make this decision, then the senate has to do their job, as chosen by the people, to vet the nominee.

That's really all there is to it.

Obama's been roundly criticized for executive overreach on numerous occasions. But what constitutional duties has he been accused of ignoring?

 

[dank69]

Obama's been roundly criticized for executive overreach on numerous occasions. But what constitutional duties has he been accused of ignoring?

Deporting illegal immigrants?
Enforcing Federal drug laws?

 

[zinfamous]

Obama's been roundly criticized for executive overreach on numerous occasions. But what constitutional duties has he been accused of ignoring?

For one, the 4th Amendment is en vogue these days. Not a week goes by where the GOP parrots don't make a handful of 4th Amendment violation accusations against the administration.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The irony is that Scalia was a firm believer in originalism, or a strict literal reading of the constitution, which states in unequivocal terms that the president - not the next president - shall have the duty to nominate the members of the court. The constitution takes judicial vacancies seriously and requires the president to appoint nominees whenever vacancies arise. Unfortunately as news of Scalia's death spread, the "leadership" of the Republican party immediately went about ripping up the constitution. Their statements made it clear that they have no intention of fulfilling their duty and service to the American people.

Exactly. Two clauses, each with a separate verb, denoting two separate actions: nomination, and appointment.

Through all the smoke and mirrors of campaign-year rhetoric, it is possible that the chickens will come home to roost.

A local Nazi-sympathizer* seems to be king of the mountain these days for getting letters published in the local cornpone shitass Tory news-rag. I once had equal exposure, and our swords have crossed at least twice. I'd abjured writing anymore, though, because the paper has just gone over the edge of the deep end.

I can't offer up the text of my response, until I'm sure whether or not they will print it. But the guy started off giving kudos to Scalia for "originalism," accusing Obama of "wrongfully" intending to nominate a justice.

Basically, when you see what GOP pundits like Jonah Goldberg have written, they're begging the Prez not to nominate. But these supplications need interpretation, unlike Article 2, Section 2.

They're begging, hoping and wishing that Obama simply take the ball out of play for them. This way, they can add something to campaign rhetoric, possibly about how Obama isn't doing his job. Or -- somebody will.

Call it political checkers. It's Obama's turn to move, and they're asking him not to. "Not to what?" Not to pass business cards of nominees.

Of course the letter that appeared today went on and on in a ranting diatribe about the administration. It's his trademark.

I noted at end of my response as to how obtuse it was to do the begging in such a diatribe, and suggested that the supplicant had not made a graceful genuflection.

That will piss him off. I almost wish, if they publish my response, to get a crank phone call. I will unleash a double-canister of verbal abuse never before heard over the telephone. Death wish? Or opportunity? Maybe both.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Deporting illegal immigrants?
Enforcing Federal drug laws?

Good ones! I forgot about those situations where he's effectively rescinded our nation's laws.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans only support Amendment 2, not Article 2, section 2.

 

[Fern]

Does anybody here think that the Repubs' will actually follow through on their threats?

(I think it's posturing in response to events in the Repub primary - people are mad as hell at them and they have 24 seats up for grabs.)

Fern

 

[Sonikku]

If GOP filibusters this, Democrats should filibuster any nominee by a Republican president except the ones that majority of Democrats support.

As satisfying as payback is, I think sinking to their level only further serves to perpetrate a race to the bottom and the continued breaking down of functional governing in this country. That plays the Republican's advantage right off the bat because they are the party in big government claiming that big government does not and cannot work. A self fulfilling prophecy.