I think it just sets an ugly precedent though. When does it stop? election year only? suppose Scalia died last February.. would we be okay with blocking it for 2 years? as "it would really only effect the 4-4 cases, and in those situations the lower court ruling would stick." its all the more troublesome when we don't yet know who the nominee is. Suppose B.O. nominates a well deserving, respected candidate for the court. It's already out there that they are going to block it
If BO nominates someone in the scalia mold then they'd be foolish not to confirm it. If it's someone more middling, they should at least consider it. If it's a lefty, well, that's just BO being political.
John Kerry said something in the run up to the Iran "Executive Agreement." Asked why it wasn't a treaty, he said something moronic like, "You can't pass a treaty anymore"; arguing something like, it's impossible to stitch together political consensus. Such utter crap. Love or hate the system we have, it wasn't supposed to be easy. It's supposed to demand compromise. John Boehner is gone because he was accused of being TOO willing to work with Barack Obama, particularly when it came to spending and the debt ceiling compromises. Justice Scalia was a great man, and I'd like nothing more than to see someone exactly like him appointed. I'd also like Olivia Wilde to ride me until my prostate pops. It's a thing. Either way - not friggin likely. But, even now, with hard core Republicans ready to fry any senator in oil if they allow a SCOTUS nomination through, you still hear enough murmuring among GOP senators that suggests a well-respected, moderate judge, probably someone a little older, could get through. Not that I want that, but it could clearly happen. It's not even fairly debatable that Democrats win all the awards for politicizing judicial nominations. And, no, I'm not reaching back to sandbagging of Robert Bork. It was defecting Republicans that fucked that. Look instead at the lightning speed by which Democrats are all running far away from their past statements and conduct on judicial appointments. No one more egregious than the president and vice president. In the truest sense, they deserve whatever happens.
Sweet point. Probably the best and worst examples of why we should or shouldn't do that ever again, depending on which side you're on. Made for great drama, though. I could go for some of that.
Eisenhower made 3 recess appointments including one in an election year. I think Obama will put a moderate candidate forward, let the Senate shoot it down and then make a recess appointment of the person he really wants at some point and let the Senate confirm it or deny it after the election. The GOP will be happy to let him do that because it will give them an actual person to point at during the election to whip up the base instead of an empty seat.
There's nothing that compels the Senate to bring his nominee to a vote, except for the tendency of Senate Republicans to be politically dense. Barack Obama's approval ratings have been stuck at sub-.500 forever, and there's no reason to think he'll suddenly wow anyone. Let him nominate who he wants and let him stomp and whine about the GOP not vetting it through committee or bringing it to the floor. Let the Democrats make it a Congressional campaign issue. In another few months, election season will kick into full gear, the issue will get well smothered, and then President Obama and his nominee can skip off to the golf course and let the weirdness begin.
There are vulnerable Senators this year. The GOP has many more incumbents up for re-election than the Dems. The Senate is gerrymander-proof. I think they're going to allow the committee vote at a minimum. I suspect they'll let the process move on from there but to what end is unclear. When Grassley said that the Senate was going to have to move on a nomination one way or the other he was letting the secret out. The GOP is afraid of losing control of the Senate in a tightly contested election and they're afraid of losing a bunch of Senators if Hillary blows the GOP out the way Obama did in 2008 and 2012. The gerrymandering in the House has largely obscured the fact that Obama kicked the GOP's ass in 2 consecutive elections. Smart operatives in both parties know that Hillary has a real chance to repeat those two margins of victory. The demographics are still moving against the GOP long-term and their entire Presidential field is doing it's collective best to drive more Latinos into the Democratic fold. They're all doing their best to drive more Muslim voters into the Democratic fold.
Did about 40,000 of 7.5 million vote in Poland in 1573 compared to 28,500 of 3.5 million in U.S. in 1792? That's .005 of the population compared to .008 isn't it? Would put it at a higher percentage in the U.S. unless my figures are wrong. (Possible since I didn't double check sources) Just checked another spot which said U.S. population was 2.5 million at the time which would push the percentage higher.
Upwards of 10% in Poland in 1573 had the right to vote. About 3% in the US in 1792. In some states less than 1%. In 1792 only 6 of the 15 states allowed a popular vote of any type in the elections process. Only 1 was free of property restrictions (Pennsylvania, where property was often owned in common and where community practices often discouraged large farms and lending - which was one of the primary methods by which people took possession of their neighbor's property).
In line with that argument why is 6 months acceptable but 12 months is not? Each nominee should be judged on their qualifications not based on when they are nominated. The problem is that one party previously brought up blocking a nominee based on when the nomination would be made, the fact that no one retired is really not relevant. The other side now has some ammo to use as reasoning for blocking.
So Poland had more privileged nobles in 1572, still less than half of a percent of the population cast a vote. It is also very possible that some of those with the "right" to vote actually did not have the true right to vote. You are also comparing a country that had been in existence for 600 or so years at the time to one that was around for 4 years under the Constitution, so in 4 years they almost equaled what took 600 in Poland.
waterboy, this started long before Biden & Schumer made their comments. McConnell's words aren't just reactionary towards what dems have said in the past. In fact in this very discussion notsatoshi posted a GAO report whereby they acknowledged that in the majority of supreme court nominees in the history of our country that failed to pass the reason was because of politics particularly in election years. its not tick for tack its more like stupid politics by both sides for centuries
Statements aside I am not aware of any time that the Senate refused to hold hearings and vote on a nominee submitted by the president.
Well tick for tack is stupid politics but it has been going on for a long time as you said. My mention of the Biden comments was not meant as that is when it started but I think even more recent efforts to stop a nominee such as Obama filibuster attempt of Alito bears mentioning. According to his spokespeople he regrets it but it is totally different. Just 2 different ways to stop a nominee in my eyes.
Alito got a hearing, eventually a vote, and is now on the S.Ct. How is that analogous to the present situation? Btw he's a truly awful justice. In the hearing yesterday he came close to arguing for general searches. Since when is rendering the 4th amendment a dead letter considered conservative jurisprudence?
They attempted to stop the vote by way of a filibuster, they attempted to stop the normal process used to vet a nominee, they failed in their attempt but the fact is they tried to derail the process. I guess failure means they did nothing wrong in your eyes. In my eyes an attempt to derail is just that whether successful or not.
AYFKM??? What counts is what happens in the end. Both parties posture all the time, but only the GOP takes it to the point of complete dysfunction. They use threats to default on our currency to win policy debates. They shut down the government. Now they won't even live up to the pretense of following their Constitutional duties. Yes, speeches and threats are one thing. What gets done in the end is another. If you can't tell the difference and why that's relevant, I don't know what else to say. And why are they doing this? Because they are following orders from these awful candidates? Because they hate Obama that much? Where is this kind of dysfunction supposed to lead to? They think the Dems and their voters are just going to go away? The demographics are against them, among other considerations. It's bad for the country.
