Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[Faun]

A hypothetical lasting 4 years, the duration of that hypothetical Republican president's term, which you now deny admitting to.

So you are or are not in favor of Senate Democrats denying a Republican president their Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court judges?

I'm asking again because you first said yes before you said no.

Which is it? To be clear... for 4 years while the Republican is president....

You are the one trying to twist it.

I twisted nothing.

That hypothetical never changed. From the start it was .... do you think it would be ok if a Democrat Senate refused to confirm a Republican president until the next president was seated. Nyvin, who initially asked you, even specified that could mean leaving the SC seat open until 2021.

So? Yes or no? Is that ok with you? If not, why not?

You both are pushing it past what the situation really is.
This will be settled one way or the other in the next few weeks or by the start of a new President.
Nothing on the Supreme Court will be open till 2021.

No, I'm pushing this new precedent being proposed by Senate leadership.

They're claiming it's their privilege to deny the current president his Constitutional authority to appoint a new SC justice.

This has never happened before. This new precedent sets the stage for Democrats to reject every nominee by a Republican president, should one get elected in November. I'm just trying to determine if you're a hypocrite or if you'd be ok with Democrats pulling such a stunt.

You are also assuming that another Supreme Court Judge would die while in office during a heated election year.
This has also not happened before.
It is up to congress to put in new legislation over this rare issue.

No, I'm talking about Scalia's seat. That's not to say more seats won't open up prior to 2021. But they can all remain open until 2021, correct? That's the Senate's right, isn't it? Remember, you don't think the Senate is under any Constitutional obligation to appoint replacements.

 

[peach174]

You are the one trying to twist it.

I twisted nothing.

That hypothetical never changed. From the start it was .... do you think it would be ok if a Democrat Senate refused to confirm a Republican president until the next president was seated. Nyvin, who initially asked you, even specified that could mean leaving the SC seat open until 2021.

So? Yes or no? Is that ok with you? If not, why not?

You both are pushing it past what the situation really is.
This will be settled one way or the other in the next few weeks or by the start of a new President.
Nothing on the Supreme Court will be open till 2021.

No, I'm pushing this new precedent being proposed by Senate leadership.

They're claiming it's their privilege to deny the current president his Constitutional authority to appoint a new SC justice.

This has never happened before. This new precedent sets the stage for Democrats to reject every nominee by a Republican president, should one get elected in November. I'm just trying to determine if you're a hypocrite or if you'd be ok with Democrats pulling such a stunt.

You are also assuming that another Supreme Court Judge would die while in office during a heated election year.
This has also not happened before.
It is up to congress to put in new legislation over this rare issue.

No, I'm talking about Scalia's seat. That's not to say more seats won't open up prior to 2021. But they can all remain open until 2021, correct? That's the Senate's right, isn't it? Remember, you don't think the Senate is under any Constitutional obligation to appoint replacements.

Where did I say that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I'm talking about Scalia's seat. That's not to say more seats won't open up prior to 2021. But they can all remain open until 2021, correct? That's the Senate's right, isn't it? Remember, you don't think the Senate is under any Constitutional obligation to appoint replacements.

Where did I say that?

I think the part you bolded is a typographical error on Faun's part in the heat of the moment. It should have more correctly read "Remember, you don't think the Senate is under any Constitutional obligation to conduct advise and consent proceedings and allow a full vote on a nominee."


>>>>

 

[peach174]

No, I'm talking about Scalia's seat. That's not to say more seats won't open up prior to 2021. But they can all remain open until 2021, correct? That's the Senate's right, isn't it? Remember, you don't think the Senate is under any Constitutional obligation to appoint replacements.

Where did I say that?

I think the part you bolded is a typographical error on Faun's part in the heat of the moment. It should have more correctly read "Remember, you don't think the Senate is under any Constitutional obligation to conduct advise and consent proceedings and allow a full vote on a nominee."


>>>>

Thanks
I agree, but then it should be added because this has never happened in our history and it is uncharted waters.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Thanks
I agree, but then it should be added because this has never happened in our history and it is uncharted waters.

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

Actually there is plenty of precedence for filling SCOTUS vacancies during an election year. The most recent being when Reagan's (R) nominee (Kennedy) was confirmed in February 1988, during an election year.


>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

Thanks
I agree, but then it should be added because this has never happened in our history and it is uncharted waters.

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

Actually there is plenty of precedence for filling SCOTUS vacancies during an election year. The most recent being when Reagan's (R) nominee (Kennedy) was confirmed in February 1988, during an election year.


>>>>

so what

the best hope the president has to get a nominee appointed to the bench

is to pick one that the right likes also

that is just the way it is

 

[peach174]

Thanks
I agree, but then it should be added because this has never happened in our history and it is uncharted waters.

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

Actually there is plenty of precedence for filling SCOTUS vacancies during an election year. The most recent being when Reagan's (R) nominee (Kennedy) was confirmed in February 1988, during an election year.


>>>>

Yes there is, but not one who died combined with the situation we are in now.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Just imagine the political fight that is coming.

Politically, a big fight will benefit the Democrats tremendously.

It may also draw more republicans that would otherwise choose to sit out an election, when their preferred candidate doesn't make the presidential nomination. This next election will be decided more on the kind of judge the voters want to see on Supreme Court, while the next president will be elected upon the coat tails of that judicial decision.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[WorldWatcher]

so what

the best hope the president has to get a nominee appointed to the bench

is to pick one that the right likes also

that is just the way it is

That's not what McConnell said, he said they wouldn't accept any nomination by Obama, changing the advise and consent based on the candidate nominated to the President making the nomination. The Senate is supposed to evaluate the nominee, not the President making the nomination.


>>>>

 

[paperview]

I believe it's more about intent than it is time; though the more time that passes reveals their intent. Time is irrelevant now because they've already declared their intent.

Well said.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes there is, but not one who died combined with the situation we are in now.

Justices Harlan, LaMar, and Butler died during an election year.

Or do you mean the fact that it is a Dem as President?


>>>>

 

[Dot Com]

Repubs PROVE they take glee in not doing their jobs- filling vacancies, which they are paid for I might add

 

[peach174]

Yes there is, but not one who died combined with the situation we are in now.

Justices Harlan, LaMar, and Butler died during an election year.

Or do you mean the fact that it is a Dem as President?


>>>>

Why are you guessing?
I have talked about both sides, but you might have missed that.
I have said this should not be about ideology before and in several other threads.

Was each one of those nominations in such a contention also or were they compromising and working together and not at each others throats like it is right now?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why are you guessing?
I have talked about both sides, but you might have missed that.
I have said this should not be about ideology before and in several other threads.

Was each one of those nominations in such a contention also or were they compromising and working together and not at each others throats like it is right now?

Guessing what? I provided a list of Justices that died in an election year.

Keep going, you are making it clear that this isn't about an up/down vote on whom the President nominates, it's about who is the President.

The Dem's will ride this into the dirt during the election cycle where 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection vs. only 10 Democrat Senators and with us having only a 4 vote majority in the Senate.



>>>>

 

[paperview]

Why are you guessing?
I have talked about both sides, but you might have missed that.
I have said this should not be about ideology before and in several other threads.

Was each one of those nominations in such a contention also or were they compromising and working together and not at each others throats like it is right now?

Guessing what? I provided a list of Justices that died in an election year.

Keep going, you are making it clear that this isn't about an up/down vote on whom the President nominates, it's about who is the President.

The Dem's will ride this into the dirt during the election cycle where 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection vs. only 10 Democrat Senators and with us having only a 4 vote majority in the Senate.



>>>>

The Koch Brother have said publicly they will be spending almost a billion dollars this year to fight to get their agenda, which includes going to war with those in the GOP who might even consider a hearing.

The Koch Freedom Works dude said it plainly: It's all about Obama.

Outside Groups Warn GOP: Don’t Even Think About Holding A SCOTUS Hearing

“The strategy that makes the most sense is to say that there should not be any consideration of this nominee,” Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.”
<snip>
“It’s not about any one particular nominee,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the conservative legal organization Judicial Crisis Network, told TPM. “We know exactly the kind of person [Obama] is going to appoint. Getting into those details is just a silly distraction.”

For both sides of the political divide, the stakes could not be higher.

“We’ve known this was coming for while. We set aside resources for this fight because everyone knows the next president is likely to have maybe three nominations to make,” Severino said. She wouldn’t go into details about her group’s next moves when it comes to halting the Obama nominee, but said “we’re totally prepared for it,” including financing the effort.
...
Levey also threatened to primary senators who don't toe the line.

“In some cases where there are potential primary opponents, we might consider supporting a primary opponent if the senator did not do the right thing,” Levey said.

As Rory Cooper, a GOP strategist, wrote on Medium, part of the strategy of denying the Obama administration even a hearing is to prevent the media from focusing on the person instead of the process, and in effect, starving the story of oxygen.


“It’s the most honest,” Levey said. ”The very fact that people on our side feel very strongly that there shouldn’t be a hearing before we know the nominee is because it’s not really about the nominee. ... Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama.”

 

[peach174]

Why are you guessing?
I have talked about both sides, but you might have missed that.
I have said this should not be about ideology before and in several other threads.

Was each one of those nominations in such a contention also or were they compromising and working together and not at each others throats like it is right now?

Guessing what? I provided a list of Justices that died in an election year.

Keep going, you are making it clear that this isn't about an up/down vote on whom the President nominates, it's about who is the President.

The Dem's will ride this into the dirt during the election cycle where 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection vs. only 10 Democrat Senators and with us having only a 4 vote majority in the Senate.



>>>>

No I have made it clear it is about both parties not working together.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No I have made it clear it is about both parties not working together.

Cool, so you now support Obama nominating a well qualified candiate and the Senate taking action on that candidate to proceed to an up or down vote with the decision being based on the qualifications of the candidate and not who nominated the candidate.


Glad to hear it, join the club.

We have cookies.


>>>>

 

[bendog]

I really figured Kennedy would be next to go ... a bolt of lightening (-:

Sorry, I had to. I wish well to all of them.

 

[Flopper]

It is very evident that you don't comprehend how the Senate works.
Watch some C-Span 2 when they are in session. Then you will learn the rules.

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?​

As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.

The lack of action in the Senate is allowed in the Senate Rules and Procedures that is to say that the leadership has the prerogative to schedule as it sees fit. However, a constitutional requirement such as advice and consent can't be trumped by rules and procedures. So it seems to me the question is when does the delay become a violation of the constitutional since there is no time limit establish.

No time limit established?
The Repub Senate set it by announcing until right after the Nov. elections.

No time limit established in the constitution