Some simple facts about our current and future Supreme Court

[Auld Phart]

Fact 6 Obamas nominees must pass a vetting process by the Senate before being confirmed.

Just like every Justice in the past

Which is why MY preference is,to let Obama nominate whomever he wants, and simply have the Senate vote them down repeatedly.

Obama has appointed well over a dozen circuit and district judges which the Senate voted unanimously in favor of.

If Obama nominates one of these, it will be pretty hard for the Republicans vote against them without looking like raging hypocrites.

This is why McConnell has said he won't even allow the Senate to vote on nominees, thus proving once again just how much the GOP hates the Constitution when it is inconvenient to their political hackery.

Obama has appointed well over a dozen circuit and district judges which the Senate voted unanimously in favor of.

Hmm, Bork was also appointed unanimously, to the United States Court of Appeals.

Didn't fare so well as nominee for SCOTUS, did he?

Well, first he had a majority GOP senate to help shuffle him along in 1981, and after Bork's rulings and paper trail that accrued during his circuit time, we got a better eye into his extremists views -- and during his SCOTUS nominee hearings he was only too happy to share how much he was A-Otay with poll taxes and his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions, which horrified many, and we learned more about his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during those hearings as well.

He was such a poor candidate for SCOTUS, he went down in history as having one of the biggest loss of a vote to reject him evah, with numerous of his own party saying "nyet."

 

[nat4900]

Anyone can destroy Hillary. Bernie just refuses to do it. She has so much that can be attacked. Her Wall Street donors, the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, her Bosnia sniper fire, her handling of the Libya disaster, her incompetence in the handling of the embassy murders of Stevens and the others, her attacks upon the women Bill assaulted, her mishandling of top secret emails and unsecured server, etc. All this will come out.

Good synopses of what you heard on FOX....but, thank goodness, without those dumb commercials. LOL

 

[Auld Phart]

Hmm, Bork was also appointed unanimously, to the United States Court of Appeals.

Didn't fare so well as nominee for SCOTUS, did he?

I've had to restate this several times because right wingers are either ignorant of refuse to accept simple reality......Bork was an extremely poor choice; the guy was AGAINST voting rights, AGAINST women;s rights, AGAINST the ACLU and was complicit in Nixon's Watergate......(and for his complicity the quid pro quo was to be appointed to the SCOTUS)....... and THAT is why the guy was summarily rejected.

Learn your history right wingers.

And you also missed the point.

Just because someone got a unanimous vote for a judgeship, does NOT mean they are acceptable candidates for becoming a Justice.

 

[nat4900]

Just because someone got a unanimous vote for a judgeship, does NOT mean they are acceptable candidates for becoming a Justice.

I think that my cat uses the same "logic"....

 

[Auld Phart]

Your cat obviously has more sense than you.

Bork is one of many that were confirmed unanimously to a court, and failed vetting miserably when nominated for SCOTUS.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hmm, Bork was also appointed unanimously, to the United States Court of Appeals.

Didn't fare so well as nominee for SCOTUS, did he?

Remind us.

Did Bork get an up or down vote on the Senate floor or did the leadership say they weren't going to take any action during as long as Reagan remained President?


>>>>

 

[Auld Phart]

Hmm, Bork was also appointed unanimously, to the United States Court of Appeals.

Didn't fare so well as nominee for SCOTUS, did he?

Remind us.

Did Bork get an up or down vote on the Senate floor or did the leadership say they weren't going to take any action during as long as Reagan remained President?


>>>>

yes


and: "Before Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell's expected retirement on June 27, 1987, some Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to "form a 'solid phalanx' of opposition" if President Ronald Reagan nominated an "ideological extremist" to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward.[23] Democrats also warned Reagan there would be a fight if Bork were nominated"

 

[nat4900]

Bork is one of many that were confirmed unanimously to a court, and failed vetting miserably when nominated for SCOTUS.

Goes to show you that the "evil that men do" finally catches up to them.

 

[Jarhead]

Bork is one of many that were confirmed unanimously to a court, and failed vetting miserably when nominated for SCOTUS.

Goes to show you that the "evil that men do" finally catches up to them.

based on your comment, I must assume you agree that your cat has more sense than you.

 

[Auld Phart]

Bork is one of many that were confirmed unanimously to a court, and failed vetting miserably when nominated for SCOTUS.

Goes to show you that the "evil that men do" finally catches up to them.

Yes...

Like the Senate leaders in 1987, Biden, Schumer, and the guy that backed Schumer to filibuster at least one of Bushs nominees.

What was his name again?

Bark, Brak, Bark?

something like that

 

[bendog]

No one denied Bork's brilliance. But as a circuit judge he had the duty to follow precedent. During his confirmation hearings he not only called into question Roe, but also the prohibition on states to prevent any sale of contraceptives.

 

[hadit]

Fact 1: There is NO doubt that for the last 2 decades, the SCOTUS has been right leaning with dozens of decisions rendered 5-4 in favor of conservative causes. Reagan's and Bush's 2 term presidencies ensured such leanings.

Fact 2: Regardless of how we would all like for Justices in the SC to be 100% impartial, each individual who has served as Justice carries a certain amount of political bias and not even the Founders could have avoided such partialities and such is not necessarily a bad thing…We are ALL judged by our peers and we all know of our own frailties, biases and prejudices. (Note that Tocqueville in his Democracy in America commented that America has a tacit wish for a nobility class and shows this in its justice system by having judges wear robes and be referred to as “your honor”)

Fact 3: The Founders, in their wisdom, chose to state (Article 2) that an elected president….NOT Congress (i.e. Senate) nor the electorate……nominates a Justice when a position is vacant, while the senate confirms (or not).

Fact 4: Obama was elected TWICE, showing that the majority of voters wanted his policies to proceed.

Fact 5: Based on Fact 4, Obama’s future (and past) nominees will reflect the leanings of his policies since elections DO have consequences…..

Lastly, as has been often cited before, Obama was elected for FOUR full years, not 3 years, and the fact that the SC may soon have a 5-4 “bent” for more liberal causes is just a “swing of the pendulum” after 20 plus years of right leaning decisions.

Inconveniently, the Republican Senate was ALSO elected, which means the majority of voters want their policies to proceed. It simply means Obama may not get the picks he really wants and will have to <gasp> compromise. I'm not sure how he's going to do that, given that he doesn't know how.

 

[bendog]

Bork is one of many that were confirmed unanimously to a court, and failed vetting miserably when nominated for SCOTUS.

Goes to show you that the "evil that men do" finally catches up to them.

Yes...

Like the Senate leaders in 1987, Biden, Schumer, and the guy that backed Schumer to filibuster at least one of Bushs nominees.

What was his name again?

Bark, Brak, Bark?

something like that

Thomas was a squeaker (-:

 

[hadit]

No one denied Bork's brilliance. But as a circuit judge he had the duty to follow precedent. During his confirmation hearings he not only called into question Roe, but also the prohibition on states to prevent any sale of contraceptives.

Since when are those decisions immune to future review?

 

[hadit]

Fact 6 Obamas nominees must pass a vetting process by the Senate before being confirmed.

Just like every Justice in the past

========
That is partially true.

The Constitution does NOT specify that the Senate VOTES ... only that they CONSENT.

This consent has, in the past, been determined by voting === but it could be argued that if they don't even vote THAT is consent.

If Obama nominates and 90 days later they have not even voted then it is consent in absentia.

Voting is the only way they can decline his nominee. So if they don't vote then they consent.

Where does the Constitution specify that not voting is consent in absentia for SC nominations?

 

[Arizona Willie]

Fact 6 Obamas nominees must pass a vetting process by the Senate before being confirmed.

Just like every Justice in the past

========
That is partially true.

The Constitution does NOT specify that the Senate VOTES ... only that they CONSENT.

This consent has, in the past, been determined by voting === but it could be argued that if they don't even vote THAT is consent.

If Obama nominates and 90 days later they have not even voted then it is consent in absentia.

Voting is the only way they can decline his nominee. So if they don't vote then they consent.

Where does the Constitution specify that not voting is consent in absentia for SC nominations?

========
There are only two options. They must either Consent or Deny. If they refuse to do either then they have abdicated their responsibility under the Constitution and it can be considered Consent because they did not deny.

If they refuse to do their job and take votes they should face impeachment charges to for dereliction of duty.

 

[bendog]

No one denied Bork's brilliance. But as a circuit judge he had the duty to follow precedent. During his confirmation hearings he not only called into question Roe, but also the prohibition on states to prevent any sale of contraceptives.

Since when are those decisions immune to future review?

Stare decisis

 

[Auld Phart]

Really?

and if a bill sits on the presidents desk over a certain amount of time without him signing it, it automatically becomes law, because he did not deny it?

 

[bendog]

Fact 6 Obamas nominees must pass a vetting process by the Senate before being confirmed.

Just like every Justice in the past

========
That is partially true.

The Constitution does NOT specify that the Senate VOTES ... only that they CONSENT.

This consent has, in the past, been determined by voting === but it could be argued that if they don't even vote THAT is consent.

If Obama nominates and 90 days later they have not even voted then it is consent in absentia.

Voting is the only way they can decline his nominee. So if they don't vote then they consent.

Where does the Constitution specify that not voting is consent in absentia for SC nominations?

========
There are only two options. They must either Consent or Deny. If they refuse to do either then they have abdicated their responsibility under the Constitution and it can be considered Consent because they did not deny.

If they refuse to do their job and take votes they should face impeachment charges to for dereliction of duty.

The gop can filibuster. That would allow a few vulnerable gop senators to vote for cloture, or end the filibuster, but never actually invoke cloture.

 

[hazlnut]

Fact 1: There is NO doubt that for the last 2 decades, the SCOTUS has been right leaning with dozens of decisions rendered 5-4 in favor of conservative causes. Reagan's and Bush's 2 term presidencies ensured such leanings.

Fact 2: Regardless of how we would all like for Justices in the SC to be 100% impartial, each individual who has served as Justice carries a certain amount of political bias and not even the Founders could have avoided such partialities and such is not necessarily a bad thing…We are ALL judged by our peers and we all know of our own frailties, biases and prejudices. (Note that Tocqueville in his Democracy in America commented that America has a tacit wish for a nobility class and shows this in its justice system by having judges wear robes and be referred to as “your honor”)

Fact 3: The Founders, in their wisdom, chose to state (Article 2) that an elected president….NOT Congress (i.e. Senate) nor the electorate……nominates a Justice when a position is vacant, while the senate confirms (or not).

Fact 4: Obama was elected TWICE, showing that the majority of voters wanted his policies to proceed.

Fact 5: Based on Fact 4, Obama’s future (and past) nominees will reflect the leanings of his policies since elections DO have consequences…..

Lastly, as has been often cited before, Obama was elected for FOUR full years, not 3 years, and the fact that the SC may soon have a 5-4 “bent” for more liberal causes is just a “swing of the pendulum” after 20 plus years of right leaning decisions.

Great post!!!


Thank you.


What is going on with senate leadership is sickening -- they are not doing their jobs in good faith.


I say we write the senate and demand that the members of the Judiciary committee failing to do their jobs have their salaries frozen and health care benefits withheld -- because that's what happens when you don't do your job.