CDZ How do we fix the Supreme Court....

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, it was so unpopular we elected a Republican President, with a Republican senate to fill the seat.......And the democrats did it first.....

Just curious, in the modern era (say the last 100 years or so) what Supreme Court Justice was denied hearings and an up or down vote to cross a Presidential election cycle leaving the vacancy open for about 12 months?


Thanks for the reminder for us all.


>>>>

 

[Picaro]

Get Roof Vader Ginturd off it.

Why hasn't she left the country yet? She said she would, and if she's having problems packing we should help her out.

 

[Picaro]

Some here have the bizarre idea that the Supreme Court is somehow 'apolitical'; nothing is further from the truth. It's judges always been very political appointees, and they aren't immune to outside political pressure, not even a little bit. They are very political, as evidenced by what cases they choose to hear and when, for just one example.

 

[Vigilante]

The easy answer is Congress and the president refuse to take what the court says as law unless those 2/3 of the government agree that the SCOTUS decision falls within the realm of only being Constitutional....the changing by Roberts on Obomscare from a penalty to a tax was, in itself unconstitutional and should have been ignored!

 

[Boss]

Yes, it was so unpopular we elected a Republican President, with a Republican senate to fill the seat.......And the democrats did it first.....

Just curious, in the modern era (say the last 100 years or so) what Supreme Court Justice was denied hearings and an up or down vote to cross a Presidential election cycle leaving the vacancy open for about 12 months?


Thanks for the reminder for us all.


>>>>

Anthony Kennedy.

 

[D Truth]

It has too much power....5, unelected, politically appointed lawyers decide which laws will effect 320 million people......

Any ideas on fixing this mess?

--term limits

--increase the size of the court

--over ride by congress...

--over ride by states

--changer their jurisdiction

This will be a moot point if hilary is elected...but it is a nice distraction from the vote count....

In some ways, a federal supreme court should only decide on issues on which define measures on which the union is.... well measured.
Meaning, they should only allow on which metric definitions apply (how long is an inch, how much weight is a pound, etc.)
Term limits is not a bad idea.
Override of a state is a different issue...

Ultimately, all other matters are a decision of state courts.

 

[Picaro]

I'm not a big fan of 'states rights' either, as perceived by many on the Right; it's also obsolete and little more than a gimmick for implementing neo-fuedalism for local despots and cliques, which was the primary reason it exists, but it does to some extent put a brake on Federal despotism. Nothing is going to be perfect, and humans will always find ways to corrupt anything even if 'perfect' was ever achieved.. The number of states should be reduced, in any case. 13 or 14 states in more than enough; we no longer travel by horse canoe any more.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, it was so unpopular we elected a Republican President, with a Republican senate to fill the seat.......And the democrats did it first.....

Just curious, in the modern era (say the last 100 years or so) what Supreme Court Justice was denied hearings and an up or down vote to cross a Presidential election cycle leaving the vacancy open for about 12 months?


Thanks for the reminder for us all.


>>>>

Anthony Kennedy.

Anthony Kennedy was denied an up or down vote by the Senate for Justice of the Supreme Court?


>>>>

 

[Boss]

Anthony Kennedy was denied an up or down vote by the Senate for Justice of the Supreme Court?

That wasn't your question. His consideration by Congress spanned a presidential election and took nearly a year after the previous nominee was rejected. Harriet Miers was never given an up or down vote and the Senate Judiciary Committee threatened to reject her without a vote before Bush finally withdrew her nomination.

The biggest point I would like to make here is this.... We don't do things in government based on historic precedents. Everything is happening in the present not the past. Every SCOTUS nomination and circumstances surrounding it are unique. In this particular case, you have a stalwart conservative justice who died just months before a presidential election and change of power. Most of the time, justices retire... they don't die in office, even though it's a lifetime appointment. We have to assume if Scalia were alive, he wouldn't have chosen to retire before the election.

Now... those of you on the left can say.... well tough titty... he died and Obama nominated someone and that someone deserves an up or down vote! But guess what? That is not the way it has to go down at all. The Senate Judicial Committee can simply continue their evaluation of Garland until they recess for Christmas. Then, next year, when the new Congress is seated and the new president is sworn in, that new president has the authority to withdraw Garland's nomination.

And that is what is going to happen.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Anthony Kennedy was denied an up or down vote by the Senate for Justice of the Supreme Court?

That wasn't your question. His consideration by Congress spanned a presidential election and took nearly a year after the previous nominee was rejected. Harriet Miers was never given an up or down vote and the Senate Judiciary Committee threatened to reject her without a vote before Bush finally withdrew her nomination.

My Question: "Just curious, in the modern era (say the last 100 years or so) what Supreme Court Justice was denied hearings and an up or down vote to cross a Presidential election cycle leaving the vacancy open for about 12 months?"


Kennedy was nominated November 11, 1987
Hearings began December 14, 1987
Senate Confirmed in on February 3, 1988
Sworn into the Court on February 19, 1988
Presidential Election occurred on November 8, 1988


So...

Kennedy was not refused confirmation hearings and Kennedy did receive an up or down vote. As my quoted question shows the request was for the lack of a Senate action leaving a vacant Justice seat for 12 months by denying hearings and an up or down vote. Even if you bring Bork into the picture, Bork was given hearings and a vote before the full Senate so that doesn't wash either.



>>>>

 

[I amso IR]

I'm not a big fan of 'states rights' either, as perceived by many on the Right; it's also obsolete and little more than a gimmick for implementing neo-fuedalism for local despots and cliques, which was the primary reason it exists, but it does to some extent put a brake on Federal despotism. Nothing is going to be perfect, and humans will always find ways to corrupt anything even if 'perfect' was ever achieved.. The number of states should be reduced, in any case. 13 or 14 states in more than enough; we no longer travel by horse canoe any more.

States Rights are important enough that the Founders made the issue a part of the Constitution of this Nation. And I wager that were people on the left to try to abolish the same they would meet a wall of resistance. I notice that States Rights were also survivors of the move to Federalism back in the day as we are the United States of America. I understand the need for a form of Federal Government but elimination of States Rights would be the same as requiring everyone to have the same last name and imply we are simply one big happy family, and you Picaro are not a member of my family, now or ever. Want to be allies and friends, fine, but that is far as you go. Got it?

 

[PK1]

Garland's nomination for SCOTUS has remained before the Senate for 238+ days, longer than any other nomination in the history of the USA.
Obviously, a strong partisan tactic at the expense of Constitutional intent.

If Garland's nomination is withdrawn, i'd like to see the Demo Senators exercise their filibuster option to any "unacceptable" nomination by Trump.
It will be fun to see how the extremists from both parties react.

 

[2aguy]

Garland's nomination for SCOTUS has remained before the Senate for 238+ days, longer than any other nomination in the history of the USA.
Obviously, a strong partisan tactic at the expense of Constitutional intent.

If Garland's nomination is withdrawn, i'd like to see the Demo Senators exercise their filibuster option to any "unacceptable" nomination by Trump.
It will be fun to see how the extremists from both parties react.

Sorry....it doesn't go against the intent...in fact, it supports the intent......the Senate has the power to advise and consent...that isn't must consent to whoever the President wants, they are given the power to approve the choice, or not approve the choice..that is a check on Presidential power which is exactly what the constitution was meant to do....checks and balances on the accumulation of power....

And if the Senate fillbusters...then the Republicans should change that rule....which they can also do......

 

[PK1]

Garland's nomination for SCOTUS has remained before the Senate for 238+ days, longer than any other nomination in the history of the USA.
Obviously, a strong partisan tactic at the expense of Constitutional intent.

If Garland's nomination is withdrawn, i'd like to see the Demo Senators exercise their filibuster option to any "unacceptable" nomination by Trump.
It will be fun to see how the extremists from both parties react.

Sorry....it doesn't go against the intent...in fact, it supports the intent......the Senate has the power to advise and consent...that isn't must consent to whoever the President wants, they are given the power to approve the choice, or not approve the choice..that is a check on Presidential power which is exactly what the constitution was meant to do....checks and balances on the accumulation of power....

And if the Senate fillbusters...then the Republicans should change that rule....which they can also do......

The Repubs thought about the nuclear option before, but rejected it because it would backfire on them.

I doubt it was the intent of the Constitution authors to allow a full year to pass before replacing a Supreme Court judge .

 

[2aguy]

Garland's nomination for SCOTUS has remained before the Senate for 238+ days, longer than any other nomination in the history of the USA.
Obviously, a strong partisan tactic at the expense of Constitutional intent.

If Garland's nomination is withdrawn, i'd like to see the Demo Senators exercise their filibuster option to any "unacceptable" nomination by Trump.
It will be fun to see how the extremists from both parties react.

Sorry....it doesn't go against the intent...in fact, it supports the intent......the Senate has the power to advise and consent...that isn't must consent to whoever the President wants, they are given the power to approve the choice, or not approve the choice..that is a check on Presidential power which is exactly what the constitution was meant to do....checks and balances on the accumulation of power....

And if the Senate fillbusters...then the Republicans should change that rule....which they can also do......

The Repubs thought about the nuclear option before, but rejected it because it would backfire on them.

I doubt it was the intent of the Constitution authors to allow a full year to pass before replacing a Supreme Court judge .

The Repubs thought about the nuclear option before, but rejected it because it would backfire on them.

And then the democrats went ahead and actually did it...changing the filibuster rules for appointments......they are not afraid to use the power they have to achieve what they want.......and the Republican idiots lost ....

 

[2aguy]

Garland's nomination for SCOTUS has remained before the Senate for 238+ days, longer than any other nomination in the history of the USA.
Obviously, a strong partisan tactic at the expense of Constitutional intent.

If Garland's nomination is withdrawn, i'd like to see the Demo Senators exercise their filibuster option to any "unacceptable" nomination by Trump.
It will be fun to see how the extremists from both parties react.

Sorry....it doesn't go against the intent...in fact, it supports the intent......the Senate has the power to advise and consent...that isn't must consent to whoever the President wants, they are given the power to approve the choice, or not approve the choice..that is a check on Presidential power which is exactly what the constitution was meant to do....checks and balances on the accumulation of power....

And if the Senate fillbusters...then the Republicans should change that rule....which they can also do......

The Repubs thought about the nuclear option before, but rejected it because it would backfire on them.

I doubt it was the intent of the Constitution authors to allow a full year to pass before replacing a Supreme Court judge .

The democrats weren't afraid of the baclash....

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; Senate eliminates most nominee filibusters in party-line vote

Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.

In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world.

Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

Hopefully, the republicans will learn how to fight from Trump...and if the democrats use the filibuster to stop Trump's Supreme Court pick they will end the filibuster...because the democrats would do it in less than a heart beat....

 

[MarathonMike]

If Trump selects a judge from his proposed list of Scalia replacements, then we will have a balanced court. I agree that some sort of term limit is appropriate. It's embarrassing when Ruth Ginzburg falls asleep and drools on herself.

 

[PK1]

Garland's nomination for SCOTUS has remained before the Senate for 238+ days, longer than any other nomination in the history of the USA.
Obviously, a strong partisan tactic at the expense of Constitutional intent.

If Garland's nomination is withdrawn, i'd like to see the Demo Senators exercise their filibuster option to any "unacceptable" nomination by Trump.
It will be fun to see how the extremists from both parties react.

Sorry....it doesn't go against the intent...in fact, it supports the intent......the Senate has the power to advise and consent...that isn't must consent to whoever the President wants, they are given the power to approve the choice, or not approve the choice..that is a check on Presidential power which is exactly what the constitution was meant to do....checks and balances on the accumulation of power....

And if the Senate fillbusters...then the Republicans should change that rule....which they can also do......

The Repubs thought about the nuclear option before, but rejected it because it would backfire on them.

I doubt it was the intent of the Constitution authors to allow a full year to pass before replacing a Supreme Court judge .

And then the democrats went ahead and actually did it...changing the filibuster rules for appointments......they are not afraid to use the power they have to achieve what they want.......and the Republican idiots lost ....

The 2 major parties can no longer be rational, diplomatic, and compromise after ... 200 years of doing so?
How sad ... our extremism, that is.

If this time the Repubs want to exercise their nuclear option for SCOTUS extremist appointments, they should anticipate getting screwed themselves in the future.
Not the intention of our Founding Fathers, in my opinion.

 

[2aguy]

Garland's nomination for SCOTUS has remained before the Senate for 238+ days, longer than any other nomination in the history of the USA.
Obviously, a strong partisan tactic at the expense of Constitutional intent.

If Garland's nomination is withdrawn, i'd like to see the Demo Senators exercise their filibuster option to any "unacceptable" nomination by Trump.
It will be fun to see how the extremists from both parties react.

Sorry....it doesn't go against the intent...in fact, it supports the intent......the Senate has the power to advise and consent...that isn't must consent to whoever the President wants, they are given the power to approve the choice, or not approve the choice..that is a check on Presidential power which is exactly what the constitution was meant to do....checks and balances on the accumulation of power....

And if the Senate fillbusters...then the Republicans should change that rule....which they can also do......

The Repubs thought about the nuclear option before, but rejected it because it would backfire on them.

I doubt it was the intent of the Constitution authors to allow a full year to pass before replacing a Supreme Court judge .

And then the democrats went ahead and actually did it...changing the filibuster rules for appointments......they are not afraid to use the power they have to achieve what they want.......and the Republican idiots lost ....

The 2 major parties can no longer be rational, diplomatic, and compromise after ... 200 years of doing so?
How sad ... our extremism, that is.

If this time the Repubs want to exercise their nuclear option for SCOTUS extremist appointments, they should anticipate getting screwed themselves in the future.
Not the intention of our Founding Fathers, in my opinion.

Yes......you guys said the extremists were going to make it easy for hilary to win.....then it turned out the extremists were just normal people smeared by the left wing totalitarians....

Elections mean you get to appoint judges, and if you are in control of the Senate you have the power to consent or not consent....if one side doesn't like it they can simply win the next election and change it....that is called checks and balances...

the whole point is to limit the accumulation of power ...... that's it.....and the more it achieves that the more freedom we have.

 

[2aguy]

If Trump selects a judge from his proposed list of Scalia replacements, then we will have a balanced court. I agree that some sort of term limit is appropriate. It's embarrassing when Ruth Ginzburg falls asleep and drools on herself.

Yeah....term limits seem like a good idea....an age limit might be nice too.......anything to weaken the court.... I also like limiting their jurisdiction...