In Reality...

[Derelict_Drvr]

This might answer some of the up coming questions:

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

Historical Precedent Favors Letting Our Next President Appoint Justice Scalia’s Replacement | American Center for Law and Justice

And let us see if you appreciate this

Some of the best arguments defending the Senate’s right to act or not act on judicial nominees have been made by leading liberals serving in the Senate – Vice President Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.

When these men were U.S. Senators and faced judicial nominations from the opposing party’s President, they articulately laid out the compelling constitutional basis for the Senate to hold no hearings and no votes as part of its broad “advice and consent” power.

Democrats and Republicans Agree: Senate Should Hold No Hearings and No Votes on Supreme Court Nominee | American Center for Law and Justice

I hope this helps to clear a few thing up.

You know the American Center for Law and Justice is nothing more than a bible thumping version of Glen Beck, don't you? No credibility from any of their crap.

Says you. They are right-leaning, I agree, but can you refute what is written?

Yes. Their conclusions are not backed up by facts. They presented no reason to believe Democrats believe there should be no votes on any supreme court nominee. They did note one remark by one Democrat about waiting until after an election before a vote, but that wouldn't preclude a vote between the election and the inauguration of the next president, and there has never been a time when the practice was actually done before the republicans this time.

Maybe so, but Obama was the first Democrat to nominate a SC Justice since the The Biden Rule.

I understand that you're a Leftist and think rules only apply to Republicans, but since the creation of The Biden Rule do you think it would have been any different? A Democrat Senate/Republican WH allowing a SC nominee a vote in the months before an election when you were uncertain of the winning party?

Let me clarify, would a Democrat Senate allow a Republican Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed just a few months before the possible election of a Democrat President, taking away his/her opportunity to nominate a Democrat Justice?

I thought not.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

This might answer some of the up coming questions:

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

Historical Precedent Favors Letting Our Next President Appoint Justice Scalia’s Replacement | American Center for Law and Justice

And let us see if you appreciate this

Some of the best arguments defending the Senate’s right to act or not act on judicial nominees have been made by leading liberals serving in the Senate – Vice President Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.

When these men were U.S. Senators and faced judicial nominations from the opposing party’s President, they articulately laid out the compelling constitutional basis for the Senate to hold no hearings and no votes as part of its broad “advice and consent” power.

Democrats and Republicans Agree: Senate Should Hold No Hearings and No Votes on Supreme Court Nominee | American Center for Law and Justice

I hope this helps to clear a few thing up.

You know the American Center for Law and Justice is nothing more than a bible thumping version of Glen Beck, don't you? No credibility from any of their crap.

Says you. They are right-leaning, I agree, but can you refute what is written?

Yes. Their conclusions are not backed up by facts. They presented no reason to believe Democrats believe there should be no votes on any supreme court nominee. They did note one remark by one Democrat about waiting until after an election before a vote, but that wouldn't preclude a vote between the election and the inauguration of the next president, and there has never been a time when the practice was actually done before the republicans this time.

Then refute the quotes I posted.

 

[BULLDOG]

This might answer some of the up coming questions:

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

Historical Precedent Favors Letting Our Next President Appoint Justice Scalia’s Replacement | American Center for Law and Justice

And let us see if you appreciate this

Some of the best arguments defending the Senate’s right to act or not act on judicial nominees have been made by leading liberals serving in the Senate – Vice President Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.

When these men were U.S. Senators and faced judicial nominations from the opposing party’s President, they articulately laid out the compelling constitutional basis for the Senate to hold no hearings and no votes as part of its broad “advice and consent” power.

Democrats and Republicans Agree: Senate Should Hold No Hearings and No Votes on Supreme Court Nominee | American Center for Law and Justice

I hope this helps to clear a few thing up.

You know the American Center for Law and Justice is nothing more than a bible thumping version of Glen Beck, don't you? No credibility from any of their crap.

Says you. They are right-leaning, I agree, but can you refute what is written?

Yes. Their conclusions are not backed up by facts. They presented no reason to believe Democrats believe there should be no votes on any supreme court nominee. They did note one remark by one Democrat about waiting until after an election before a vote, but that wouldn't preclude a vote between the election and the inauguration of the next president, and there has never been a time when the practice was actually done before the republicans this time.

Maybe so, but Obama was the first Democrat to nominate a SC Justice since the The Biden Rule.

I understand that you're a Leftist and think rules only apply to Republicans, but since the creation of The Biden Rule do you think it would have been any different? A Democrat Senate/Republican WH allowing a SC nominee a vote in the months before an election when you were uncertain of the winning party?

Let me clarify, would a Democrat Senate allow a Republican Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed just a few months before the possible election of a Democrat President, taking away his/her opportunity to nominate a Democrat Justice?

I thought not.

Can you name one time that happened?

 

[BULLDOG]

This might answer some of the up coming questions:

Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.

Historical Precedent Favors Letting Our Next President Appoint Justice Scalia’s Replacement | American Center for Law and Justice

And let us see if you appreciate this

Some of the best arguments defending the Senate’s right to act or not act on judicial nominees have been made by leading liberals serving in the Senate – Vice President Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.

When these men were U.S. Senators and faced judicial nominations from the opposing party’s President, they articulately laid out the compelling constitutional basis for the Senate to hold no hearings and no votes as part of its broad “advice and consent” power.

Democrats and Republicans Agree: Senate Should Hold No Hearings and No Votes on Supreme Court Nominee | American Center for Law and Justice

I hope this helps to clear a few thing up.

You know the American Center for Law and Justice is nothing more than a bible thumping version of Glen Beck, don't you? No credibility from any of their crap.

Says you. They are right-leaning, I agree, but can you refute what is written?

Yes. Their conclusions are not backed up by facts. They presented no reason to believe Democrats believe there should be no votes on any supreme court nominee. They did note one remark by one Democrat about waiting until after an election before a vote, but that wouldn't preclude a vote between the election and the inauguration of the next president, and there has never been a time when the practice was actually done before the republicans this time.

Then refute the quotes I posted.

Fact-checking claims about the 80-year SCOTUS nomination ‘tradition’
The last time there was a vacancy, nomination and confirmation was 84 years ago. After Oliver Wendell Holmes retired on Jan. 12, 1932, Benjamin Cardozo was nominated by President Herbert Hoover on Feb. 15, 1932, and confirmed by the Senate nine days later. (Hoover lost his reelection bid that year.)

But the notion of an 80-year precedent is fundamentally misleading.

"This is entirely a matter of circumstance," said Sarah Binder, a political scientist at George Washington University. "Certainly not a norm or tradition by presidents refraining from nominating in a presidential election year or by senators refusing to consider such nominations."

While it is rare to fill a Supreme Court vacancy while a presidential race is happening, that's more because seats on the bench are seldom empty in election years.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

"Certainly not a norm or tradition by presidents refraining from nominating in a presidential election year or by senators refusing to consider such nominations."

I certainly agree that a President can nominate any time there is a vacancy, since 1992 and a new rule the likelihood of a judicial nominee getting a hearing or confirmed in an election year are nil. No political party in this day and age is going to confirm a nominee during an election year if the president was from a different party. Like I explained in post #21

No political party is going to give a hearing to someone not of their party and deny a President from their party the opportunity nominate a justice from that party.

If you don't realize, or accept, that simple truth, there's nothing more to say. From either one of us.

 

[BULLDOG]

"Certainly not a norm or tradition by presidents refraining from nominating in a presidential election year or by senators refusing to consider such nominations."

I certainly agree that a President can nominate any time there is a vacancy, since 1992 and a new rule the likelihood of a judicial nominee getting a hearing or confirmed in an election year are nil. No political party in this day and age is going to confirm a nominee during an election year if the president was from a different party. Like I explained in post #21

No political party is going to give a hearing to someone not of their party and deny a President from their party the opportunity nominate a justice from that party.

If you don't realize, or accept, that simple truth, there's nothing more to say. From either one of us.

How many election year supreme court vacancies have there been since 92? The right has proven we can survive with only 8 justices. No reason to even bother appointing another at this point.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

"Certainly not a norm or tradition by presidents refraining from nominating in a presidential election year or by senators refusing to consider such nominations."

I certainly agree that a President can nominate any time there is a vacancy, since 1992 and a new rule the likelihood of a judicial nominee getting a hearing or confirmed in an election year are nil. No political party in this day and age is going to confirm a nominee during an election year if the president was from a different party. Like I explained in post #21

No political party is going to give a hearing to someone not of their party and deny a President from their party the opportunity nominate a justice from that party.

If you don't realize, or accept, that simple truth, there's nothing more to say. From either one of us.

How many election year supreme court vacancies have there been since 92? The right has proven we can survive with only 8 justices. No reason to even bother appointing another at this point.

The number of similar instances since '92 has no bearing. That this is the first time that The Biden Rule has been used also has no bearing. What does matter is the fact that it is in the books and was followed.

If you feel that the rule is wrong, wait until the Democrats hold the Senate and petition them to abolish it. But good luck with that, because the next it might happen to them again.

If you are happy with a 4-4 split in the Supreme Court, good for you. But what if it was 5-3 Republican split? How tickled would you be?

I, for one, don't like the gridlock of 4-4. If you believe it works then lets just do away with the Supreme Court and let all the little kingdoms of the Appellate Courts fight it out.

But let me ask you question. If the 9th and 10th Circuit Courts have 2 Appeals nearly identical, the 9th rules one way and the 10th the other, which precedent do we go by since we don't have a Supreme Court anymore?

Edit: That sounds like Judicial Anarchy to me. That wouldn't be good for anyone, including you.

 

[BULLDOG]

"Certainly not a norm or tradition by presidents refraining from nominating in a presidential election year or by senators refusing to consider such nominations."

I certainly agree that a President can nominate any time there is a vacancy, since 1992 and a new rule the likelihood of a judicial nominee getting a hearing or confirmed in an election year are nil. No political party in this day and age is going to confirm a nominee during an election year if the president was from a different party. Like I explained in post #21

No political party is going to give a hearing to someone not of their party and deny a President from their party the opportunity nominate a justice from that party.

If you don't realize, or accept, that simple truth, there's nothing more to say. From either one of us.

How many election year supreme court vacancies have there been since 92? The right has proven we can survive with only 8 justices. No reason to even bother appointing another at this point.

The number of similar instances '92 have no bearing. The fact that this is the first time that The Biden Rule has been used also has no bearing. What does matter is that it is in the book and was followed.

If you are happy with a 4-4 split in the Supreme Court, good for you. But what if it was 5-3 Republican split? How tickled would you be?

I, for one, don't like the gridlock of 4-4. If you believe it works then lets just do away with the Supreme Court and let all the little kingdoms of the Appellate Courts fight it out.

But let me ask you question. If the 9th and 10th Circuit Courts have 2 Appeals nearly identical, the 9th rules one way and the 10th the other, which precedent do we go by since we don't have a Supreme Court anymore?

Yet you specifically mentioned 92. A 5-3 split would still be a 5-4 split with one more justice. Are you suggesting Gorsuch would side with a Democratic minority? Get real. The man already said a truck driver can be fired for choosing to freeze to death. I'm having a hard time figuring how it's more important to have a full court now than it was all of last year.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

"Certainly not a norm or tradition by presidents refraining from nominating in a presidential election year or by senators refusing to consider such nominations."

I certainly agree that a President can nominate any time there is a vacancy, since 1992 and a new rule the likelihood of a judicial nominee getting a hearing or confirmed in an election year are nil. No political party in this day and age is going to confirm a nominee during an election year if the president was from a different party. Like I explained in post #21

No political party is going to give a hearing to someone not of their party and deny a President from their party the opportunity nominate a justice from that party.

If you don't realize, or accept, that simple truth, there's nothing more to say. From either one of us.

How many election year supreme court vacancies have there been since 92? The right has proven we can survive with only 8 justices. No reason to even bother appointing another at this point.

The number of similar instances '92 have no bearing. The fact that this is the first time that The Biden Rule has been used also has no bearing. What does matter is that it is in the book and was followed.

If you are happy with a 4-4 split in the Supreme Court, good for you. But what if it was 5-3 Republican split? How tickled would you be?

I, for one, don't like the gridlock of 4-4. If you believe it works then lets just do away with the Supreme Court and let all the little kingdoms of the Appellate Courts fight it out.

But let me ask you question. If the 9th and 10th Circuit Courts have 2 Appeals nearly identical, the 9th rules one way and the 10th the other, which precedent do we go by since we don't have a Supreme Court anymore?

Yet you specifically mentioned 92. A 5-3 split would still be a 5-4 split with one more justice. Are you suggesting Gorsuch would side with a Democratic minority? Get real. The man already said a truck driver can be fired for choosing to freeze to death. I'm having a hard time figuring how it's more important to have a full court now than it was all of last year.

I really didn't quite state my position correctly.

I should have said that if Ginsberg passes on and the court is 4-3 Republican majority, you would appreciate that very much. Just as Democrats don't like a 5-4 Republican majority.

I guess what it boils down to with the USSC in a 4-4 gridlock, it leaves the Circuit Courts as Little Kingdoms. It means that there are no judicial controls.

As I stated in another thread, I believe, that it is nearly impossible to getting the full 13 Circuit Courts to agree. Because of that, with the USSC in gridllock, both ideologically and numerically, there is no arbitrator to set 1 judicial precedent for our laws.

 

[BULLDOG]

"Certainly not a norm or tradition by presidents refraining from nominating in a presidential election year or by senators refusing to consider such nominations."

I certainly agree that a President can nominate any time there is a vacancy, since 1992 and a new rule the likelihood of a judicial nominee getting a hearing or confirmed in an election year are nil. No political party in this day and age is going to confirm a nominee during an election year if the president was from a different party. Like I explained in post #21

No political party is going to give a hearing to someone not of their party and deny a President from their party the opportunity nominate a justice from that party.

If you don't realize, or accept, that simple truth, there's nothing more to say. From either one of us.

How many election year supreme court vacancies have there been since 92? The right has proven we can survive with only 8 justices. No reason to even bother appointing another at this point.

The number of similar instances '92 have no bearing. The fact that this is the first time that The Biden Rule has been used also has no bearing. What does matter is that it is in the book and was followed.

If you are happy with a 4-4 split in the Supreme Court, good for you. But what if it was 5-3 Republican split? How tickled would you be?

I, for one, don't like the gridlock of 4-4. If you believe it works then lets just do away with the Supreme Court and let all the little kingdoms of the Appellate Courts fight it out.

But let me ask you question. If the 9th and 10th Circuit Courts have 2 Appeals nearly identical, the 9th rules one way and the 10th the other, which precedent do we go by since we don't have a Supreme Court anymore?

Yet you specifically mentioned 92. A 5-3 split would still be a 5-4 split with one more justice. Are you suggesting Gorsuch would side with a Democratic minority? Get real. The man already said a truck driver can be fired for choosing to freeze to death. I'm having a hard time figuring how it's more important to have a full court now than it was all of last year.

I really didn't quite state my position correctly.

I should have said that if Ginsberg passes on and the court is 4-3 Republican majority, you would appreciate that very much. Just as Democrats don't like a 5-4 Republican majority.

I guess what it boils down to with the USSC in a 4-4 gridlock, it leaves the Circuit Courts as Little Kingdoms. It means that there are no judicial controls.

As I stated in another thread, I believe, that it is nearly impossible to getting the full 13 Circuit Courts to agree. Because of that, with the USSC in gridllock, both ideologically and numerically, there is no arbitrator to set 1 judicial precedent for our laws.

And that is so important now, but it wasn't important last year? What makes things so different now?