Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[paperview]

Also, too:

Worth a minute's watch:



A little further into the speech, Biden called for a "compromise" pick -- and when you look at the makeup of the court at the time:


John Paul Stevens - Appointed by Ford
William Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon - Appointed to CJ by Reagan
Sandra Day O’Connor - Appointed by Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Appointed by GHW Bush
David Souter.- Appointed by GHW Bush
Harry Blackmun - Appointed by Nixon

Byron White - Appointed by Kennedy


... with Byron White, the only Dem nominated Justice, signalling he perhaps might be retiring (White actually retired the following year), and the real probability of the entire slate of Justices being GOP, which swung far right in the previous decade...there was real concern of a totally stacked court.

Still, Biden was talking about what would have been a fall election year hearing in his hypothetical, and Biden goes on to say "compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate:"

From that same 1992 clip: "If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter. But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees, as is my right."

 

[Faun]

Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....

Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.

Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.

The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.

Just goes to demonstrate how desperate the right is to try and defend the unbelievable suggestions by GOP leadership to shut the conformation process down for a year because they don't like Obama.

Well in a sense they were the same thing. The gop had 3 potus terms in a row, which was pretty unheard of, and which probably wouldn't have happened except for Gary Hart and Duckass melting down. (I voted for HW in 80, 88 and 92 btw) HW did after all get his TWO Justices: Souter and Thomas. Souter of course didn't turn out to be a staunch conservative, and he was succeeded by Sontomayor.

BUT the dems didn't carry through. In criminal law there's a concept that you can think real hard about committing a crime, and even say dumb shite, but there's no crime until you take one concrete action to accomplish the crime, and then it's "an attempt."

But, since 1968 gop potuses have had 12 Justices confirmed, and the dems ..... 4. If you needed any kind of graphic to show that the Court has moved right since the Liberal hayday, that should do it. The next time some fool says "the dems have loading up the bench with a bunch of liberals," I might post this again.

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, it was not the same. George Bush, unlike Obama, was never told he could not carry out his Constitutional obligation of appointing a replacement justice to the Supreme Court.

What do you call this?

'When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.

I think Schumer was an idiot for saying that. I don't even know what motivated him. But as far as I can tell, Democrats did not support him ... he wasn't in a leadership role where he could even effect such nonsense ... and it never came to pass.

 

[Faun]

Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?

I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.

The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.

Not exactly.

This is what Senator McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”


And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:

Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.

10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.

Yrs, exactly. McConnell (and Criuz) have stated they will do what they can to prevent Obama from appointing a replacement.

Biden never even suggested such nonsense of Bush. Biden said wait until the election, just a few months out and with no vacancy on the court, is over.

And frankly, like many, I never knew Biden even said that until yesterday.

The Republicans are asking the same thing. Wait until the election, just 10 months away. Schumer said the same thing with the election 17 months away. Paybacks are hell aren't they.

What Biden said then is not what Republicans are saying now. The message now is don't even nominate anyone ... ever again. If you do, we will not confirm them ... the next president will appoint Scalia's replacement, not Obama. Compared to the message to Bush, which was that he would get to appoint any replacements should a seat open; but that he would have to wait a few months until the election was over.

 

[paperview]

I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.

The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.

Not exactly.

This is what Senator McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”


And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:

Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.

10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.

Yrs, exactly. McConnell (and Criuz) have stated they will do what they can to prevent Obama from appointing a replacement.

Biden never even suggested such nonsense of Bush. Biden said wait until the election, just a few months out and with no vacancy on the court, is over.

And frankly, like many, I never knew Biden even said that until yesterday.

The Republicans are asking the same thing. Wait until the election, just 10 months away. Schumer said the same thing with the election 17 months away. Paybacks are hell aren't they.

What Biden said then is not what Republicans are saying now. The message now is don't even nominate anyone ... ever again. If you do, we will not confirm them ... the next president will appoint Scalia's replacement, not Obama. Compared to the message to Bush, which was that he would get to appoint any replacements should a seat open; but that he would have to wait a few months until the election was over.

There is this too: If G.H.W. Bush had nominated a SCOTUS candidate in summer /fall of 1992, the candidate would have been nominated by a president actively seeking reelection and whose motives could be influenced by his own campaign. No such comparison to Obama.

And, as another poster put it: "Never mind that G.H.W. Bush had previously nominated that Yugo of a Justice, Clarence Thomas."

 

[TooTall]

What issue has your tit in a wringer?

Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?

I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.

The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.

Not exactly.

This is what Senator McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”


And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:

Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.

10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.

As I posted on the other thread about Biden's Senate floor speech:

my take away -- after listening to the full hour and a half speech (which I doubt many here will listen to), a cuppla things

Sen Joe Biden DDE Supreme Court Confirmation | User Clip | C-SPAN.org <---link to full speech

First, it was late June when he made this statement - not Feb. Biden states specifically in his extended speech : It was about a president nominating a candidate in the "summer or fall of an election season" Direct quote. He also was calling for a compromise candidate, and said he would consider one later in the speech.

2. There was no vacancy when Biden made that statement, that meant anyone on the Bench (wink to Byron White) when he said who might have made the decision to step down (a point he makes over and over) would be undergoing a confirmation process in the fall of the election year.

Something else he notes: Between Reagan and Bush at that point in 1992, Between just Reagan and Bush, the GOP had already named 8 nominees for SIX positions on the court.
8 out of 9 SCJ's had been picked by republican presidents.

I recommend a listen to the full Biden at the above link.

Doubt you, or any connie will, but for others interested -- It's awesome.

What you call awesome I call trying to have it both ways. We shall see if Obama attempts to talk with Republicans in making his choice for a SC Justice. It would be a first!

 

[TooTall]

I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.

The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.

Not exactly.

This is what Senator McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”


And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:

Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.

10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.

Yrs, exactly. McConnell (and Criuz) have stated they will do what they can to prevent Obama from appointing a replacement.

Biden never even suggested such nonsense of Bush. Biden said wait until the election, just a few months out and with no vacancy on the court, is over.

And frankly, like many, I never knew Biden even said that until yesterday.

The Republicans are asking the same thing. Wait until the election, just 10 months away. Schumer said the same thing with the election 17 months away. Paybacks are hell aren't they.

What Biden said then is not what Republicans are saying now. The message now is don't even nominate anyone ... ever again. If you do, we will not confirm them ... the next president will appoint Scalia's replacement, not Obama. Compared to the message to Bush, which was that he would get to appoint any replacements should a seat open; but that he would have to wait a few months until the election was over.

Once again, this is what McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

 

[TooTall]

As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN

Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.

--LOL

there is no difference

and furthermore it is constitutional

Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....

Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.

Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.

The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.

Just goes to demonstrate how desperate the right is to try and defend the unbelievable suggestions by GOP leadership to shut the conformation process down for a year because they don't like Obama.

Obama can't appoint anyone. He can nominate anyone he wants to and the Senate can confirm or not confirm who he nominates.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

Baloney. Invoke the "Biden Rule", don't hold hearings and wait till after the elections. Fuck the Democrats.. they'd most certainly do it.

 

[paperview]

Once again, this is what McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell and the Senate GOP have said there will be no confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee.

None. No hearings.

Lyndsey Graham said he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Republicans are asking the same thing. Wait until the election, just 10 months away. Schumer said the same thing with the election 17 months away. Paybacks are hell aren't they.

No they are not saying wait until after the elections. They are saying "No" based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee:

"This comes after McConnell issued his most definitive statement on Tuesday: There will be no Supreme Court nominee confirmed in President Barack Obama's final year in office.

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court."

​

Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee - CNNPolitics.com


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Once again, this is what McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

There wouldn't be a new President until noon on January 2017.


>>>>

 

[paperview]

The Republicans are asking the same thing. Wait until the election, just 10 months away. Schumer said the same thing with the election 17 months away. Paybacks are hell aren't they.

No they are not saying wait until after the elections. They are saying "No" based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee:

"This comes after McConnell issued his most definitive statement on Tuesday: There will be no Supreme Court nominee confirmed in President Barack Obama's final year in office.

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court."

​

Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee - CNNPolitics.com


>>>>

Yup.

"No hearing, no vote," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., as he emerged from a closed-door meeting with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Even the most divisive nominees for the high court have received a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, and the election-year decision to deny such a session is a sharp break with the Senate's traditional "advise and consent" role. A committee review and a hearing is the first step in the process
...
Hearings would be "a waste of time," added Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
...

McConnell was at the center of a battle a decade ago over Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees of President George W. Bush and, after Democrats took over the chamber in 2007, repeatedly said Bush's judges deserved up or down votes.

Top Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont said the GOP's promised obstruction was unprecedented.

"During my time on the committee, we have never refused to send a Supreme Court nominee to the full Senate for a confirmation vote, even when the majority of the committee opposed the nomination," Leahy said. "And once reported to the full Senate, every Supreme Court nominee has received an up or down confirmation vote during my more than four decades in the Senate."

GOP Senators: No hearing, no vote for Obama Court pick

I think this is going to burn the GOP, but bad.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think this is going to burn the GOP, but bad.

34 Senators up for election this year. 24 Republican and 10 Democrats and we (Republican) only have a 4 seat majority in the Senate.

Your side will beat the crap out of those Senators and the Presidential candidate about this for the next 9 months.

I'm sure McConnell will enjoy the nominee that President Clinton (or Sanders) submits to a Senate with a Dem majority.




Stupid shits.


>>>>

 

[bendog]

I do have to say that it's hypocritical to say the least for the gop to think they should be able to limit a two termer to two confirmed nominees. Nixon had Four. Reagan 3, and HW 2 in a single term.

I did not know Biden made his comment in June. Alito, for example, was nominated in Nov 05. Hearings and his confirmation vote occurred in Jan 06. So, at least for scotus Justices, the confirmation process is not that long, but assuming HW had made a nomination in June, you'd be looking at a confirmation vote around September which really is the heat of a potus race. Still, he didn't say the Senate wouldn't even consider it. And, honestly, I don't think I'd blame either party for not confirming someone that close to an election UNLESS it was compromise nominee whom both parties accepted before the nomination.

Still, the point is that the gop has the constitutional power to only allow dem potuses two Justices and none in their final term. But had the dems played by those rules, two of Nixons and one Reagan's nominees wouldn't have made it. Careful what you wish for.

 

[TooTall]

Once again, this is what McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell and the Senate GOP have said there will be no confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee.

None. No hearings.

Lyndsey Graham said he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill.

Sen Grassley, who is chair of the Judicial committee, has not said that, and he is the one that would schedule a hearing.

 

[paperview]

Once again, this is what McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

McConnell and the Senate GOP have said there will be no confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee.

None. No hearings.

Lyndsey Graham said he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill.

Sen Grassley, who is chair of the Judicial committee, has not said that, and he is the one that would schedule a hearing.

You're late. Ketchup with the news.

According to the solidified GOP, including Grassley - there will be no confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee.

None. No hearings.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Not exactly.

This is what Senator McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

The American people already had a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice when they elected Obama twice.

 

[WorldWatcher]

McConnell and the Senate GOP have said there will be no confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee.

None. No hearings.

Lyndsey Graham said he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill.

Sen Grassley, who is chair of the Judicial committee, has not said that, and he is the one that would schedule a hearing.

“Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017,” reads a letter from all 11 GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Grassley chairs. The letter was not signed by the nine Democratic members of the committee."

Grassley: No hearings for anyone Obama nominates for Supreme Court


>>>>

 

[bendog]

Folded faster than a blade of grass on an Iowa field. LOL

 

[TooTall]

Folded faster than a blade of grass on an Iowa field. LOL

Suits the hell out of me. No hearings, no vote and no Supreme Court Justice for Obama.