Progressive turn a 180 degrees on Judge nomanation

[Coyote]

FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Wrote the Obstructionist Playbook on ‘Borking’ a President’s Nominee

With news of the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Obama White House and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are already staking a position that President Obama, and not his successor, should appoint Scalia’s replacement. But it’s useful to remember that one member of the Obama administration – Vice President Joe Biden – once had a very different opinion on the Senate’s ability to block a president’s nominee at all costs.
Following the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1987, President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.

One of the key Democrats leading the charge was then Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A legal brief called the Biden Report was drafted to dissect Bork’s background and positions with the clear intention of opposing him. Bork would later write that the Biden Report “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.”

Ultimately, Biden’s Judiciary Committee rejected Bork’s nomination by a 9-5 vote, and eventually the full Senate would vote against his confirmation by 58-42.

The lasting legacy of the Bork nomination was the unprecedented viciousness of the campaign to block him, which has been the standard for Supreme Court nominations ever since. Indeed, the dictionary now contains the verb “bork” to describe the obstruction of a nominee “through systematic defamation or vilification.”

Bork had a hearing and confirmation vote right?

 

[eagle1462010]

FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Wrote the Obstructionist Playbook on ‘Borking’ a President’s Nominee

With news of the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Obama White House and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are already staking a position that President Obama, and not his successor, should appoint Scalia’s replacement. But it’s useful to remember that one member of the Obama administration – Vice President Joe Biden – once had a very different opinion on the Senate’s ability to block a president’s nominee at all costs.
Following the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1987, President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.

One of the key Democrats leading the charge was then Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A legal brief called the Biden Report was drafted to dissect Bork’s background and positions with the clear intention of opposing him. Bork would later write that the Biden Report “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.”

Ultimately, Biden’s Judiciary Committee rejected Bork’s nomination by a 9-5 vote, and eventually the full Senate would vote against his confirmation by 58-42.

The lasting legacy of the Bork nomination was the unprecedented viciousness of the campaign to block him, which has been the standard for Supreme Court nominations ever since. Indeed, the dictionary now contains the verb “bork” to describe the obstruction of a nominee “through systematic defamation or vilification.”

Bork had a hearing and confirmation vote right?

Yeah...........and was slandered to the heavens in a circus act.................Was Bork really that bad as they said he was...........

They will destroy anyone that challenges their power........

And the protest..............70 thrown out..............not very many when it's the other way around...........

 

[Coyote]

FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Wrote the Obstructionist Playbook on ‘Borking’ a President’s Nominee

With news of the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Obama White House and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are already staking a position that President Obama, and not his successor, should appoint Scalia’s replacement. But it’s useful to remember that one member of the Obama administration – Vice President Joe Biden – once had a very different opinion on the Senate’s ability to block a president’s nominee at all costs.
Following the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1987, President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.

One of the key Democrats leading the charge was then Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A legal brief called the Biden Report was drafted to dissect Bork’s background and positions with the clear intention of opposing him. Bork would later write that the Biden Report “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.”

Ultimately, Biden’s Judiciary Committee rejected Bork’s nomination by a 9-5 vote, and eventually the full Senate would vote against his confirmation by 58-42.

The lasting legacy of the Bork nomination was the unprecedented viciousness of the campaign to block him, which has been the standard for Supreme Court nominations ever since. Indeed, the dictionary now contains the verb “bork” to describe the obstruction of a nominee “through systematic defamation or vilification.”

Bork had a hearing and confirmation vote right?

Yeah...........and was slandered to the heavens in a circus act.................Was Bork really that bad as they said he was...........

They will destroy anyone that challenges their power........

And the protest..............70 thrown out..............not very many when it's the other way around...........

"They"....the Republicans?
"They"...the Democrats?
or "They" all those who put party of principle?

 

[eagle1462010]

FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Wrote the Obstructionist Playbook on ‘Borking’ a President’s Nominee

With news of the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Obama White House and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are already staking a position that President Obama, and not his successor, should appoint Scalia’s replacement. But it’s useful to remember that one member of the Obama administration – Vice President Joe Biden – once had a very different opinion on the Senate’s ability to block a president’s nominee at all costs.
Following the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1987, President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.

One of the key Democrats leading the charge was then Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A legal brief called the Biden Report was drafted to dissect Bork’s background and positions with the clear intention of opposing him. Bork would later write that the Biden Report “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.”

Ultimately, Biden’s Judiciary Committee rejected Bork’s nomination by a 9-5 vote, and eventually the full Senate would vote against his confirmation by 58-42.

The lasting legacy of the Bork nomination was the unprecedented viciousness of the campaign to block him, which has been the standard for Supreme Court nominations ever since. Indeed, the dictionary now contains the verb “bork” to describe the obstruction of a nominee “through systematic defamation or vilification.”

Bork had a hearing and confirmation vote right?

Yeah...........and was slandered to the heavens in a circus act.................Was Bork really that bad as they said he was...........

They will destroy anyone that challenges their power........

And the protest..............70 thrown out..............not very many when it's the other way around...........

"They"....the Republicans?
"They"...the Democrats?
or "They" all those who put party of principle?

Both sides have played dirty..............Life isn't fair......and that is the way it's been for a while........

They weren't going to give Obama a pick if they could stall.........which has happened before ........hoping to get the replacement........and had this been the Dems they would have done the same and you know it.

 

[Coyote]

FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Wrote the Obstructionist Playbook on ‘Borking’ a President’s Nominee

With news of the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Obama White House and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are already staking a position that President Obama, and not his successor, should appoint Scalia’s replacement. But it’s useful to remember that one member of the Obama administration – Vice President Joe Biden – once had a very different opinion on the Senate’s ability to block a president’s nominee at all costs.
Following the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1987, President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.

One of the key Democrats leading the charge was then Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A legal brief called the Biden Report was drafted to dissect Bork’s background and positions with the clear intention of opposing him. Bork would later write that the Biden Report “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.”

Ultimately, Biden’s Judiciary Committee rejected Bork’s nomination by a 9-5 vote, and eventually the full Senate would vote against his confirmation by 58-42.

The lasting legacy of the Bork nomination was the unprecedented viciousness of the campaign to block him, which has been the standard for Supreme Court nominations ever since. Indeed, the dictionary now contains the verb “bork” to describe the obstruction of a nominee “through systematic defamation or vilification.”

Bork had a hearing and confirmation vote right?

Yeah...........and was slandered to the heavens in a circus act.................Was Bork really that bad as they said he was...........

They will destroy anyone that challenges their power........

And the protest..............70 thrown out..............not very many when it's the other way around...........

"They"....the Republicans?
"They"...the Democrats?
or "They" all those who put party of principle?

Both sides have played dirty..............Life isn't fair......and that is the way it's been for a while........

They weren't going to give Obama a pick if they could stall.........which has happened before ........hoping to get the replacement........and had this been the Dems they would have done the same and you know it.

When has it happened before?

Would the Dems have done the same? HAVE they?

 

[eagle1462010]

FLASHBACK: Joe Biden Wrote the Obstructionist Playbook on ‘Borking’ a President’s Nominee

With news of the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Obama White House and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are already staking a position that President Obama, and not his successor, should appoint Scalia’s replacement. But it’s useful to remember that one member of the Obama administration – Vice President Joe Biden – once had a very different opinion on the Senate’s ability to block a president’s nominee at all costs.
Following the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1987, President Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork.

One of the key Democrats leading the charge was then Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A legal brief called the Biden Report was drafted to dissect Bork’s background and positions with the clear intention of opposing him. Bork would later write that the Biden Report “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.”

Ultimately, Biden’s Judiciary Committee rejected Bork’s nomination by a 9-5 vote, and eventually the full Senate would vote against his confirmation by 58-42.

The lasting legacy of the Bork nomination was the unprecedented viciousness of the campaign to block him, which has been the standard for Supreme Court nominations ever since. Indeed, the dictionary now contains the verb “bork” to describe the obstruction of a nominee “through systematic defamation or vilification.”

Bork had a hearing and confirmation vote right?

Yeah...........and was slandered to the heavens in a circus act.................Was Bork really that bad as they said he was...........

They will destroy anyone that challenges their power........

And the protest..............70 thrown out..............not very many when it's the other way around...........

"They"....the Republicans?
"They"...the Democrats?
or "They" all those who put party of principle?

Both sides have played dirty..............Life isn't fair......and that is the way it's been for a while........

They weren't going to give Obama a pick if they could stall.........which has happened before ........hoping to get the replacement........and had this been the Dems they would have done the same and you know it.

When has it happened before?

Would the Dems have done the same? HAVE they?

I showed links......and saw others showing links in blocking it..............Bork is just an example of a Character Assassination............that was low..........

Again......doesn't matter...........your side would have done the same under similar circumstances......no matter how much you ramble......

He's gonna get appointed,.

 

[Darkwind]

Has been asked and answered many times. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president. The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee. The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.

Cruz is right. This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump. If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no. As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.

Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling. As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months. If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

 

[Coyote]

Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling. As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months. If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

 

[Darkwind]

Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.

Has been asked and answered many times. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president. The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee. The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.

Cruz is right. This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump. If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no. As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.

Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling. As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months. If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

But now a precedent has been set.

Wrong, nominees have been ignored in the past.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789

Wow, there have actually been 10 "no action" in history.

Thanks, I hadn't known that.

 

[Darkwind]

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

Excuses? I wasn't aware that pointing out that the Senate has allowed nominees to languish in limbo for months going on years was an excuse.

And it has been pointed out that there are 10 preceding nominations that have never had any action taken on them. That reaffirms My statement that this is no time limit on when the Senate must act on a nominee.

Not to mention the 100+ open seats for the federal judiciary that have gone to the wayside.

 

[Coyote]

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

Excuses? I wasn't aware that pointing out that the Senate has allowed nominees to languish in limbo for months going on years was an excuse.

And it has been pointed out that there are 10 preceding nominations that have never had any action taken on them. That reaffirms My statement that this is no time limit on when the Senate must act on a nominee.

Not to mention the 100+ open seats for the federal judiciary that have gone to the wayside.

So you'll be fine if the Democrats in power decide to refuse to allow hearings for a nominee for a year until the next election? I don't see anything in those failed nominations that approach what was done with Garland nor was any SCOTUS nominee held up as long as his was. AT what point does "responsibility" become obstruction and when does it become detrimental to our country (not some political agenda)?

You pointed out the unfilled judicial vacancies...this never used to be an issue. Both sides worked together to produce candidates that would pass the process. That has gone to hell.

...and what about those 100 open seats? How did that come about?

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.


By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed. ​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it was morally wrong, then the Democrats should never impose the Biden Rule...correct?

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.


The Dems controlled the Senate from 2007-2015.

 

[candycorn]

Not really.

Yes really. Your dissent is duly noted.

Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.

Has been asked and answered many times. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president. The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee. The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.

Cruz is right. This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump. If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no. As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.

Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling. As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months. If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

Sorry, a tit for tat response is something I don't do.

Name the law or Senate rule that they must respond within X amount of time to a judicial nomination.

Do you think they would have done the same with a Bush nominee had the Senate been under Republican control?

 

[Darkwind]

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

Excuses? I wasn't aware that pointing out that the Senate has allowed nominees to languish in limbo for months going on years was an excuse.

And it has been pointed out that there are 10 preceding nominations that have never had any action taken on them. That reaffirms My statement that this is no time limit on when the Senate must act on a nominee.

Not to mention the 100+ open seats for the federal judiciary that have gone to the wayside.

So you'll be fine if the Democrats in power decide to refuse to allow hearings for a nominee for a year until the next election? I don't see anything in those failed nominations that approach what was done with Garland nor was any SCOTUS nominee held up as long as his was. AT what point does "responsibility" become obstruction and when does it become detrimental to our country (not some political agenda)?

You pointed out the unfilled judicial vacancies...this never used to be an issue. Both sides worked together to produce candidates that would pass the process. That has gone to hell.

...and what about those 100 open seats? How did that come about?

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.


By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed. ​

Well, two things. Democrats confirmed 68 in 8 years. Trump has been President less than 3. So, give it time and we'll see if your numbers hold up. I, myself, have been uber critical of the Senate Republicans for not passing nominations of Trump's given they have done away with the filibuster rule. So, they have no excuse. Yet again, however; There is no time limit.

Second. If the Democrats wish to do the same, I would be a hypocrite to say otherwise. Still, I'll cross that bridge when it comes. As it stands, with the pure hatred and craziness coming from the left in these times, I don't see the Democrats getting control of the Senate anytime soon.

So, when they do, and a similar circumstance arises, look Me up.

Until then, acknowledge that your just pissed that the SCOTUS will not be open to judicial legislation anytime soon.

 

[Coyote]

I don't know about morals in this, and there is no Biden Rule. So what are you talking about? Are you saying they shouldn't take a page out of the Republican playbook? They shouldn't. But now a precedent has been set. I guess the only thing to say is - you may be paying for this for a long time. I hope you are happy.

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.


The Dems controlled the Senate from 2007-2015.

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them?

 

[candycorn]

Not really.

Yes really. Your dissent is duly noted.

Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.

Has been asked and answered many times. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president. The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee. The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.

Cruz is right. This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump. If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no. As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.

Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling. As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months. If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months.

There have been much longer vacancies.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789

10 times there has been no action taken; the last time was during Eisenhower.

 

[Darkwind]

Yes really. Your dissent is duly noted.

Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.

Has been asked and answered many times. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president. The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee. The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.

Cruz is right. This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump. If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no. As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.

Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling. As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months. If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

Sorry, a tit for tat response is something I don't do.

Name the law or Senate rule that they must respond within X amount of time to a judicial nomination.

Do you think they would have done the same with a Bush nominee had the Senate been under Republican control?

I think the Democrats would have done exactly the same and My answer would be exactly the same. I would not like that they did it, but I wouldn't say that the Democrats had to answer to a timeframe that does not exist.

 

[Coyote]

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

Excuses? I wasn't aware that pointing out that the Senate has allowed nominees to languish in limbo for months going on years was an excuse.

And it has been pointed out that there are 10 preceding nominations that have never had any action taken on them. That reaffirms My statement that this is no time limit on when the Senate must act on a nominee.

Not to mention the 100+ open seats for the federal judiciary that have gone to the wayside.

So you'll be fine if the Democrats in power decide to refuse to allow hearings for a nominee for a year until the next election? I don't see anything in those failed nominations that approach what was done with Garland nor was any SCOTUS nominee held up as long as his was. AT what point does "responsibility" become obstruction and when does it become detrimental to our country (not some political agenda)?

You pointed out the unfilled judicial vacancies...this never used to be an issue. Both sides worked together to produce candidates that would pass the process. That has gone to hell.

...and what about those 100 open seats? How did that come about?

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.


By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed. ​

Well, two things. Democrats confirmed 68 in 8 years. Trump has been President less than 3. So, give it time and we'll see if your numbers hold up. I, myself, have been uber critical of the Senate Republicans for not passing nominations of Trump's given they have done away with the filibuster rule. So, they have no excuse. Yet again, however; There is no time limit.

Second. If the Democrats wish to do the same, I would be a hypocrite to say otherwise. Still, I'll cross that bridge when it comes. As it stands, with the pure hatred and craziness coming from the left in these times, I don't see the Democrats getting control of the Senate anytime soon.

So, when they do, and a similar circumstance arises, look Me up.

Until then, acknowledge that your just pissed that the SCOTUS will not be open to judicial legislation anytime soon.

Pure hatred and crazyness is certainly coming from the right. You just happen to agree with the rightwing hate. Republicans only confirmed 22 of Obama's nominees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your side started the nuclear trend..........Tis Karma........and for now...............the balance has shifted for decades.......ENJOY.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings for a SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall that...

So you want to limit their responsibilities to a timetable -- which does not exist -- on just SCOTUS nominations? Are you aware that there have been on average, 90+ open seats on hundreds of federal bench openings?

Very aware. In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.

Quit making excuses for the way you handled Garland. You set a precedent.

In fact, under Obama - Republicans blocked more court appointees than under any other president.


The Dems controlled the Senate from 2007-2015.

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them?

Why'd the Dems leave so many vacancies from 2009-2015?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes really. Your dissent is duly noted.

Who was president when the vacancy occurred?

Was that not the man the people voted into office to, among other things, fill SCOTUS vacancies?

Yes.

Has been asked and answered many times. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the sitting president. The Senate chose to voice a no opinion on Obama's nominee. The interesting thing about that is that they didn't have to go into theatrics or vile namecalling to do so.

The premise was that the election would see a new President with a new nomination, regardless of who won that election.

That has occurred.

Cruz is right. This lends an air of super-legitimacy to the two nominations of Trump. If the Senate has a problem with this man's qualifications, they should vote no. As I said, they are not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of who is sits in the chair.

Not holding hearings removed any forum for theatrics and name calling. As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months. If you have a parallel where Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee; please refer to it.

As far as I can tell, it was the first time in history the Senate refused to do their job and left a vacancy for 7 months.

There have been much longer vacancies.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789

10 times there has been no action taken; the last time was during Eisenhower.

I'm so happy I could help you learn something.
You're welcome!