A thought experiment...

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

It's February 2008 and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has just died somewhat unexpectedly. Does anyone with a brain and still drawing great believe Chuck Shumer, Hilkary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, et all would allow President George W Bush to have a new USSC Justice confirmed?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Why is an experiment necessary? There's an exact parallel. Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of Reagan's presidency. McConnell voted for him. Lots off examples of justices being appointed in a POTUS' last year.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Nope. Nominated in 87 after the Democrats blocked Bork and Democrst operative Nina Totenberg torpedoed Doug Ginsburg.

You did, however, provide a great illustration of how the court can readily survive a few months with only 8 justices.

 

[imprimis]

Schumer said as much in 2007. He suggested having an embargo on confirming any SCOTUS nomination submitted by GWB. He didn't utter this in an election year---he advocated this 19 months before the inauguration. Remember it was the dems who borked Bork and filibustered the nomination of Miguel Estrada preventing a final vote in the Senate on his confirmation. Estrada wasn't being nominated for the SCOTUS but for the second circuit. And don't forget it was the democrats who changed the rules of the Senate (nuclear option) to prevent filibusters on Obama nominations.

Many on the left are saying that the Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy in Reagan's last year somehow trying to establish a precedent for moving forward now. Kennedy was Reagan's third nomination after Bork was borked and Douglas Ginsberg withdrew his nomination due to having smoked a joint at some point in his life.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Nope. Nominated in 87 after the Democrats blocked Bork and Democrst operative Nina Totenberg torpedoed Doug Ginsburg.

You did, however, provide a great illustration of how the court can readily survive a few months with only 8 justices.

Yep -- confirmed in the last year. Look it up. February. Others, too.... Looks like the GOP, again, is going to do whatever it can do have things its on way. It doesn't matter though, does it? The GOP doesn't care about anything except having their will imposed.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

This may have escaped your notice, but we're already IN the last year. Bork was nominated a full 8 months or more earlier than any prospective replacement for Scalia that Obama might put forward.

Perhaps Obama shouldn't have voted to filibuster Alito's nomination in 2007. Look it up.

 

[CowboyUp]

Couldn't Obama just make a recess appointment if McConnell vows to obstruct? That's the last thing I would want to see if I were a Republican: guarantee 3 Obama justices on the court.

If I were a GOP senator I would want a nominee from Obama and not just a recess appt. Let's debate it. With a true nominee hey can always have the debate (a national civics lesson) and still run out the clock in compliance with COTUS.

We the people need to hear this debate. There's a lot riding on it. Right now the court is 5-4 Republican (counting the Scalia seat). It might be a consensus moderate would emerge. But if GOP obstructs they're playing Russian roulette. The chances of them losing the senate (a bunch of blue state conservatives are up) increases. IF the senate flips and Hillary wins Dems get anyone they want. GOP should play ball. They would get a moderate and seem reasonable brokers, probably keeping the senate in GOP control. If they play ball there's a chance they come out in stronger negotiating positions for future appointments for RBG and/or Kennedy. Or another unexpected vacancy.

 

[Headhunter]

Even if Obama did a recess appointment that Justice still has to be confirmed once the Senate is back in session. Any recess appointment would never last.

The President can nominate anyone he wants the Senate has no obligation to approve.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

The dumbasses don't seem to get it. Why would the democrats ever let a republican nominee through then? If they get a Republican POTUS, don't they want him to be able to appoint justices? Or is it all about now, and we'll worry about tomorrow if and when that gets here?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

This may have escaped your notice, but we're already IN the last year. Bork was nominated a full 8 months or more earlier than any prospective replacement for Scalia that Obama might put forward.

Perhaps Obama shouldn't have voted to filibuster Alito's nomination in 2007. Look it up.

Bork was obviously a loon. He was a nut, and an old Nixon whore, as I recall.

Yes, we're IN the last year, and he will be both NOMINATED and APPOINTED in the last year. So? Did the voters elect the POTUS to serve only 3 years?

 

[imprimis]

The SCOTUS ruled in 2014 that Obama's recess appointments to the NFRB were improper. In the ruling they said a president could make recess appointments only if the Senate was not in session for more than 10 consecutive days. All McConnell has to do is keep the Senate in pro forma session.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Bork was obviously a loon. He was a nut, and an old Nixon whore, as I recall.

Yes, we're IN the last year, and he will be both NOMINATED and APPOINTED in the last year. So? Did the voters elect the POTUS to serve only 3 years?

No comment on Obama's 2007 approval to filibuster (along with Schumer, HRC, Kerry) Alito.

I see, it's Ok to filibuster and pull all kinds of Bullshit on justices tharpt aren't liberal enough, but when the tables are turned its not fair. There is zero evidence that Bork was a loon. The guy who torpedoed his nomination was a fat philandering drunk who killed a young woman abound never paid any price. I guess Bork wasn't up to that standard. You can pound sand.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

No comment on Obama's 2007 approval to filibuster (along with Schumer, HRC, Kerry) Alito.

I see, it's Ok to filibuster and pull all kinds of Bullshit on justices tharpt aren't liberal enough, but when the tables are turned its not fair. There is zero evidence that Bork was a loon. The guy who torpedoed his nomination was a fat philandering drunk who killed a young woman abound never paid any price. I guess Bork wasn't up to that standard. You can pound sand.

Board was borderline insane, if not clinically so. He was the archetype of a booger eating sickfat. When nobody else would fire Nixon's independent prosecutor guess who the chickenshit was that would in exchange for AG? Bork. Two other men resigned rather than do it. That shows you what an opportunistic, morally rudderless conservative really is. He probablY raised some bullshit "value" to justify firing Cox to be AG. Since you think like him, how do you think he rationalized it?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Also, if someone had a problem with a bad nominee, then have at it. Reject them if there's a reason. Just saying "nobody need apply" is unprecedented And has nothing to do with objecting to a specific candidate for some articulable reason. The false equivalencies the GOP is floating are comical. It's just a mugging and we all see how disrespectful they are to the constitution when they don't get their way.

Oh - Fatass is dead and you're getting a liberal justice.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Yes, completely unprecedented.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431304/schumer-2007-keep-bush-making-more-scotus-appointments

 

[Medic007]

Also, if someone had a problem with a bad nominee, then have at it. Reject them if there's a reason. Just saying "nobody need apply" is unprecedented And has nothing to do with objecting to a specific candidate for some articulable reason. The false equivalencies the GOP is floating are comical. It's just a mugging and we all see how disrespectful they are to the constitution when they don't get their way.

Oh - Fatass is dead and you're getting a liberal justice.

Revisionist history is always entertaining, especially when it involves liberal tears.

 

[davidallen]

GOP should negotiate to get a moderate appointed post haste - the debate and the opportunity for the bully pulpit of the POTUS to color the GOP as "out of touch" would be a huge win for the Dem candidates. Terrible strategic move to try and block an appointment.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

GOP should negotiate to get a moderate appointed post haste - the debate and the opportunity for the bully pulpit of the POTUS to color the GOP as "out of touch" would be a huge win for the Dem candidates. Terrible strategic move to try and block an appointment.

Wow! Obama would call the GOP out of touch. That would certainly be unprecedented.

Elections have consequences. The GOP won the Senate.

 

[davidallen]

Elections have consequences. The GOP won the Senate.

Elections have consequences. Obama was elected to two terms. Any other earth shattering revelations...

GOP would be within their rights to filibuster, but it would be politically damaging... especially if a moderate is nominated. Petty. Personal.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Elections have consequences. Obama was elected to two terms. Any other earth shattering revelations...

And the Senate can block his nominees. He knows this. He voted to filibuster Alito in 2007. Didn't seem to hold him back in 2008.

You can not tell me with a straight face that Harry Reid would've moved forward with any Bush nominee circa Feb/Mar 2008. You simply know that he wouldn't have. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth are pure crocodile tears.

 

[davidallen]

And the Senate can block his nominees. He knows this. He voted to filibuster Alito in 2007. Didn't seem to hold him back in 2008.

You can not tell me with a straight face that Harry Reid would've moved forward with any Bush nominee circa Feb/Mar 2008. You simply know that he wouldn't have. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth are pure crocodile tears.

Let me say this as plainly as possible. The Republican controlled Senate can block the nomination. They would be foolish to do so as it allows the POTUS to overtly campaign on behalf of the Dem candidates.

I have gnashed nary one tooth over this. The media loves a good fight and would love to see this carry through the summer and into the fall election. Not surprised by that.

Given momentum on the particular issues that would be highlighted in a nomination fight (abortion rights, marriage equality, ACA) do not favor the GOP candidates in a general election, cooler heads should prevail and seek a moderate compromise in exchange for a quick and painless confirmation. I am sure that won't happen, and I suppose it is a gamble worth taking given the head to heads with Hillary and Bernie - but we all know how unreliable those are.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

You are so wrong a new word would need to be invented for how wrong you are The GOP will definitely lose the Senate majority if they vote to confirm an Obama nominee. Obama and the media will use this against the GOP regardless. Those mindless enough to believe the landed on BS fron Obama, Schumer, Hillary, et al won't vote GOP anyway.

There is zero evidence that Obama would EVER compromise in such a situation

BTW, 36 of 160 Supreme Court nominees have been rejected. 25 of the 36 rejected received no up or down vote.

 

[Medic007]

Let me say this as plainly as possible. The Republican controlled Senate can block the nomination. They would be foolish to do so as it allows the POTUS to overtly campaign on behalf of the Dem candidates.

I have gnashed nary one tooth over this. The media loves a good fight and would love to see this carry through the summer and into the fall election. Not surprised by that.

Given momentum on the particular issues that would be highlighted in a nomination fight (abortion rights, marriage equality, ACA) do not favor the GOP candidates in a general election, cooler heads should prevail and seek a moderate compromise in exchange for a quick and painless confirmation. I am sure that won't happen, and I suppose it is a gamble worth taking given the head to heads with Hillary and Bernie - but we all know how unreliable those are.

Very short sighted. Pro 2nd Amendment and anti-illegal-easy-path-to-citizenship folks outnumber those who favor violating the 2nd Amendment and those who support law ignoring amnesty.

If the Dems hope to turn the tide based on Barry SCOTUS nominees, they'll be heartbroken, just as they have in the past two elections.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

The SCOTUS ruled in 2014 that Obama's recess appointments to the NFRB were improper. In the ruling they said a president could make recess appointments only if the Senate was not in session for more than 10 consecutive days. All McConnell has to do is keep the Senate in pro forma session.

Yes, they ruled 9-0 against President Obama, in that decision.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

It's comical how conservatives are trying to rationalize this obstruction.

As usual, they have no awareness of consequences. This will set a new standard of senate obstruction of judicial candidates, and eventually they'll scream bloody murder when the shoe is on the other foot. Then they'll sincerely use the arguments the D's are using now and play the victim card.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Nice video clip of McConnell's 180....... I'm not tech savvy enough to post the video but the link is below.

Speaking during a Senate session in July 2008, Sen. Mitch McConnell criticized the concept of the "Thurmond Rule" which some suggest allows senators to oppose the president's judicial nominations in the months before a presidential election. McConnell said Feb. 13 that the vacancy left by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until after the presidential election. - http://wapo.st/1Vjno6K
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...6c9972-d414-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Nice video clip of McConnell's 180....... I'm not tech savvy enough to post the video but the link is below.

Speaking during a Senate session in July 2008, Sen. Mitch McConnell criticized the concept of the "Thurmond Rule" which some suggest allows senators to oppose the president's judicial nominations in the months before a presidential election. McConnell said Feb. 13 that the vacancy left by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until after the presidential election. - http://wapo.st/1Vjno6K
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...6c9972-d414-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html

Thanks for proving my point.Schumer's doing exactly the same as McConnell, in reverse. They're both schmucks. Time to pay the piper for Bork; its as simple as that.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

There's no Thurmond Rule necessary. The U.S. Constitution provides the only prerogative necessary:

Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


BTW, Madison proposed an article that the President's nominees would be automatically appointed unless vetoed by the Senate, but this proposal was soundly rejected by the delegates

 

[imprimis]

BTW, Madison proposed an article that the President's nominees would be automatically appointed unless vetoed by the Senate, but this proposal was soundly rejected by the delegates

The Congress certainly embraced ole Madison when it came to their pay.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

How about another example of the way the Democrats have created the world they now have to deal with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada

Kept off the DC Circuit Court by filibuster because he was a conservative Latino, plain and simple.

 

[imprimis]

Harry Reid and the other nitwit dems were told when they imposed the Nuclear Option removing the filibuster on appointments that someday the Senate would change hands and they would be on the receiving end. The chickens have come home to roost.

It remains to be seen if McConnell and the rest of the repubes will keep their balls and play hard ball. There will be a full court press by the media, legal establishment, liberals, unions and squish repubes to capitulate. The biggest problem for the Senate GOP is their inability to stand united. Democrats always stand resolute regardless of their individual beliefs or desires.

 

[CowboyJD]

The more accurate way to look at this would be to ask how many OPPORTUNITIES to appoint a SCOTUS Justice (you could even split it up to look at incumbents running for a 2nd term vs lame ducks) in an election year have even occurred and then see how many of those opportunities were not followed through on or were refused by the Senate.

My bet would be that the opportunities are very rare and the examples of The Senate not confirming to allow the next President to appoint are even rarer.

Looks like 14 election year appointments of SCOTUS justices. Only one since WWII. 2 Senate rejections of election year lame duck SCOTUS appointments....neither since WWII.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987692/14-supreme-court-confirmations

The whole situation in its particularized entirety is largely unprecedented in Post WWII politics. Yes you can make claims and predictions about what they would have done, but it doesn't happen all that often when it comes right down to it.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

I don't have a strong opinion on what should happen from either side. I'm more interested in sitting back and watching the circus play out.

 

[davidallen]

Very short sighted. Pro 2nd Amendment and anti-illegal-easy-path-to-citizenship folks outnumber those who favor violating the 2nd Amendment and those who support law ignoring amnesty.

If the Dems hope to turn the tide based on Barry SCOTUS nominees, they'll be heartbroken, just as they have in the past two elections.

The GOP will get played here when Obama finds a previously vetted/accepted moderate to nominate - this sets up to be the issue that costs the GOP the Senate and the Presidency. Or not. In either case it will make for good theater.

 

[davidallen]

You are so wrong a new word would need to be invented for how wrong you are ...

You'll have to do better than that...

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Didn't Obama filibuster Alito and vote against Kennedy? Obstructionist?

 

[Ostatedchi]

This issue is greater than one election. The Republican Senate better not cave on this one. They'll lose a lot of us in the party if they do.

 

[Medic007]

The GOP will get played here when Obama finds a previously vetted/accepted moderate to nominate - this sets up to be the issue that costs the GOP the Senate and the Presidency. Or not. In either case it will make for good theater.

There are some very good previously vetted moderates that tje Senate would be fools not to approve, but I'm not sure Obama would nominate a moderate because the liberal backlash would be big, real big. The only way to appease the liberal base would be to nominate a notable liberal judge. In that scenario I think the Republicans will get the win. He could nominate a sacrificial liberal and then follow up with a moderate nomination, but I think the time frame involved in that plays to the Republican hand.

I agree it looks to be shaping up to be good theater.

 

[MegaPoke]

It's already been good theater. Are you not entertained?

 

[davidallen]

Didn't Obama filibuster Alito and vote against Kennedy? Obstructionist?

Partisan Politician ... like the lot of them.