Supreme Court appointment

[caracarn]

I have been so frustrated with our elected officials desire to just ignore doing their jobs.  I was happy to see Obama do his and nominate a new justice for the SC.  I am fed up with McConnell thinking that they can just ignore their job.  This stupid argument of the "people should decide" is ridiculous.  We did decide, back when we elected Obama and the goofballs who are stonewalling in the Senate.  We are not allowed to simply nullify the last year of a President because we might not agree with him or her. 

I think we should all do everything we can to push our elected representatives to do their job and proceed with SC nominations as normal.   Write your Senators and ask them to do their job.

[Northwestie]

I have been so frustrated with our elected officials desire to just ignore doing their jobs.  I was happy to see Obama do his and nominate a new justice for the SC.  I am fed up with McConnell thinking that they can just ignore their job.  This stupid argument of the "people should decide" is ridiculous.  We did decide, back when we elected Obama and the goofballs who are stonewalling in the Senate.  We are not allowed to simply nullify the last year of a President because we might not agree with him or her. 

I think we should all do everything we can to push our elected representatives to do their job and proceed with SC nominations as normal.   Write your Senators and ask them to do their job.

Unfortunately the GOP will do what they have been doing the past 7 years - sitting on their hands and with the occasional vote for repealing Obamacare.  A very sad state of affairs.

Previously I welcomed the GOP's voice because I believe that compromise can lead to effective government.  But the past ten years has seen a continual ratcheting up of rhetoric that gave us, yes, Mr. Trump. 

I can't imagine there is a more qualified candidate that who was put forward.  Get on with it already.  The president was elected - twice.  Does this mean that in the continual election cycle that is 24-hr news that you only get to nominate in your first two years as president?  The first year?  Disfunctional indeed.

[ncornilsen]

I have been so frustrated with our elected officials desire to just ignore doing their jobs.  I was happy to see Obama do his and nominate a new justice for the SC.  I am fed up with McConnell thinking that they can just ignore their job.  This stupid argument of the "people should decide" is ridiculous.  We did decide, back when we elected Obama and the goofballs who are stonewalling in the Senate.  We are not allowed to simply nullify the last year of a President because we might not agree with him or her. 

I think we should all do everything we can to push our elected representatives to do their job and proceed with SC nominations as normal.   Write your Senators and ask them to do their job.

Unfortunately the GOP will do what they have been doing the past 7 years - sitting on their hands and with the occasional vote for repealing Obamacare.  A very sad state of affairs.

Previously I welcomed the GOP's voice because I believe that compromise can lead to effective government.  But the past ten years has seen a continual ratcheting up of rhetoric that gave us, yes, Mr. Trump. 

I can't imagine there is a more qualified candidate that who was put forward.  Get on with it already.  The president was elected - twice.  Does this mean that in the continual election cycle that is 24-hr news that you only get to nominate in your first two years as president?  The first year?  Disfunctional indeed.

I agree that this candidate is a reasonable individual to nominate, and I cannot think of a good reason to reject them. But this kind of nonsense was put forth by Democrats, Mr Biden even, in the past, in the same situation. It's childish posturing in either case, of course.

[ShortInSeattle]

It sounds like Obama's nominee is a moderate. The GOP should be pleased that their majority control will require a moderate nominee instead of a liberal. That's a victory. Not a total victory, but a victory.

But will they take it? No. They'll obstruct and whine and watch while their party is taken over by Trump's angry army. Just like it was co-opted by the tea party before that, and the religious right before that.

GOP = Core group of sane conservatives + lunatics they use to shore up their numbers.

The lunatics are winning this round.

[katsiki]

Both parties do this to be fair.  I find it frustrating at times.  On the other hand, when they cooperate, they just pass more laws and regulations that generally we don't need.  Maybe gridlock is a good thing.

[music lover]

The Democrats have a history of delaying nominations they don't like...but that's conveniently forgotten or ignored by their supporters.

[Glenstache]

Given the the way the presidential race is going, I think Mitch just wants to lay something nice on Hillary's desk for the first day in the oval office.

The whole circus is distasteful. They took Biden's 1992 remarks out of context, but not by much. The delay was distasteful then, and it is distasteful now. That McConnell was so brazen about saying that politics was more important than process (aka, doing their jobs) was galling. Even Bork got a vote. And you wonder why Arlen Specter left the GOP.

[MoonShadow]

As far as I am concerned, as a libertarian, gridlock is desirable.  The longer this crap continues, the more I like it.  The balance of powers between branches of government was set up to make change difficult. 

[Glenstache]

As far as I am concerned, as a libertarian, gridlock is desirable.  The longer this crap continues, the more I like it.  The balance of powers between branches of government was set up to make change difficult.

I understand your perspective. However, don't most libertarians also see the judicial system as one of the things that government is supposed to be doing? Therefore, wouldn't this specific case of gridlock be dysfunction as seen through pretty much all political lenses?

[MoonShadow]

As far as I am concerned, as a libertarian, gridlock is desirable.  The longer this crap continues, the more I like it.  The balance of powers between branches of government was set up to make change difficult.

I understand your perspective. However, don't most libertarians also see the judicial system as one of the things that government is supposed to be doing?

Most do, yes.  Most libs also recognize that management of the collective defense (i.e. cops, firemen, coast guardsmen & military) is a core function of a limited government.  That doesn't mean that we are enthusiastic about bigger bombs.  It may seem a bit contradictory, but that is only if you don't understand the core principles.  Unfortunately, most never bother to listen to what they are.  In short, I don't care whether it's a valid government function or not, they are still sociopaths in charge of institutions with the potential for enormous social damage, so I want them preoccupied with arguing with each other.  I definitely do not want they to start getting along.  If that means SCOTUS only has 8 sitting members for the next session, so be it.  It has happened before, and the world did not end.  If I had my own way, the last government shut down would have lasted for 8 years.

 Therefore, wouldn't this specific case of gridlock be dysfunction as seen through pretty much all political lenses?

Again, I don't want a "functional" government.  I don't want bi-partisanship.  We have a two party system; wherein one is stupid & the other is evil.  Every time they get along, we just end up with something that is both stupid & evil.

[Glenstache]

As far as I am concerned, as a libertarian, gridlock is desirable.  The longer this crap continues, the more I like it.  The balance of powers between branches of government was set up to make change difficult.

I understand your perspective. However, don't most libertarians also see the judicial system as one of the things that government is supposed to be doing?

Most do, yes.  Most libs also recognize that management of the collective defense (i.e. cops, firemen, coast guardsmen & military) is a core function of a limited government.  That doesn't mean that we are enthusiastic about bigger bombs.  It may seem a bit contradictory, but that is only if you don't understand the core principles.  Unfortunately, most never bother to listen to what they are.  In short, I don't care whether it's a valid government function or not, they are still sociopaths in charge of institutions with the potential for enormous social damage, so I want them preoccupied with arguing with each other.  I definitely do not want they to start getting along.  If that means SCOTUS only has 8 sitting members for the next session, so be it.  It has happened before, and the world did not end.  If I had my own way, the last government shut down would have lasted for 8 years.

 Therefore, wouldn't this specific case of gridlock be dysfunction as seen through pretty much all political lenses?

Again, I don't want a "functional" government.  I don't want bi-partisanship.  We have a two party system; wherein one is stupid & the other is evil.  Every time they get along, we just end up with something that is both stupid & evil.

Seems like that first part answered my question. I do not see how filling a Supreme Court seat is inconsistent with libertarian values unless it is an objection to the specific nominee, which is not what you articulated above.

I can understand your frustration with Congress and the oval office and feeling like they are either stupid or liars, and do not want to see them working together on laws and policy. I may not agree, but I do understand. However, it seems that your cynicism extends to the point of the core functions that libertarians feel the government should be doing not working. Speaking more broadly in the realm of judicial appointments, leaving judge positions empty slows down the entire judicial system and infringes on things like the right to a speedy trial. Your stated wish for gridlock actually infringes on the constitutional rights of others if carried to completion.  A blanket wish for gridlock and an 8 year shutdown is, quite frankly, inconsistent with libertarian principles under the US Constitution in which the govt has limited duties, but duties nonetheless- unless you think that is  also optional in which case you are actually advocating for no government whatsoever.

http://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/priorities_policy/independence_of_the_judiciary/judicial_vacancies.html
http://judicialnominations.org/
http://www.newsweek.com/judicial-nominations-held-justice-comes-slowly-260029

[Silverado]

I have been so frustrated with our elected officials desire to just ignore doing their jobs.  I was happy to see Obama do his and nominate a new justice for the SC.  I am fed up with McConnell thinking that they can just ignore their job.  This stupid argument of the "people should decide" is ridiculous.  We did decide, back when we elected Obama and the goofballs who are stonewalling in the Senate.  We are not allowed to simply nullify the last year of a President because we might not agree with him or her. 

I think we should all do everything we can to push our elected representatives to do their job and proceed with SC nominations as normal.   Write your Senators and ask them to do their job.

Unfortunately the GOP will do what they have been doing the past 7 years - sitting on their hands and with the occasional vote for repealing Obamacare.  A very sad state of affairs.

Previously I welcomed the GOP's voice because I believe that compromise can lead to effective government.  But the past ten years has seen a continual ratcheting up of rhetoric that gave us, yes, Mr. Trump. 

I can't imagine there is a more qualified candidate that who was put forward.  Get on with it already.  The president was elected - twice.  Does this mean that in the continual election cycle that is 24-hr news that you only get to nominate in your first two years as president?  The first year?  Disfunctional indeed.

Yeah, I would give weight to the argument of 'let the people have a say' if the blowhards had made a statement prior to scally's death 'ok, we re now x months from a new president, therefore we are in dead zone and will not put forth a vote should any justice die or retire.' That would show some level of integrity at least. Set a policy for your group and stand by it. Though a do agree that everyone should contact their reps and tell them to perform their job with integrity.

[dramaman]

Given the the way the presidential race is going, I think Mitch just wants to lay something nice on Hillary's desk for the first day in the oval office.

The whole circus is distasteful. They took Biden's 1992 remarks out of context, but not by much. The delay was distasteful then, and it is distasteful now. That McConnell was so brazen about saying that politics was more important than process (aka, doing their jobs) was galling. Even Bork got a vote. And you wonder why Arlen Specter left the GOP.

I'm curious what delay you seem to be referring to in regards to Biden's 1992 remarks. Based on your comments, I think you do understand that Biden was speaking hypothetically should a Supreme Court justice strategically step down in the last six months of the Bush presidency to ensure a GOP nomination. It never happened and there was no nomination, nor delay. So what delay ARE you thinking of?

[onlykelsey]

I'm a lawyer with lots of friends who have clerked or are clerking for the federal judges from which nominees are pulled and have followed this pretty closely.

All duty/morality aside, McConnell seems to have just done something really risky for Republicans (both in the presidential election and state elections where republican governors are up, and contested senate seats).  Majority of Americans think Republicans should at least hold hearings, and by nominating a pretty old, pretty middle of the road white dude, Obama sort of gave McConnell an easy way out of his conundrum.  Maybe McConnell is holding out for a Cruz or brokerered Republican nominee to win the white house, but right now the odds are on Clinton, then Trump, then whatever other Republican, so it seems like he's playing with fire.

If Clinton comes in with a mandate (and it's not impossible to imagine the democrats taking back the senate this season), she can nominate as many Sotomayors as she wants.

It will really get interesting if another justice dies in the next couple months.

[ShortInSeattle]

As far as I am concerned, as a libertarian, gridlock is desirable.  The longer this crap continues, the more I like it.  The balance of powers between branches of government was set up to make change difficult.

Interesting! I hadn't considered it from that perspective.

[forummm]

Both parties do this to be fair. 

Be careful about this false equivalency. There's normal politics (which is irritating and foot-draggy at times) and then there's the literally unprecedented obstructionism of the GOP in recent years. It's beyond absurd. I'm not a fan of the Democrats, but they are not anything like what the GOP has been up to lately.

The Democrats have a history of delaying nominations they don't like...but that's conveniently forgotten or ignored by their supporters.

There's a difference between delaying and completely refusing to consider (or even meet with) a nominee. The longest delay between nomination and Senate vote for any SCOTUS nominee in US history is 125 days (Brandeis in 1916). Obama is president for another 300+.

[MoonShadow]

Both parties do this to be fair. 

Be careful about this false equivalency. There's normal politics (which is irritating and foot-draggy at times) and then there's the literally unprecedented obstructionism of the GOP in recent years. It's beyond absurd. I'm not a fan of the Democrats, but they are not anything like what the GOP has been up to lately.

There's a difference between delaying and completely refusing to consider (or even meet with) a nominee. The longest delay between nomination and Senate vote for any SCOTUS nominee in US history is 125 days (Brandeis in 1916). Obama is president for another 300+.

The threat to not hold confirmation hearings aside, the 'obstructionism' you refer to isn't remotely unprecedented.  It was the expected result of a mid-term reversal of control of the house or senate prior to 1890.  Nor is the vitriol found in this presidential campaign unprecedented, it's simply a return to old fashioned politics as it used to be.  Keep in mind, that more than one campaign was so vile that it resulted in an honor duel.  And Brandeis was one of the best justices to ever serve, from my hometown no less.  There is a 4 story painting of the man on the side of a building downtown.

[onlykelsey]

The opposition to Brandeis was in no small part due to blatant anti-Semitism that had nothing to do with his qualifications or politics, though. 

[wepner]

Both parties do this to be fair. 

Be careful about this false equivalency. There's normal politics (which is irritating and foot-draggy at times) and then there's the literally unprecedented obstructionism of the GOP in recent years. It's beyond absurd. I'm not a fan of the Democrats, but they are not anything like what the GOP has been up to lately.

There's a difference between delaying and completely refusing to consider (or even meet with) a nominee. The longest delay between nomination and Senate vote for any SCOTUS nominee in US history is 125 days (Brandeis in 1916). Obama is president for another 300+.

The threat to not hold confirmation hearings aside, the 'obstructionism' you refer to isn't remotely unprecedented.  It was the expected result of a mid-term reversal of control of the house or senate prior to 1890.  Nor is the vitriol found in this presidential campaign unprecedented, it's simply a return to old fashioned politics as it used to be.  Keep in mind, that more than one campaign was so vile that it resulted in an honor duel.  And Brandeis was one of the best justices to ever serve, from my hometown no less.  There is a 4 story painting of the man on the side of a building downtown.

Which years have had a similar number of filibusters requiring 60 votes to get anything passed? Everything that I've read says its unprecedented but the only ones with numbers and graphs only start in the late 60s

[mrpercentage]

Another reason why I only watch financial news. This sort of thing irritates me. Im tired of everything being deadlocked-- accomplishing nothing. I think we should vote everyone out. Just get them all out. I like Rand Paul and Sanders. Keep them. Vote everyone else out. Forget the President. Just overhaul the whole place. Start fresh.

[MoonShadow]

Both parties do this to be fair. 

Be careful about this false equivalency. There's normal politics (which is irritating and foot-draggy at times) and then there's the literally unprecedented obstructionism of the GOP in recent years. It's beyond absurd. I'm not a fan of the Democrats, but they are not anything like what the GOP has been up to lately.

There's a difference between delaying and completely refusing to consider (or even meet with) a nominee. The longest delay between nomination and Senate vote for any SCOTUS nominee in US history is 125 days (Brandeis in 1916). Obama is president for another 300+.

The threat to not hold confirmation hearings aside, the 'obstructionism' you refer to isn't remotely unprecedented.  It was the expected result of a mid-term reversal of control of the house or senate prior to 1890.  Nor is the vitriol found in this presidential campaign unprecedented, it's simply a return to old fashioned politics as it used to be.  Keep in mind, that more than one campaign was so vile that it resulted in an honor duel.  And Brandeis was one of the best justices to ever serve, from my hometown no less.  There is a 4 story painting of the man on the side of a building downtown.

Which years have had a similar number of filibusters requiring 60 votes to get anything passed? Everything that I've read says its unprecedented but the only ones with numbers and graphs only start in the late 60s

The filibuster was only made a permanent rule of the Senate in 1975, so many other techniques were used besides the filibuster prior to that.  One that was most common was the use of a committee to trap a bill in limbo.  Or to amend a bill till it was full of 'poisoned pills' that would force many of it's proponents to vote against it, or to simply ignore a bill in scheduling.  This is nothing new; the rules of the house & senate are filled with games for politicians to play; that's why they don't use Robert's Rules of order.

[Proud Foot]

It is ridiculous that the house Republicans will not even discuss the appointment.  The President did his job by putting forward an appointment so they should do their job and at least consider it.  I do wonder how not discussing the appointment will effect the GOP senators who are in purple states when they try for reelection.  Plus, this may not be a bad appointment by the President.  I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

[onlykelsey]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

[MoonShadow]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

[onlykelsey]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

[MoonShadow]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

Trump is like a box of chocolates.

[dramaman]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

Trump is like a box of chocolates.

Gobbled up by people with less than average IQ?

[ncornilsen]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

Trump is like a box of chocolates.

Gobbled up by people with less than average IQ?

Only by those who haven't had their fill of Sander's intellectual junk food.

[onlykelsey]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

Trump is like a box of chocolates.

Gobbled up by people with less than average IQ?

Only by those who haven't had their fill of Sander's intellectual junk food.

I'd like a smaller government than either Sanders or Trump would, but I would take Sanders in a heartbeat.  He overpromises and doesn't seem to understand economics, but can't do much damage as commander in chief unless Congress backs him up (pretty unlikely).  Trump seems a world apart.

[Kris]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

Trump is like a box of chocolates.

Gobbled up by people with less than average IQ?

Only by those who haven't had their fill of Sander's intellectual junk food.

I find this somewhat ironic, given that Trump, as the creator of "The Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice," is hands down the biggest creator of intellectual junk food in the race, by far.  Bernie is rather his opposite in this regard, being the least polished person in the race, with the possible exception of John Kasich.

[MoonShadow]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

Trump is like a box of chocolates.

Gobbled up by people with less than average IQ?

Only by those who haven't had their fill of Sander's intellectual junk food.

I find this somewhat ironic, given that Trump, as the creator of "The Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice," is hands down the biggest creator of intellectual junk food in the race, by far.  Bernie is rather his opposite in this regard, being the least polished person in the race, with the possible exception of John Kasich.

Did you just label Trump's reality TV shows as "intellectual"? 

[Kris]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

Trump is like a box of chocolates.

Gobbled up by people with less than average IQ?

Only by those who haven't had their fill of Sander's intellectual junk food.

I find this somewhat ironic, given that Trump, as the creator of "The Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice," is hands down the biggest creator of intellectual junk food in the race, by far.  Bernie is rather his opposite in this regard, being the least polished person in the race, with the possible exception of John Kasich.

Did you just label Trump's reality TV shows as "intellectual"?

What part of "junk food" do you not understand?

[zephyr911]

As far as I am concerned, as a libertarian, gridlock is desirable.  The longer this crap continues, the more I like it.  The balance of powers between branches of government was set up to make change difficult.

I understand your perspective. However, don't most libertarians also see the judicial system as one of the things that government is supposed to be doing?

Most do, yes.  Most libs also recognize that management of the collective defense (i.e. cops, firemen, coast guardsmen & military) is a core function of a limited government.  That doesn't mean that we are enthusiastic about bigger bombs.  It may seem a bit contradictory, but that is only if you don't understand the core principles.  Unfortunately, most never bother to listen to what they are.  In short, I don't care whether it's a valid government function or not, they are still sociopaths in charge of institutions with the potential for enormous social damage, so I want them preoccupied with arguing with each other.  I definitely do not want they to start getting along.  If that means SCOTUS only has 8 sitting members for the next session, so be it.  It has happened before, and the world did not end.  If I had my own way, the last government shut down would have lasted for 8 years.

 Therefore, wouldn't this specific case of gridlock be dysfunction as seen through pretty much all political lenses?

Again, I don't want a "functional" government.  I don't want bi-partisanship.  We have a two party system; wherein one is stupid & the other is evil.  Every time they get along, we just end up with something that is both stupid & evil.

You're essentially arguing for a state of affairs that reduces efficiency in government. It conveniently proves your general belief that government sucks, but ironically, requires more government to accomplish the same amount of shit.

[dramaman]

As far as I am concerned, as a libertarian, gridlock is desirable.  The longer this crap continues, the more I like it.  The balance of powers between branches of government was set up to make change difficult.

I understand your perspective. However, don't most libertarians also see the judicial system as one of the things that government is supposed to be doing?

Most do, yes.  Most libs also recognize that management of the collective defense (i.e. cops, firemen, coast guardsmen & military) is a core function of a limited government.  That doesn't mean that we are enthusiastic about bigger bombs.  It may seem a bit contradictory, but that is only if you don't understand the core principles.  Unfortunately, most never bother to listen to what they are.  In short, I don't care whether it's a valid government function or not, they are still sociopaths in charge of institutions with the potential for enormous social damage, so I want them preoccupied with arguing with each other.  I definitely do not want they to start getting along.  If that means SCOTUS only has 8 sitting members for the next session, so be it.  It has happened before, and the world did not end.  If I had my own way, the last government shut down would have lasted for 8 years.

 Therefore, wouldn't this specific case of gridlock be dysfunction as seen through pretty much all political lenses?

Again, I don't want a "functional" government.  I don't want bi-partisanship.  We have a two party system; wherein one is stupid & the other is evil.  Every time they get along, we just end up with something that is both stupid & evil.

You're essentially arguing for a state of affairs that reduces efficiency in government. It conveniently proves your general belief that government sucks, but ironically, requires more government to accomplish the same amount of shit.

On top of that the entire premise - that functional government is always bad - is a naive, oversimplified generalization that if anyone follows to the logical endpoint rejects the entire justification we have for government in the first place.

[ncornilsen]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

Trump is like a box of chocolates.

Gobbled up by people with less than average IQ?

Only by those who haven't had their fill of Sander's intellectual junk food.

I find this somewhat ironic, given that Trump, as the creator of "The Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice," is hands down the biggest creator of intellectual junk food in the race, by far.  Bernie is rather his opposite in this regard, being the least polished person in the race, with the possible exception of John Kasich.

I'm sure. I don't watch those shows, so I can't comment. But I can say, based on the vacuous demagoguery spewed by both Trump and Sanders, they're playing for the same group of low information voters. If they think that the government has caused things to get worse for them, such as for people who made their living with Timber (imho, rightly) think, they support trump. If they feel the corporations or some nebulous rich folk did it, they support sanders.  Niether are intellectually honest. Trump wants to further his brand, Sanders I at least think is a bit more selfless like that, but still has no problem insulting the intellegence of the voters with his plans. Sanders would be less dangerous than trump, but neither is a sterling example of a good politician or president. I'll probably vote 3rd party this year, or maybe for Clinton. She'll secure the house and senate for the republicans. While I don't hope for gridlock, this may ensure the worst of the two party's doesn't go to far.

[Kris]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

Trump is like a box of chocolates.

Gobbled up by people with less than average IQ?

Only by those who haven't had their fill of Sander's intellectual junk food.

I find this somewhat ironic, given that Trump, as the creator of "The Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice," is hands down the biggest creator of intellectual junk food in the race, by far.  Bernie is rather his opposite in this regard, being the least polished person in the race, with the possible exception of John Kasich.

I'm sure. I don't watch those shows, so I can't comment. But I can say, based on the vacuous demagoguery spewed by both Trump and Sanders, they're playing for the same group of low information voters. If they think that the government has caused things to get worse for them, such as for people who made their living with Timber (imho, rightly) think, they support trump. If they feel the corporations or some nebulous rich folk did it, they support sanders.  Niether are intellectually honest. Trump wants to further his brand, Sanders I at least think is a bit more selfless like that, but still has no problem insulting the intellegence of the voters with his plans. Sanders would be less dangerous than trump, but neither is a sterling example of a good politician or president. I'll probably vote 3rd party this year, or maybe for Clinton. She'll secure the house and senate for the republicans. While I don't hope for gridlock, this may ensure the worst of the two party's doesn't go to far.

Putting aside completely the merits of either of their proposed plans, I feel strongly that Sanders actually believes very much what he is saying and is being honest in what he says, and that he honestly feels that if his plans were implemented, the country would be much better for it.  I don't believe that Trump really believes much of anything that he says, nor do I think he cares much about anything but his own self-promotion. 

[ncornilsen]

I think we would get someone similar if Hillary is the next President, but I don't think putting off the appointment until a Trump Presidency would have the desired effect for the GOP.

Agreed.  It's absolutely playing with fire, and it's hurting Republicans down the ticket across the nation since most Americans do want their to be hearings.  If they really thought that Rubio was still going to be president (or someone else to McConnell's liking), it might make sense to play dirty.  Since Clinton and Trump seem the most likely, I have no idea what Republicans think they're gaining. If Clinton comes in on a mandate, she is going to pick someone to the LEFT of Garland, and probably younger.  Obama threw them a softball here.

McConnell is a true party establishment crony.  I wouldn't put it past him to be doing this just to undermine a Trump candidacy.  Some of them have already stated that they would prefer Hilary to Trump, because if Trump wins there is a good chance their long grip on public office is broken; but if Hillary wins, it's just another 4-8 years of Obama-like policies they can wail about later.  Don't assume that the Republicans in power want to see just any Republican in the oval office, they want to have one they think that they can control.  Trump doesn't seem to be that kind of person, to them.

Agreed. McConnell is not doing actual conservatism any favors, I don't think.  It just seems like poor politics on his part, which is maybe why some more moderate Republicans and independents are more willing to entertain the thought of interviewing the guy.  I get that they don't like Obama's choice and feel like they can't count on Trump's choice (which is questionable, because there are really only so many BAD choices for nominees, they're already judges who are mostly good about not playing partisan politics), but I think they will like Clinton's choice least of all. Maybe they're worried Trump will go rogue and pick a pro-choice or pro-gun control nominee, since he's historically pro-choice and -gun control, despite his claims to the contrary.

Trump is like a box of chocolates.

Gobbled up by people with less than average IQ?

Only by those who haven't had their fill of Sander's intellectual junk food.

I find this somewhat ironic, given that Trump, as the creator of "The Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice," is hands down the biggest creator of intellectual junk food in the race, by far.  Bernie is rather his opposite in this regard, being the least polished person in the race, with the possible exception of John Kasich.

I'm sure. I don't watch those shows, so I can't comment. But I can say, based on the vacuous demagoguery spewed by both Trump and Sanders, they're playing for the same group of low information voters. If they think that the government has caused things to get worse for them, such as for people who made their living with Timber (imho, rightly) think, they support trump. If they feel the corporations or some nebulous rich folk did it, they support sanders.  Niether are intellectually honest. Trump wants to further his brand, Sanders I at least think is a bit more selfless like that, but still has no problem insulting the intellegence of the voters with his plans. Sanders would be less dangerous than trump, but neither is a sterling example of a good politician or president. I'll probably vote 3rd party this year, or maybe for Clinton. She'll secure the house and senate for the republicans. While I don't hope for gridlock, this may ensure the worst of the two party's doesn't go to far.

Putting aside completely the merits of either of their proposed plans, I feel strongly that Sanders actually believes very much what he is saying and is being honest in what he says, and that he honestly feels that if his plans were implemented, the country would be much better for it.  I don't believe that Trump really believes much of anything that he says, nor do I think he cares much about anything but his own self-promotion.

I'm sure he does, but it seems Sanders is willing to lie, fudge numbers and use sloppy math (well documented, btw) to build a case for it. It's still intellectual junk food.

[dogboyslim]

It is ridiculous that the house Senate Republicans will not even ...

IFYP.

[Proud Foot]

It is ridiculous that the house Senate Republicans will not even ...

IFYP.

Thanks for the correction dogboyslim! Of course I know its the Senate and not the House.  I completely missed my error. 

[BlueMR2]

Obama threw them a softball here.

Yeah, I was really surprised with how moderate the candidate is overall.  I don't like him personally as he suffers from the same thing other top judges do, bending the meanings words of the constitution in unnatural ways to suit their agendas.  Still, I expected far worse.

Saying you won't even hear an appointment is so childish.  The rules are simple.  An appointment is made, you hear it, maybe you approve, maybe not.

So tired of both sides playing these stupid games.

[forummm]

Obama threw them a softball here.

Yeah, I was really surprised with how moderate the candidate is overall. 

Really? Obama is king of caving to extreme Republican demands. I would not have been surprised if he had nominated an actual Republican. The Republicans have been so extreme that they have been shooting themselves in the foot. Boehner once admitted that Obama gave him 98% of what he's wanted in the "grand bargain" deal, but then the other Republicans in the House were so extreme that they wouldn't even take it. They could have had a HUGE policy win (from their perspective) but it wasn't good enough. George W Bush couldn't get a Republican Congress to make his tax cuts permanent. But Obama made 95% of the Bush tax cuts permanent. The reason McConnell instantly made this political move is because he knew that Obama would cave. Best case Obama nominates a Republican or no one. Second best is he nominates someone like Garland. If McConnell hadn't been so obstructionist, Obama probably would have picked someone less conservative.

[dramaman]

Obama threw them a softball here.

Yeah, I was really surprised with how moderate the candidate is overall. 

Really? Obama is king of caving to extreme Republican demands. I would not have been surprised if he had nominated an actual Republican. The Republicans have been so extreme that they have been shooting themselves in the foot. Boehner once admitted that Obama gave him 98% of what he's wanted in the "grand bargain" deal, but then the other Republicans in the House were so extreme that they wouldn't even take it. They could have had a HUGE policy win (from their perspective) but it wasn't good enough. George W Bush couldn't get a Republican Congress to make his tax cuts permanent. But Obama made 95% of the Bush tax cuts permanent. The reason McConnell instantly made this political move is because he knew that Obama would cave. Best case Obama nominates a Republican or no one. Second best is he nominates someone like Garland. If McConnell hadn't been so obstructionist, Obama probably would have picked someone less conservative.

Obama is a realist. Always has been, despite the Obama haters claiming he can't work with the Republicans and he is the second coming of the liberal anti-Christ. It is the flaw in the GOP base that they have been fed so much of the anti-Obama vitriol that they are willing to cut off their noses to spite their face. They simply CANNOT accept anything Obama offers, no matter how reasonable it is. You give McConnell too much credit. McConnell's obstructionism wasn't some grand scheme to get Obama to pick somebody less liberal. In fact, it would have made his position easier if Obama HAD chosen a granola munching, tree hugging extreme liberal. Instead, Obama picked somebody that anybody reasonable can see is a moderate choice. But, McConnell is being held hostage by the idiotic Obama hating GOP base and will never be able to give an inch lest they point their guns at him.

[Proud Foot]

Obama threw them a softball here.

Yeah, I was really surprised with how moderate the candidate is overall. 

Really? Obama is king of caving to extreme Republican demands. I would not have been surprised if he had nominated an actual Republican. The Republicans have been so extreme that they have been shooting themselves in the foot. Boehner once admitted that Obama gave him 98% of what he's wanted in the "grand bargain" deal, but then the other Republicans in the House were so extreme that they wouldn't even take it. They could have had a HUGE policy win (from their perspective) but it wasn't good enough. George W Bush couldn't get a Republican Congress to make his tax cuts permanent. But Obama made 95% of the Bush tax cuts permanent. The reason McConnell instantly made this political move is because he knew that Obama would cave. Best case Obama nominates a Republican or no one. Second best is he nominates someone like Garland. If McConnell hadn't been so obstructionist, Obama probably would have picked someone less conservative.

Was he really caving or was he just playing the politics game?  He does not need to endear himself to the far left to get reelected.  I think this move will have a big influence on how the moderates of both parties and independents will vote in the upcoming elections. 

And I do not understand the whole premise for the Republicans saying there is a precedent for not appointing a judge in an election year.  How many times has a seat opened up in an election year?  I haven't looked in detail through the history of the Supreme Court but I wonder if this "precedent" is because it has never happened before? And I guess that, although they have the majority, they are too scared of some Republicans voting for and confirming the appointment.

[MoonShadow]

And I do not understand the whole premise for the Republicans saying there is a precedent for not appointing a judge in an election year.  How many times has a seat opened up in an election year?  I haven't looked in detail through the history of the Supreme Court but I wonder if this "precedent" is because it has never happened before? And I guess that, although they have the majority, they are too scared of some Republicans voting for and confirming the appointment.

IIRC there was the possibility of a SCOTUS vacancy during an election year back in the 1960's during a Republican presidency with a Democratic dominated Senate, and the Democrats at that time issued a 'resolution' that there should not be a nominee to any SCOTUS positions if that should happen.  As it were, it did not happen, but the precedent that they speak of is this prior position of Democrats in a similar situation.  Also, there is the precedent that SCOTUS has ran with only 8 sitting judges during a regular session; in which case a tie is automatically rejected as an appeal, and whatever lower court ruling that existed would stand.  I can't remember all the details, but I'm sure I could find them if I tried.

[dramaman]

And I do not understand the whole premise for the Republicans saying there is a precedent for not appointing a judge in an election year.  How many times has a seat opened up in an election year?  I haven't looked in detail through the history of the Supreme Court but I wonder if this "precedent" is because it has never happened before? And I guess that, although they have the majority, they are too scared of some Republicans voting for and confirming the appointment.

IIRC there was the possibility of a SCOTUS vacancy during an election year back in the 1960's during a Republican presidency with a Democratic dominated Senate, and the Democrats at that time issued a 'resolution' that there should not be a nominee to any SCOTUS positions if that should happen.  As it were, it did not happen, but the precedent that they speak of is this prior position of Democrats in a similar situation.  Also, there is the precedent that SCOTUS has ran with only 8 sitting judges during a regular session; in which case a tie is automatically rejected as an appeal, and whatever lower court ruling that existed would stand.  I can't remember all the details, but I'm sure I could find them if I tried.

Is there ANY precedent of simply refusing to hold hearings on a Supreme Court Justice nomination altogether? As far as I can see, the only 'precedent' that Republicans can point to is simply things people said in the past.

The Republicans are such a bunch of cowards. They want to deny Obama a nominee, but are afraid to actually go through the process and vote No as any responsible body would do. They need to grow some balls, hold the hearings and then vote No if they think Obama's nominee is unfit.

[MoonShadow]

And I do not understand the whole premise for the Republicans saying there is a precedent for not appointing a judge in an election year.  How many times has a seat opened up in an election year?  I haven't looked in detail through the history of the Supreme Court but I wonder if this "precedent" is because it has never happened before? And I guess that, although they have the majority, they are too scared of some Republicans voting for and confirming the appointment.

IIRC there was the possibility of a SCOTUS vacancy during an election year back in the 1960's during a Republican presidency with a Democratic dominated Senate, and the Democrats at that time issued a 'resolution' that there should not be a nominee to any SCOTUS positions if that should happen.  As it were, it did not happen, but the precedent that they speak of is this prior position of Democrats in a similar situation.  Also, there is the precedent that SCOTUS has ran with only 8 sitting judges during a regular session; in which case a tie is automatically rejected as an appeal, and whatever lower court ruling that existed would stand.  I can't remember all the details, but I'm sure I could find them if I tried.

Is there ANY precedent of simply refusing to hold hearings on a Supreme Court Justice nomination altogether? As far as I can see, the only 'precedent' that Republicans can point to is simply things people said in the past.

The Republicans are such a bunch of cowards. They want to deny Obama a nominee, but are afraid to actually go through the process and vote No as any responsible body would do. They need to grow some balls, hold the hearings and then vote No if they think Obama's nominee is unfit.

That depends upon how you look at it.  Yes, there are precedents of statements towards that same end, as well as precedents of delays for political reasons.  There is no precedent of a senate actually refusing to hold hearings through an entire regular session, however, which is what McConnel's threats would actually require. 

[beltim]

And I do not understand the whole premise for the Republicans saying there is a precedent for not appointing a judge in an election year.  How many times has a seat opened up in an election year?  I haven't looked in detail through the history of the Supreme Court but I wonder if this "precedent" is because it has never happened before? And I guess that, although they have the majority, they are too scared of some Republicans voting for and confirming the appointment.

Since the Civil War there have been 10 openings on the Supreme Court in an election year.  The President nominated someone in each of those cases.  8 of the candidates were confirmed, one nominated was withdrawn, and one nomination was not acted on.  And the "not acted on" was because that was a replacement for the "nominated but withdrawn" for someone already on the Supreme Court but nominated for Chief Justice.

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2016/02/13/nominations-to-supreme-court-in-election-year-with-divided-and-unified-governments/

[dogboyslim]

Thanks for the correction dogboyslim! Of course I know its the Senate and not the House.  I completely missed my error.

Figured you did, and I struggled with how to post the correction without making it look like I was arguing the point.  Thank you for taking the correction as intended.  On some things I'm just a bit OCD.

[dramaman]

And I do not understand the whole premise for the Republicans saying there is a precedent for not appointing a judge in an election year.  How many times has a seat opened up in an election year?  I haven't looked in detail through the history of the Supreme Court but I wonder if this "precedent" is because it has never happened before? And I guess that, although they have the majority, they are too scared of some Republicans voting for and confirming the appointment.

Since the Civil War there have been 10 openings on the Supreme Court in an election year.  The President nominated someone in each of those cases.  8 of the candidates were confirmed, one nominated was withdrawn, and one nomination was not acted on.  And the "not acted on" was because that was a replacement for the "nominated but withdrawn" for someone already on the Supreme Court but nominated for Chief Justice.

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2016/02/13/nominations-to-supreme-court-in-election-year-with-divided-and-unified-governments/

Reading the linked to post and a couple of wikipedia entries, the nominated but withdrawn fellow was Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Supreme Court Justice and had been nominated to take the position of Chief Justice. That nomination was filibustered and Fortas withdrew, but kept his Associate Justice position. The other was Homer Thornberry, who was nominated to fill Fortas's Associate Justice position when Fortas was vying for Chief Justice, but when Fortas withdrew his Chief Justice nomination, his Associate Justice position was no longer open making Thornberry's nomination irrelevant and thus also withdrawn. So at best, there is ONE precedent for obstruction, although it should be noted that Fortas did get a Senate hearing and according to a politico article on the Fortas nomination, the objections to Fortas were based on some petty local politics (the President delaying nominating a Senator's favorite pick for a federal judgeship) and concerns regarding a privately funded stipend that Fortas received to teach a summery class while serving on the Supreme Court. The article makes no mention of whether there were any objections to the President getting to select a Justice in an election year. If there was, it doesn't sound like that was the driving motivation in rejecting Fortas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/senate-spikes-fortas-supreme-court-nomination-oct-1-1968-214129

So at best, we have A SINGLE, VERY, VERY WEAK precedent for what McConnell and the GOP Senate cowards are doing now, while there are MANY, MANY more precedents to the contrary. One again GOP Conservatives have to rewrite reality to justify their unjustifiable position.

[beltim]

And I do not understand the whole premise for the Republicans saying there is a precedent for not appointing a judge in an election year.  How many times has a seat opened up in an election year?  I haven't looked in detail through the history of the Supreme Court but I wonder if this "precedent" is because it has never happened before? And I guess that, although they have the majority, they are too scared of some Republicans voting for and confirming the appointment.

Since the Civil War there have been 10 openings on the Supreme Court in an election year.  The President nominated someone in each of those cases.  8 of the candidates were confirmed, one nominated was withdrawn, and one nomination was not acted on.  And the "not acted on" was because that was a replacement for the "nominated but withdrawn" for someone already on the Supreme Court but nominated for Chief Justice.

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2016/02/13/nominations-to-supreme-court-in-election-year-with-divided-and-unified-governments/

Reading the linked to post and a couple of wikipedia entries, the nominated but withdrawn fellow was Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Supreme Court Justice and had been nominated to take the position of Chief Justice. That nomination was filibustered and Fortas withdrew, but kept his Associate Justice position. The other was Homer Thornberry, who was nominated to fill Fortas's Associate Justice position when Fortas was vying for Chief Justice, but when Fortas withdrew his Chief Justice nomination, his Associate Justice position was no longer open making Thornberry's nomination irrelevant and thus also withdrawn. So at best, there is ONE precedent for obstruction, although it should be noted that Fortas did get a Senate hearing and according to a politico article on the Fortas nomination, the objections to Fortas were based on some petty local politics (the President delaying nominating a Senator's favorite pick for a federal judgeship) and concerns regarding a privately funded stipend that Fortas received to teach a summery class while serving on the Supreme Court. The article makes no mention of whether there were any objections to the President getting to select a Justice in an election year. If there was, it doesn't sound like that was the driving motivation in rejecting Fortas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/senate-spikes-fortas-supreme-court-nomination-oct-1-1968-214129

So at best, we have A SINGLE, VERY, VERY WEAK precedent for what McConnell and the GOP Senate cowards are doing now, while there are MANY, MANY more precedents to the contrary. One again GOP Conservatives have to rewrite reality to justify their unjustifiable position.

Yup.  I didn't want to overwhelm with the long story, but you got it.