The 9th Justice: Can the country get a SCOTUS nominee through the senate?

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: Willtell

If I'm not mistaken, President Obama has a shortlist of qualified judges who were previously approved by unanimous, or near unanimous votes in the Senate.

When he nominates one of those people for this position, it should be a pretty good show as the GOP fabricates a reason to deny the appointment now, after approving them so overwhelmingly in the past.
.

That's a silly argument. When the Senate voted for confirmation of these Judges, it was NOT for the position of an Associate Justice. The scope of influence of their decisions were nowhere near as far reaching as it would be as an Associate Justice.

Hmm... suppose Obama fails to have a nominee confirmed by the election.

That would give us a possible 4-4 split on decisions.

Suppose that the election is as close as 2000, goes to SCOTUS, and it's evenly split... what happens then?

a reply to: Greven
It didn't go to the Supreme Court because it was close. It went to them because of an issue about Florida's recount. In the event that the election ends in a virtual tie then Congress decides the winner.

a reply to: ketsuko

Again you make up whatever statistics you need to fit your agenda.

Every poll shows approximately the same thing ... the greatest growing political identification is Independent, the next highest percentage is Democratic and the lowest is consistently Republican. The "leaners" among the Independents favor the Democratic party over the Republican.

I know you like to believe that you speak for America ... but the facts continually get in the way of that fantasy.

Pew Research - Party Identification Trends 1992-2014

As to other percentages ... 47% approve of President Obama, as compared with 11% approval for the Congress.

The Constitution is what determines what the President can do and when he can do it, not Mitch McConnell.

Remember how Clinton's approval rate skyrocketed after you guys tried to impeach and remove him?

If the People are tired of "business as usual" they are tired of it from both Democrats and Republicans.

Sure, let it be a spectacle all spring and summer that the Republicans are trying to keep the President from doing his Constitutional duty, and you won't have to worry about who the Republican nominee is because it won't matter.

How many Associate Justices will a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate get to appoint over the next 8 years, eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Pssst, btw, the Democ rats passed a resolution against election year SCOTUS appointments in 1960. It seems they didn't want Ike making appointments anymore than the Repubs want Obama doing it now. Of course, the Repubs then were just as upset about it as you are now.

Turnabout seems to be fair play.

*not sure what it wants to put a space in Democrats ... tried editing that out twice now ...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Pssst, btw, the Democ rats passed a resolution against election year SCOTUS appointments in 1960. It seems they didn't want Ike making appointments anymore than the Repubs want Obama doing it now. Of course, the Repubs then were just as upset about it as you are now.

Turnabout seems to be fair play.

*not sure what it wants to put a space in Democrats ... tried editing that out twice now ...

Psst .. that was RECESS appointments.

Read the sources ferchrissakes.

You danced away from your claims about the Johnson nominee (Chief Justice) and now this.

"" The 9th Justice: Can the country get a SCOTUS nominee through the senate? ""

Maybe Eric Holder ?

He would be an excellent nominee.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So? Obama can try to nominate and his nominees can be found lacking. Then he cannot use his usual recess appointment trick ... well, he can try and if the Democrats back it, they are violating their own prior resolution.

It goes back Obama not preserving the balance of the court with his nominee. He won't even try to. If he did, then maybe he'd get a new nominee. But he's more interested in stacking the court. Too many important cases to side in his favor.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Pssst, btw, the Democ rats passed a resolution against election year SCOTUS appointments in 1960. It seems they didn't want Ike making appointments anymore than the Repubs want Obama doing it now. Of course, the Repubs then were just as upset about it as you are now.

Turnabout seems to be fair play.

*not sure what it wants to put a space in Democrats ... tried editing that out twice now ...

Psst .. that was RECESS appointments.

Read the sources ferchrissakes.

You danced away from your claims about the Johnson nominee (Chief Justice) and now this.

July 27, 2007 Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) was on record saying:

with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.

He proposed blocking any appointment to the SC by Bush in the event of a vacancy for 18 MONTHS. I repeat, Sen Chuck Schumer (D) wanted to block any appointment to the SC for 18 MONTHS until Bush was out of office. Was it right for him to propose it then? You can not complain when one party does something and then excuse the other for doing the exact same thing. It is either right or wrong.

originally posted by: Khaleesi


July 27, 2007 Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) was on record saying:

with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.

He proposed blocking any appointment to the SC by Bush in the event of a vacancy for 18 MONTHS. I repeat, Sen Chuck Schumer (D) wanted to block any appointment to the SC for 18 MONTHS until Bush was out of office. Was it right for him to propose it then? You can not complain when one party does something and then excuse the other for doing the exact same thing. It is either right or wrong.

Will be holding that for a thread as soon as Schumer opens the dialog.

a reply to: Khaleesi




Video proof of my claims in the above post.

a reply to: Khaleesi

This is Chuck Schumer you're talking about. The man has NEVER been anything but a politician...his entire life! Chuck Schumer is the poster boy for common sense laws against career politicians. The guy has never held an honest job in his life. Don't use him as an example of anything more than government corruption.

a reply to: Arizonaguy


I agree, he is a corrupt politician. BUT this is a perfect example of a Democrat trying to use obstructionist tactics. People go into hysterical hissy fits calling the Republicans obstructionists. Somehow it becomes okay when a Democrat does it?

There is also President Tyler who couldn't get a SCOTUS nominee through because the Senate just plain didn't like him. In other words, he lacked political support in the Senate. He had four attempts scuttled through various means. Look it up.

But, it seems that the Senate can indeed refuse to appoint a president's nominees simply because they disagree with him politically. They did it to Tyler.

In other words, this idea that Obama has some right to expect his appointments to just magically go through is so much political BS. Usually, that's how it works, but usually, there is a more amicable relationship between parties, too. And if nominations were magic slam dunks, no one would know what I mean when I say, "Bork," now would they?

a reply to: Khaleesi

People conveniently forget that there is an opposition party for a reason, especially when it obstructs what they think they want.

The minority is supposed be the loyal opposition. If the Democrats weren't fighting for their constituents and their campaign promises, I'd be suspicious.

I wonder why leftists can't seem to extend Republicans the same understanding. You don't have to like them for it, but you should understand it IS their role - to represent those who voted for them and follow through on those promises, even if it gets in the way of what YOU want.

originally posted by: Willtell
First of all, no way is Obama getting his nominee through a GOP senate. He can’t even do a recess appointment easily since they just recently tightened the rules in favor of the senate.

What people aren’t thinking about is the fact that even if a democrat wins the presidency the GOP senate still will not approve a liberal justice whom Hillary or Bernie would appoint.

Remember you need 60 votes to get the nominee through.

The GOP will NEVER give a liberal justice 60 votes during Obama’s last year; or even in the event Hillary or Bernie wins. The stakes are just too high.

Also, consider that the democrats may want payback if the GOP succeeds in stopping Obama from getting his nominee through. After the election, if a GOP guy wins, THEY CAN GET PAYBACK and stop any nomination from going through as the GOP did to Obama!

So as of now it looks like there won’t even be a 9th justice again.

Obama will most likely get to appoint someone. Think about the possible outcomes here. Sanders is an actual left winger and there's no way the Republicans will let Hillary have it. On the right there's no way the establishment wants to give Cruz or Trump the appointment. Therefore the only way it's in the Republicans interest to stall is if they think there's a very good chance that Kasich, Rubio, Bush, or Carson will get through the primary and the general election.

Of course, the Republicans can't come out and outright support Obama on this, they'll put up a fight and get some sort of concessions on another bill in exchange for the confirmation but it's really not in the RNC's interest to put up a fight here.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Pssst, btw, the Democ rats passed a resolution against election year SCOTUS appointments in 1960. It seems they didn't want Ike making appointments anymore than the Repubs want Obama doing it now. Of course, the Repubs then were just as upset about it as you are now.

Turnabout seems to be fair play.

*not sure what it wants to put a space in Democrats ... tried editing that out twice now ...

So what you're saying is that they're hypocrites? No argument there. But what's right is right, Obama should get the appointment, and perhaps more importantly... it is not in the RNC's interest to try and stall it unless Trump can be taken out of the race.

Yes. There will be a new Supreme Court Justice.

There will also be a lot of wrangling, and fussin'...probably some fumin', and threats. Just like there always is when a SCJ is nominated and vetted.

Right now the court will function as always. If it goes 4-4, then any lower court ruling will stand...which sucks greatly if you're being held prisoner by the ninth circuit court of appeals here in the west. So I really hope, against all common sense, that Mr. Obama actually nominates something vaguely resembling a moderate...and that the Republican controlled committee and senate advice and consent as stated in the Constitution.

Not rubber stamp. Their job is, after all, to ascertain if the nominee is qualified for the job. Some of the past choices have been, shall we say, less than stellar. If that means someone gets turned away? So be it.

There is no screaming need to rush into replacing Scalia. Do it right. A wrong choice would be worse than no choice.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yep, the source I used even said as much.

Find me something in politics that isn't hypocritical these days.

I would say it is very much in the RNC's interest to stall it as it makes SCOTUS nominees an election issue. They can ask their voter base about it. Like it or not, Republicans are more plugged in to the Supreme Court thanks to the Obama legacy than Democrats might be.

Well if the next president, or even Obama keeps trying to appoint a super liberal Justice, they will not be voted in. The American people (THE COUNTRY) voted in those Senators in a huge swing to the right. The political landscape is deigned this way to prevent power from being abused and ran away with. In situations like this, it is working as designed. This isn't a flaw in the system, its the way its supposed to work.

Now the part you dont seem to understand. A liberal president does NOT have to appoint a liberal judge! The president shouldn't choose a justice based off who he personally wants, but who he think would represent the people properly. The Senate and the house represent the people. The president should have enough sense to choose someone that is likely to be voted in. The senate has all the power here. He can appoint one but he has a duty to appoint one that will reflect the nation as a whole. This is done to make sure a fair justice is elected and not just some buddy of the presidents. As long as the Senate is majority Republican, its not likely they will vote in a liberal justice.

And another thing to note, the democrats would ABSOLUTELY do the exact same thing if the tables were turned. Or am I wrong?.. Would the Democrats just cheerfully accept a super right wing justice if they controlled the Senate with a republican president in his last year of office?.... Stop acting like this is all the republicans fault and realize its just politics. And if Bernie or Hillary get elected, it is morel likely the Senate would settle for someone who has a moderate record. And the President would also have to make those same concessions. I guarantee you Obama is not willing to do that.