Would that not be age discrimination?
Keep moving the goalposts, asshole.
The answer, BTW, is 3. That’s 3 more than the number of Democrats who had voted against Kennedy or Scalia a few years earlier.
But even engaging in this discussion is allowing you to get away with diverting attention from the actual issue. When was it that the Democratic Senate leadership decided they just weren’t even going to give any Republican nominee a hearing?
Why is it substantially different to “give a hearing” where the result is foreordained as opposed to not having a vote at all?
How many voted for Sotomayor, who’s far closer (2009) to Roberts in 2005 than RBG in 1993?
I figured it would take until Bricker got here for Bork to be brought up. Guess not.
Good point, why is there debate on bills, when the result is foreordained?
Why is there ever debate on justices at all? Or on cabinet appointments?
If the senate doesn’t like a bill or a justice or an appointment, they could just ignore it, not even bring it up for a vote. If they do like it, there’s no reason for debate, just bring it up for a vote.
Even better, the majority leader of the senate knows how everyone is going to vote, so why even bother having a vote, you could just have mitch mcconnell dictate the bills that he knows will pass, congratulate the appointees that he knows will pass, and not even waste any of his colleagues’ time with pointless votes.
Clearly in the cases you have cited (Bork and Ginsburg) the result was not foreordained; the Democrats were willing to confirm a Republican nominee they deemed to be sufficiently qualified and moderate, even though that nominee was far more conservative than they would have ideally preferred. It’s called “compromise”, and it’s how things are supposed to work when the voters have chosen to divide control of the branches of government between parties.
It’s also perhaps salient to point out that Ginsburg wasn’t voted down by democrats. He withdrew himself from consideration after revelations about marijuana use. So it’s not as though democrats kept shooting down candidates until they found one they could agree to.
Merrick Garland’s seat was not “stolen.” The Senate GOP made a calculated decision to oppose Obama’s nominees, and bet that the voters would not punish them for it. They were correct.
Unprecedented, violative of Senate norms and arguably immoral, yes. But it wasn’t “theft.”
I was out and about, and saw some talking heads on a TV. Think is was morning joe, but I’m not too sure, and it doesn’t even matter.
They were talking about how this animosity goes back, way back. They mentioned some of the controversies during bush’s era, and clinton’s whitewater issues, then someone mentioned bork, then someone else said, “And don’t forget 1968,” to which the all knowingly nodded.
WTF? What happened in 1968 that is having an effect now? Why do I care about it, why is something that occurred a decade before I was born somehow my fault? I can at least take the bork criticism, as I at least existed then (even though at the time, I lived in a very conservative household.), but now I need to get out a fucking history book to find out what I have to answer for?
I don’t really get grudges, so it doesn’t make alot of sense to me, but seriously, if people are still holding onto stuff from 50 years ago, they really need to just let it the fuck go.
And now I have become that guy who is swearing and calling people names. 
This is why I don’t like to go into the Pit. I’m sure none of you have noticed, but I have some anger issues, and the tone of this forum doesn’t help with my efforts to control those. I’m going to step away from this thread for a while, possibly forever.
I wish you all a pleasant Wednesday.
Not at all. When you offer up a stinging critique of another’s accuracy, it’s fair to expect rebuke when your own accuracy falls short. I agree that the error was tangential to the main point being discussed, and I’m happy to concede the tangential nature but not apologize for it.
Democrats facing extinction? How do you figure that?
Well, the Republicans hold the House and the Senate along with the Presidency; which, coming back around to the point of the thread, means that if any of the folks currently on the Supreme Court who happen to be in their eighties or seventies resign or die, the GOP presumably gets to make it so that a majority of Justices were tapped for it by a guy named Bush or Trump: Clarence Thomas plus John Roberts plus Samuel Alito plus Neil Gorsuch plus X – plus Y and Z, maybe. That’s at the federal level; at the state level, when it comes to Governors and state legislatures alike, Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than two-to-one.
Could that all change? Yes. But are we at a point where the conversation should be all about how changes should be made because Plan A ain’t working? Yes.
Where does the Constitution mandate hearings?
Ginsburg withdrew. While it’s technically correct to say the Senate did not approve him, they didn’t specifically reject him (as they had with Bork) either, so your comment is misleading.
Because you know as well as I do that the Republicans wouldn’t have been able to keep their members from voting for Garland, and he would have been confirmed. The one thing they couldn’t do was hold a vote for Garland, because there are enough John McCains and Lisa Murkowskis and Susan Collinses that wouldn’t vote against Garland just because he was nominated by a Democratic president.
I’m missing the extinction part in there.
Whatever the Democrats have been doing, it has led them to this. If they keep doing what they’ve been doing, things will – continue, I guess? That doesn’t strike me as a blueprint for a viable and competitive party; but, admittedly, I could be wrong.
You want to recommend they keep doing what they’ve been doing?
It wasn’t even unprecedented. Two of Fillmore’s nominees were ignored while the Senate waited for the 1852 election, where Fillmore was replaced by Pierce.
The simplest remedy with the least amount of disruption is to put a time limit on nominations. Once the president makes a nomination, the Senate has six months to confirm or reject - if they do neither, the appointment is automatically confirmed. If the Senate term expires before six months are up, the nomination is automatically rejected. At the very least, it’s a formal compromise on this bullshit unwritten rule about not nominating justices in an election year. If it’s more than six months before the end of the Senate’s term (i.e. before June 3rd), that’s enough time. If it’s after June 3rd, then you can blarney about letting the people decide or whatever flimsy lie you prefer.