Do you have a cite for this? I was under the impression that Tyler’s first nomination did get a vote; he was just rejected. I know he withdrew several nominations, I do know that the Senate refused to vote on the nomination on Walworth, but that might have been because Tyler has already nominated and withdrawn his name that same day. As for tabling his nominations, the 2016 Senate is going even further; they’re refusing to even acknowledge Garland’s nomination. They’re being so obstructionist that they won’t even table Obama’s nomination. They’re just sticking their fingers in their ear and shouting “NO!”
Also, as you mentioned, this was done over 150 years ago. The political landscape was much different than it is today (for example, the tradition of having 9 Justices had only been implemented less than 10 years ago, Senators weren’t elected by popular vote, etc.). Hell, even the nomination process was different (for starters, there was no Judiciary Committee until, I believe, 1866). Nevertheless, it is precedent, just not very strong precedent. So, I should clarify my statement to state that there isn’t any recent precedent. At the very least, it look like the Senate Tyler was up against did something for the majority of his nominations. Motions for their nominations were at least heard.
The Senate’s actions (or inaction) could also be explained by the fact that Tyler continually nominated the same people. He nominated King and Spencer twice and Walworth three times, while others like John Read were rejected because of their stance on slavery. It’s interesting to note though that Tyler, despite being almost universally hated by Congress, was still able to get a nominee through even though he was a lame duck president. Primarily because he was a safe, non-controversial choice, which sounds a lot like Garland.
To me, that the Dems were unanimous in voting for him shows that even had they been in control, they would have done their jobs. They could have even had a few dozen protest votes, but at least for them, they both understood their role and how the Senate isn’t there to force their own candidate through by whatever means necessary, but by determining the competency of the president’s choice. That was done by every member of the Democratic party in the Senate.
Tell me the difference between denying a hearing and having a hearing and voting down the nominee
I’m shocked it took this long to mention his name. Bork was an extremist who did not deserve to be on the SCOTUS. The Dems did their job by having hearings and voting him down. That happens. What you are trying to justify Mitch McConnell and the rest of his turtle squad is doing is absolutely unprecedented and a dereliction of duty.
I’ll ask you too: what’s the difference between not holding hearings and holding them and voting him down?
Again, who do you think you people are fooling? Nobody here is falling for your games. Just accept that what the GOP is doing is completely without precedent and obstructionist and just run with that. Spin it however you want, patriotic duty, what your voters want, etc., but this fiction that the Dems have done it too or that there is a history of this stuff is laughable
One is denying a hearing, and the other is having a hearing and voting the down the nominee. Was this supposed to be a trick? But you must have misunderstood. I’m highlighting the hypocrisy of praising legislators literally running away to deny a quorum with your claim that Democrats will do their jobs and give a fair hearing. Did you miss that part? Here’s what you said when the Democrats ran away and hid:
Any attempt from you to criticize a filibuster or even denying a hearing is comical when you praise folks who run away and hide in an attempt to deny a quorum.
Scalia should be replaced with a conservative. So should all the liberals. So should all the moderates.
I have no interest in maintaining the present balance of the Court. I want a conservative Court. That is, IMO, in the best interests of the country. “Conservative” in this case means I want a Court that decides based on a textual interpretation of the Constitution. Just like Scalia did, and just like all the other justices should.
I am no different from any of the rest of the SDMB. I am just more upfront about it. If Obama thought he could get a liberal thru the process, he would appoint a liberal. I assume that is because he believes liberals are more likely correctly to decide the cases that come before the Supreme Court.
The Biden trick might be interesting. Suppose Biden and 10 Dem Senators show up prior to a pro forma session. Biden grabs the gavel and calls the session to order:
Biden: The vote is on the nomination of Garland to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. All in favor say “aye.”
Two GOP Senators: Objection! Suggest absence of a quorum!
Ten Dem Senators: Aye.
Biden: Those opposed?
Two GOP Senators: Objection! Point of Order! No quorum!
Biden: In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The nomination is agreed to.
GOP Senator: “Mr. President, request a Roll Call Vote”
Biden: “The clerk shall call the roll”
<The Clerk calls the roll. Final vote is 10 aye, 2 no, 88 abstaining>
Biden: “A majority not voting aye, the vote fails to pass, and the nomination is not confirmed…”
Actually, Obama is now on record that he will not withdraw the nomination (interview with Chris Wallace this weekend). Now, that doesn’t mean he can’t change his mind, but it seems unlikely he will.