I bet Merrick Garland will join SCOTUS

[mhendo]

@running_coach

Except it was debated and voted on.

But Bricker has made clear, elsewhere on this board, that he considers voting down a nominee to be effectively the same as failing to vote at all.

@Bricker

I don’t agree there’s a huge distinction between failing to vote, and voting down – primarily political cowardice in the present situation stemming from a worry that the vote will suceed and a worry that a negative vote will be campaign fodder for the next opponent each such senator faces. But ultimately, both side do it, and both times it’s wrong. I say this now, and I’ll say it when a GOP president is blocked. But the difference is that when I say it then, I’ll be accused of being a mindless partisan. The motives that animated THIS post will be forgotten, or simply “forgotten.”

Of course, his convenient dismissal of the very clear distinction between voting and voting down allows him to don the hairshirt of the unfairly put-upon reasonable man, who is constantly misunderstood in his determined efforts to be completely fair and balanced.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Fear_Itself

All of their cases are deciding constitutional issues, a topic Obama taught at University of Chicago Law School.

Yet he tried to violate the Constitution as President when he tried to give amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens and SCOTUS told him no you don’t have that power.

[running_coach]

@Drunky_Smurf

Yet he tried to violate the Constitution as President when he tried to give amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens and SCOTUS told him no you don’t have that power.

Actually, the Court deadlocked 4-4. Even the SCOTUS couldn’t agree if it was unconstitutional.

[Mtgman]

@Bricker

one consequence of winning the White House is that you get to nominate justices, who should be rejected only on genuine qualification grounds.

What are “genuine qualification[s]” for a Justice of the SCotUS? How were they defined and who was involved in crafting those definitions? Because I’m very well aware of the constitutional qualifications and they don’t match the ones you’ve described. I’ll quote them in their entirety for reference.

@The U.S. Constitution

.

@Bricker

BUt there’s a bit of shadenfraude as well, because Democrats blocked the very qualified Robert Bork. It needs to stop, and I acknowledge the GOP is the more guilty party in recent times… but of course, this scenario can onky happenb when the Senate and the White House are split.

Robert Bork’s Supreme Court Nomination

President Reagan nominated Bork for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987.
…
On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork’s confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators (John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT)) voting against him.

That was 115 days, during which there were hearings and debates about his judicial philosophy. It was worked on and voted on.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Bricker]

@running_coach

Except it was debated and voted on.

So?

[Bricker]

@mhendo

But Bricker has made clear, elsewhere on this board, that he considers voting down a nominee to be effectively the same as failing to vote at all.Of course, his convenient dismissal of the very clear distinction between voting and voting down allows him to don the hairshirt of the unfairly put-upon reasonable man, who is constantly misunderstood in his determined efforts to be completely fair and balanced.

I agree there is a clear distinction in some ways. They are spelled differently, for example.

[mhendo]

@Bricker

I agree there is a clear distinction in some ways. They are spelled differently, for example.

LOL. You funny guy!

[Bricker]

@Mtgman

That was 115 days, during which there were hearings and debates about his judicial philosophy. It was worked on and voted on.

And…?

In what specific, relevant way did that differ from refusing to vote?

I can think of one tangential relevant difference: a vote forces senators to go on record. I don’t agree that’s relevant to the claim that there is a dramatic distinction.

[mhendo]

Of course you don’t, because that conclusion is convenient to your political preferences.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

And…?

In what specific, relevant way did that differ from refusing to vote?

You mean other than the fact that they considered the candidate’s qualifications and fitness to serve?

[mhendo]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You mean other than the fact that they considered the candidate’s qualifications and fitness to serve?

Not to mention the fact that, when Bork was rejected and they were presented with another candidate, the Senate voted to confirm.

I guess that’s exactly the same as saying that you will refuse to consider any nominee because the President shouldn’t get to make a selection at all in the last year of his second term.

[Iggy]

@Saint_Cad

One rule of for the pro forma session to not be a recess is that the Senate must allow to conduct business. If the Dems had some balls they would show up with Biden in the Chair and try to force the issue.

It is slightly more nuanced than that. It must be *possible * to conduct business in accordance with the Senate’s own rules for a pro forma session to not be prevent the Senate from being in recess for the purposes of the Recess Appointment clause. They do not actually have to permit business to be conducted.

Good luck with the Biden strategy. Consider for a moment that perhaps, just perhaps, they haven’t done that because they know it won’t work.

[Loach]

Let’s not Bork this thread. I don’t mind a little drift into areas related to the OP but do not hijack it.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Here’s CNN Politics on why Garland shouldn’t lose hope: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/23/politics/hillary-clinton-merrick-garland-supreme-court/index.html

[usedtobe]

If the GOP loses control of the Senate, I’d suspect that confirming this moderate would be the lame-duck Senate’s #1 prority.

You can have this one or you can wait and see who the new Pres and new Senate decide to ram down your obstructionist throats.

Maybe HRC can nominate Obama to the SCOTUS?

I’d love to see that one…

[Dewey_Finn]

It would be ironic if Hillary Clinton is able to nominate or confirm the candidate of her dreams rather than Merrick Garland (whom the Republicans praised before he was nominated). So I was trying to think of the candidate who would piss off the far right the most and yet be eminently qualified. So how about Anthony Romero? Openly gay Hispanic Stanford Law graduate who is also the executive director of the ACLU.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Piss off the far right, sure. But I am not sure how Romero is qualified. As executive director of the ACLU, he is a policy guy rather than a litigator. And despite my unending respect for the good work of that organization, setting policy does not make one a judge. As far as I can tell he’s never had a true attorney job, much less any role on the bench.

[Procrustus]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Piss off the far right, sure. But I am not sure how Romero is qualified. As executive director of the ACLU, he is a policy guy rather than a litigator. And despite my unending respect for the good work of that organization, setting policy does not make one a judge. As far as I can tell he’s never had a true attorney job, much less any role on the bench.

The United States Supreme Court is a different kind of litigation. No reason a “policy guy” couldn’t do the job. Earl Warren, for example.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

I agree. No reason they all have to be elevated Federal appellate judges. Intellect, legal acumen and personal character count for more, in my book.

[Northern_Piper]

@Procrustus

The United States Supreme Court is a different kind of litigation. No reason a “policy guy” couldn’t do the job. Earl Warren, for example.

Warren was an experienced lawyer and governor, not just a “policy guy”. He was District Attorney for Alameda County for 14 years; Attorney General of California for 4 years; and Governor for 10 years.

That’s considerable legal experience, well-suited for a judge.