# Obama must be allowed to nominate the next SCOTUS Justice **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2016, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061 "2016-02-13T23:23:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/261 "2016-02-17T00:17:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Who decides what’s fair? One debates. Have my reasons for saying one is different from the other been unclear, or unpersuasive? If the former, please ask for clarification; if the latter, please explain where they fail. A meta-debate about the meaning of fairness isn’t especially interesting to me, however. > [@Scylla](#): > > I love that every time this happens it is like it is happening for the first time. Everybody just switches arguments. Now the Republicans will be arguing that advise and consent means they get to choose Of course they get to choose. What’s new is the insistence that they can choose not to choose, not to address the issue at all. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/262 "2016-02-17T00:34:54Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > 🙂 Nice typo. I wish I could claim credit, but it was autocorrect on my phone. But yeah, that’s about the gist of it!! ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/263 "2016-02-17T00:38:38Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Huh? When Schumer made that speech in 2007, didn’t the Democrats (narrowly) control the Senate? I believe Schumer even held a leadership position at the time. Yes, I made an error. In one of the half-dozen other threads on this exact same topic, I acknowledged my mistake. I was under the impression that Schumer made the statement in the same year Roberts and Alito were confirmed (2005). I either assumed incorrectly or didn’t read a recent news story closely enough. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/264 "2016-02-17T00:52:15Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > One debates. Have my reasons for saying one is different from the other been unclear, or unpersuasive? If the former, please ask for clarification; if the latter, please explain where they fail. A meta-debate about the meaning of fairness isn’t especially interesting to me, however. It’s not persuasive. The senate can make its own rules. Deciding to not have a vote at all is a viable choice. It may not be optimal, but there is nothing to prevent it except the senate itself. In other words, politics. You’re saying that the method by which they are engaging in politics is or should be unacceptable in some way. I think reasonable people could see it that way, but it’s not the only interpretation. > [@](#): > > Of course they get to choose. What’s new is the insistence that they can choose not to choose, not to address the issue at all. It’s new with respect to SCOTUS judges, but it has been going on for some time with other federal judge appointments. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/265 "2016-02-17T00:57:45Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Of course they get to choose. What’s new is the insistence that they can choose not to choose, not to address the issue at all. Cue the orchestra… _You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice_ ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/266 "2016-02-17T01:02:46Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s not persuasive. The senate can make its own rules. Deciding to not have a vote at all is a viable choice. It may not be optimal, but there is nothing to prevent it except the senate itself. In other words, politics. You’re saying that the method by which they are engaging in politics is or should be unacceptable in some way. I think reasonable people could see it that way, but it’s not the only interpretation. Of course they can make their own choice. Of course they can decide not to have a vote. Does “viable” mean “won’t get them thrown in jail”? Because I agree with that, too. But they’re lying about their reasons for making that choice. Do you agree? The “tradition” claim is a thin lie. And lying should nearly always be unacceptable; lying for thin partisan gain, doubly so. If they thought their rationale would be supported by voters in November, they wouldn’t have to lie about it. > [@](#): > > It’s new with respect to SCOTUS judges, but it has been going on for some time with other federal judge appointments. Even if this is true (cite?), so what? This congress is notoriously shitty about following their “advise and consent” duty re: other judges, so it’s not like they needed a reason there to be extra-shitty; and federal judges ain’t the same thing, not in the same ball game, as SC justices. This seems like another attempt to point away from the key issue (“Look, Schumer! Look, federal judges! Look, look look!”) The issue is that Republican leadership have invented a tradition and prevaricated in a number of ways to try to legitimize this invented tradition, all so they don’t have to admit that they’re refusing to hold nomination hearings for nakedly partisan, obstructionist purposes. They should at the very least own up to what they’re doing, as Schumer so clearly did in 2007. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/267 "2016-02-17T01:12:02Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Even if this is true (cite?), so what? This congress is notoriously shitty about following their “advise and consent” duty re: other judges, so it’s not like they needed a reason there to be extra-shitty; and federal judges ain’t the same thing, not in the same ball game, as SC justices. This seems like another attempt to point away from the key issue (“Look, Schumer! Look, federal judges! Look, look look!”) > > The issue is that Republican leadership have invented a tradition and prevaricated in a number of ways to try to legitimize this invented tradition, all so they don’t have to admit that they’re refusing to hold nomination hearings for nakedly partisan, obstructionist purposes. They should at the very least own up to what they’re doing, as Schumer so clearly did in 2007. I’m struggling to understand that point you are trying to make. The Republicans should do things you think they should do. That’s very nice and all, but why should they? You’re not voting for them regardless. It’s very simple. Obama gets to nominate and the Senate gets of confirm or not. If they decide not to confirm, they risk pissing off the non-partisan independents and perhaps losing the Senate. It’s a political calculation they are going to make whether any one of us approves or not. And it’s not particularly out of the norm of what they’ve been doing for years. “They should at the very least own up to what they are doing”. Why? Why should they? What do they gain by doing so? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/268 "2016-02-17T01:12:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m struggling to understand that point you are trying to make. They are lying. Lying is bad. I don’t know how to make it simpler. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > “They should at the very least own up to what they are doing”. Why? Why should they? What do they gain by doing so? 😕 Uh, the satisfaction of knowing they’re acting in a slightly more ethical fashion? I wasn’t aware that our discussion was to be entirely devoid of ethical concepts. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/269 "2016-02-17T01:14:44Z")
> [@Clu-Me-In](#): > > With the unfortunate passing of Justice Scalia, if the Republicans refuse to allow Barack Obama to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice, we might as well blow up this country and start all over again with a new Constitution. You know what the problem is? _Divided government._ If the executive and the Congress were of the same party, we’d see some tiffs, but not this level of refusal to cooperate. The next time someone tries to tell you that divided government is good for some reason, point out that we appoint a new Supreme Court Justice at least once a term, and federal judges all the time. A government divided between two parties that hate each other that much is a failure on a basic functional level. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/270 "2016-02-17T01:20:10Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > They are lying. > > Lying is bad. > > I don’t know how to make it simpler. > > 😕 Uh, the satisfaction of knowing they’re acting in a slightly more ethical fashion? I wasn’t aware that our discussion was to be entirely devoid of ethical concepts. All politicians lie. Yes, it would be nice if they didn’t. Why would they want the satisfaction of being slightly more ethical? Seriously, why would they? I haven’t seen any evidence that being ethical in the realm of truth telling is at all important to them. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/271 "2016-02-17T01:28:13Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Not . > But the real nuts and bolts interesting stuff was at the subcommittee level. And Schumer was the chair of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts (composed of 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans) during the 110th Congress. > > Everyone got that now? > Then a Senator, in conformance with rules of the full committee, could proceed to sandbag a nomination. Delay it, tie it up in some subcommittee matter, and refuse to poll in back to the full committee. The options are limited by imagination. No, nominations are never dealt with by subcommittees. They are matters dealt with by the full Judiciary Committee. When hearings with nominees happen, they are never at the subcommittee level. There is no subcommittee vote on nominations. The whole process is dealt with by the full Judiciary Committee. Schumer had no say in scheduling full committee hearings, votes, or any other business, except that he may try to convince Leahy of the wisdom of his suggestions. Subcommittees hold hearings and can be the first step for legislative action - like writing bills - but don’t have any role in nominations. I’m not sure where you get the idea that subcommittees can bottle up Supreme Court justices. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/272 "2016-02-17T01:34:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > All politicians lie. Yes, it would be nice if they didn’t. Why would they want the satisfaction of being slightly more ethical? Seriously, why would they? I haven’t seen any evidence that being ethical in the realm of truth telling is at all important to them. If you agree that they’re lying, but want to debate some meta-debate about whether ethics exist or matter, I’ve no real interest in that one. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/273 "2016-02-17T01:43:29Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > You know what the problem is? _Divided government._ > > If the executive and the Congress were of the same party, we’d see some tiffs, but not this level of refusal to cooperate. The next time someone tries to tell you that divided government is good for some reason, point out that we appoint a new Supreme Court Justice at least once a term, and federal judges all the time. > > A government divided between two parties that hate each other that much is a failure on a basic functional level. I’m not seeing what’s bad about that? 🙂 > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But they’re lying about their reasons for making that choice. Do you agree? The “tradition” claim is a thin lie. And lying should nearly always be unacceptable; lying for thin partisan gain, doubly so. If they thought their rationale would be supported by voters in November, they wouldn’t have to lie about it. > > Even if this is true (cite?), so what? This congress is notoriously shitty about following their “advise and consent” duty re: other judges, so it’s not like they needed a reason there to be extra-shitty; and federal judges ain’t the same thing, not in the same ball game, as SC justices. This seems like another attempt to point away from the key issue (“Look, Schumer! Look, federal judges! Look, look look!”) Politicians lie. Either about this, or something else. It’s not like the group as a whole is known for their honesty. But it’s not like people are really fooled by the pretext. At least, I don’t think so. That’s why I chalk it up to politics. As for a cite, um, it’s kind of been a pretty big deal. Here’s a quote from [a huff post article](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/judge-federal-courts-vacancies_us_55d77721e4b0a40aa3aaf14b), but don’t you remember what all the talk about the nuclear option and the recent deal that let a bunch of Obama nominees through, but wasn’t supposed to be for SCOTUS noms? This is the same issue, but at a larger scale: > [@](#): > > Beyond creating new judgeships, the Senate is barely keeping up with filling the 67 existing vacancies. Since Republicans took control of the Senate in January, they’ve only let six of President Barack Obama’s judicial picks get confirmation votes. By contrast, when President George W. Bush was in his seventh year in office and Democrats controlled the Senate, they had confirmed 29 by this point. > > Republicans came up with all kinds of ways to block Obama’s judicial nominees when they were in the minority, too. Many simply refused to recommend nominees to the White House for vacancies in their home states – preventing the nomination process from even beginning. They filibustered noncontroversial nominees, used procedural tactics to delay votes and even blocked their own nominees to prevent Obama from chalking up confirmations. But this isn’t new with Republicans - Democrats did the same thing for Bush nominees, but I don’t think to the same magnitude. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/274 "2016-02-17T01:53:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s new with respect to SCOTUS judges, but it has been going on for some time with other federal judge appointments. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Even if this is true (cite?) > [@Bone](#): > > As for a cite, um, it’s kind of been a pretty big deal. Pronouns with unclear antecedents are bad :). I thought in that first quote, “It” referred to something like “Claiming that there’s a rule against appointing a judge in the last year of a president’s term.” I now believe you meant, by “it,” something like “acting like obstructionist assholes.” My apologies for the misunderstanding; of course you don’t need to cite the latter. At this point, it looks like everyone recognizes that this is a lie, and the excuses are in the “but everybody does it” camp, which holds no interest for me. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/275 "2016-02-17T02:03:44Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I love that every time this happens it is like it is happening for the first time. Everybody just switches arguments. Now the Republicans will be arguing that advise and consent means they get to choose The difference is, the Democrats (for all their politicized hypocrisy in many things), have never to my knowledge actually blocked a nomination, because they want the next president to do it, as opposed to being too extreme to support (they’ve done that). Schumer said what he said, but it was speculative. It didn’t actually _happen_. We’ll see if the GOP actually does reflexively block Obama’s nomination without any consideration. I still think it will go very badly for them if they do. Which is ok with me. I don’t see how the GOP can win: [ul] [li]4-4 SCOTUS votes leave the lower courts’ decisions standing, which are typically more progressive than the SCOTUS. [/li][li]Without Scalia’s belligerence and intelligence, my guess is that the conservatives on the court will find themselves weaker regardless.[/li][li]The next president is likely to be Democrat, and the GOP will have no excuses at all.[/li][li]No one outside of hardcore party faithful believes their argument is in good faith. This will potentially alienate swing votes.[/li][/ul] Really, if they’re thinking long term, they need to let Obama nominate someone, put him or her through the wringer as usual, and proceed like normal. It really is their most rational course of action. I would tell the bloody useless Senate Democrats the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/276 "2016-02-17T02:37:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If you agree that they’re lying, but want to debate some meta-debate about whether ethics exist or matter, I’ve no real interest in that one. Ok. You keep telling us what you think the Republicxns should do. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/277 "2016-02-17T02:43:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Ok. You keep telling us what you think the Republicxns should do. This has got to be the most absurd descent a debate has fallen to since the last Republican primary debate. Thanks, John–I WILL say what I think the ethical course of action is for politicians, in threads set up to debate what politicians should do! Your permission and encouragement is appreciated! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/278 "2016-02-17T03:07:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This has got to be the most absurd descent a debate has fallen to since the last Republican primary debate. > > Thanks, John–I WILL say what I think the ethical course of action is for politicians, in threads set up to debate what politicians should do! Your permission and encouragement is appreciated! Ok, **Lefty** , let me spell it out for you. The Republicans don’t give a shit about being seen ethical actors. They want power, and they don’t care much how they get it. So you can go on and on about what they “should do” if they want to be seen as ethical actors, but why you would think they care about that is beyond me. That’s up to YOU to explain. I already asked you this explicitly, and you declined to answer. Now, tell me if you can: Why do they give a shit about being seen as ethical actors, and what evidence do you have to show that they do? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/279 "2016-02-17T03:17:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Ok, **Lefty** , let me spell it out for you. John, there’s no need. I think it’s worth talking about what the ethical course of action is. You don’t. We’re done. ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/280 "2016-02-17T03:35:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yep. I don’t generally like “what would the other party do if…” scenarios, but it’s hard to imagine the Democrats just going along with an appointment made by GWB in his last year in office had RBG died then. The parameters are pretty much equally reversed, as the Dems had the House and the Senate in 2008. Kennedy was approved by a Democratically controlled Senate 97-0. Then again, we have always been at war with Eurasia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=15)