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.
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.
I wish I could claim credit, but it was autocorrect on my phone. But yeah, that’s about the gist of it!!
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.
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.
It’s new with respect to SCOTUS judges, but it has been going on for some time with other federal judge appointments.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m not seeing what’s bad about that? 
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, 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:
But this isn’t new with Republicans - Democrats did the same thing for Bush nominees, but I don’t think to the same magnitude.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
Kennedy was approved by a Democratically controlled Senate 97-0.
Then again, we have always been at war with Eurasia.