# SCOTUS nominations have become political? Only since Bork. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 3, 2016, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741 "2016-05-03T01:01:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/161 "2016-05-08T05:21:11Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > He’s wrong, but let’s see if he answers, or if he runs away. There are other options, but I’m going to bed now and will see tomorrow how this played out. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/162 "2016-05-08T06:07:16Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I didn’t ask you, I asked **Triponus** , who has so far failed to respond. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You tell me. What is he on about a clerk in Georgia? Can’t you make up your mind which direction you wish to take your snide comments? **EVERYONE** : ENOUGH with the snarky, one-liner, back-and-forth about opinions vs facts. Stick to a discussion of the thread topic. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/163 "2016-05-08T13:12:50Z")
Well, that wasn’t very playful. Anyhoo, has a president (other than Washington, I guess) ever started a term with a vacancy on the Court? If the Senate holds firm until the election, voters will have a rare chance to have a say about all three branches of federal government. ---
**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:** [May 8, 2016, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/164 "2016-05-08T13:43:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Anyhoo, has a president (other than Washington, I guess) ever started a term with a vacancy on the Court? If the Senate holds firm until the election, voters will have a rare chance to have a say about all three branches of federal government. See my post #40 in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/165 "2016-05-08T20:55:58Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > He’s wrong, but let’s see if he answers, or if he runs away. I was thinking of the clerk in whatever state it was who unilaterally refused to provide marriage licenses to gay couples. It was a quip, pointing to a precedent of people determining, on their own, independently, but with full official status and power, what was constitutional and what wasn’t. I misremembered it being Georgia. Apologies to Georgia. Hint: I actually do participate here a lot, but four demands for an answer in the period of less than an hour, is absurd. I don’t spend all of my time here. Also Hint: Choosing not to respond to someone’s post is not “running away.” Sometimes, threads and discussions cease to have any value. Making a major point out of a minor error is a sign that this discussion has no further value. Have an intense day. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/166 "2016-05-08T21:32:05Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I was thinking of the clerk in whatever state it was who unilaterally refused to provide marriage licenses to gay couples. > > It was a quip, pointing to a precedent of people determining, on their own, independently, but with full official status and power, what was constitutional and what wasn’t. I misremembered it being Georgia. Apologies to Georgia. Quips and what you “misremember” are not a basis for a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/167 "2016-05-08T22:11:45Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Quips and what you “misremember” are not a basis for a debate. My misremembering was a blunder. A mistake. An oopsie. That happens. You’re not immune. Quips most certainly do have a place here! The SDMB is not without humor. An occasional yuck is entirely within the legitimate scope of debate. Supreme Court Justices occasionally make quips during arguments. If they can do it, I certainly get to! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/168 "2016-05-08T22:12:21Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Quips and what you “misremember” are not a basis for a debate. Neither is using snark to harangue a poster about a simple mistake for hours and posts. Knock it off. That topic is closed in this thread. [ /Moderating / ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/169 "2016-05-09T01:13:41Z")
Posters may want to know how the conversation went. > [@Trinopus](#): > > To add: I’ve never denied that this is “my opinion.” The Supreme Court has issued “their opinion” and that’s the one that has weight in force of law. > > (Except when a clerk in Georgia says it doesn’t…) > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > A clerk in Georgia? What are you talking about? So far, so good. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Kentucky, too. Nice clarification. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I didn’t ask you, I asked **Triponus** , who has so far failed to respond. And here we leave the rails. The inquiry appears to be focusing on something other than clarifying the underlying issue. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I was adding to Trinopus’s statement, not answering your question. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Post 143. > > ETA: Also post 144. 143: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19314230&postcount=143](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19314230&postcount=143) 144: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19314235&postcount=144](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19314235&postcount=144) > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Which clerk in Georgia? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yes, Trinopus, answer the IMPORTANT question! Eyes on the prize! > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Opinions trump facts, right? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > They do? News to me. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You tell me. What is he on about a clerk in Georgia? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t know what specific case he is referencing but it wouldn’t shock me to hear a clerk in Georgia defied a SCOTUS ruling. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Or, he’s completely wrong, which is more likely than not. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t have enough data to predict a probability, nor enough personal bias against Trinopus to want him to be wrong. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > He’s wrong, but let’s see if he answers, or if he runs away. If he is wrong about Kentucky vs. Georgia, it isn’t especially relevant to the underlying argument. Worth correcting, but not getting upset about. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > There are other options, but I’m going to bed now and will see tomorrow how this played out. > [@Trinopus](#): > > I was thinking of the clerk in whatever state it was who unilaterally refused to provide marriage licenses to gay couples. > > It was a quip, pointing to a precedent of people determining, on their own, independently, but with full official status and power, what was constitutional and what wasn’t. I misremembered it being Georgia. Apologies to Georgia. > > Hint: I actually do participate here a lot, but four demands for an answer in the period of less than an hour, is absurd. I don’t spend all of my time here. > > Also Hint: Choosing not to respond to someone’s post is not “running away.” Sometimes, threads and discussions cease to have any value. Making a major point out of a minor error is a sign that this discussion has no further value. Have an intense day. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Quips and what you “misremember” are not a basis for a debate. [\*\* . . . \*\*] > [@Trinopus](#): > > My misremembering was a blunder. A mistake. An oopsie. That happens. You’re not immune. > > Quips most certainly do have a place here! The SDMB is not without humor. An occasional yuck is entirely within the legitimate scope of debate. > > Supreme Court Justices occasionally make quips during arguments. If they can do it, I certainly get to! > [@tomndebb](#): > > Neither is using snark to harangue a poster about a simple mistake for hours and posts. > > Knock it off. > That topic is closed in this thread. > > [ /Moderating / I say best practice involves delving into the substance of the debate, rather than correcting errors that don’t change the substance of the claim. Whether the original clerk came from Georgia or Kentucky doesn’t invalidate the observation that SCOTUS rulings are not always immediately obeyed, even when clear. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/170 "2016-05-09T01:17:12Z")
And that is absolutely the last post concerning the topic in this thread. From here on out that hijack is a path to warning city. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/171 "2016-05-09T03:52:48Z")
I swear to god every time I open GD and see this thread I read Bork as **Bjork**. This time it made me think of the song _Human Behavior_, which in context made me think of politics, which made me go “of course!” So I think the SCOTUS nominations have been clearly political since at the very least the release of Björk’s album Debut in 1993. Just MHO :). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741.md?page=8)