This has been proven wrong so many times in these threads. Not going to do it again. Believe what you want to believe. Anyone really interested can just look it up in wikipedia. It’s all right there in black and white.
That was the opinion of various posters. Which is hardly the same as “proven wrong”.
Here is why it was unprecedented:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-merrick-garland.html?_r=0
*After a comprehensive look at every past Supreme Court vacancy, two law professors have concluded that it is an unprecedented development…“There really is something unique about the position Republican senators are taking with respect to the Scalia vacancy,” said Professor Mazzone, who teaches at the University of Illinois.
“You really cannot find any single comparable case,” he said. “We really did not find any precedent for the idea, notwithstanding the Senate’s very broad powers in this area, that a sitting president could be denied outright the authority to offer up a nominee who would receive evaluation through normal Senate processes.”
*Senate hold on Merrick Garland nomination is unprecedented, almost
This is a totally unprecedented situation,” says Peter H. Irons, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego and the author of multiple books about the Supreme Court.
So sure some posters here have given their opinion it wasnt “unprecedented” : but legal scholars disagree.
Maybe those legal scholars just suck at research?
Here, DrDeth, is the exact post by Iggy where he already disproved your complaint (he has quite a few excellent ones throughout that whole thread). I don’t know if you didn’t read it the first time, or just dismissed it, as, like, his opinion, man.
You should try reading your entire cites:
Debunked by actual, you know* legal scholars. *
That’s true, there is a dispute, legal scholars are not in total agreement. That happens. So?
Still “legal scholars disagree.” Legals scholars- not some poster giving his opinion of a message board- say it was unprecedented .
So your line “This has been proven wrong so many times in these threads.” is false.
I’m comfortable with people seeing the facts and making up their own minds. I’m not interested in debating the issue with you.
Thanks to some others for picking up my particular bailiwick.
The general statement that Garland’s nomination was handled in an “unprecedented” way requires, as I said the the post HurricaneDitka linked to, substantial qualification of the remark.
It is true that no individual Supreme Court nominee had ever stood in nomination for so long in one continuous unbroken period without *something *happening to bring resolution to the matter. In that contorted way, yes , it was unprecedented what Garland went through.
When President Tyler* nominated John C Spencer to the high court on January 9, 1844** the nomination was rebuffed by the Whig majority in the Senate. The thing is, Tyler had been a Whig!*** Senators from what had been his own party were the ones who hosed him! But at least it was by a vote held on January 31, 1844. Timely vote. Let’s, move on to the next nomination.
Up comes Reuben Walworth, nominated on March 13, 1844. And three months later**** a motion on his nomination was tabled on June 15, 1844. Yes there was a vote on the motion to table. No, there was no up-or-down vote on the nomination itself. But Tyler got the message and withdrew the nomination on June 17, 1844. Meanwhile there is a second vacancy to fill.
That is where we have a significant change from how Obama handled the Garland nomination. Obama stood his ground for his nominee. Other presidents have withdrawn the nomination when faced with such opposition. In this way Obama’s treatment of his own nominee could be said to be unprecedented.
Oddly, it seems the next nominee, Edward King, was put forward on June 5, 1844. *even before the nomination of Walworth had been disposed of *and withdrawn. Sure there were two vacancies by now, but this was a nomination for the same seat. So even before a vote to table Walworth’s nod, Tyler had already got the message loud and clear without a vote. And King’s nomination was tabled on June 15, 1844. For those keeping score at home that is the SAME DAY that the motion on Walworth was tabled.
Now it is time for everyone’s favorite game, Whack-A-Nominee! Kinda like Whack-A-Mole, but for Supreme Court nominees! Tyler goes back to the well and nominates Spencer again. On June 17, 1844. Gee that day sounds familiar! Same day Walworth was withdrawn. And Tyler withdraws Spencer’s nomination later the same day. ** No vote. No action by the Senate. Nada. Zip. Zero. **
Hmmm. 1844. That’s divisible by four. And November somewhere in here. Yes, 1844 was a presidential election year. Why was the Senate not approving nominees put forward by Tyler? Because the next president would get to make the choice, that’s why. Hmmm… where have we heard that recently!!!
Still two seats open on the court. And Tyler pulls an interesting move. He again nominates Walworth. AND King. On the same day, December 10, 1844. And they both got shot down. Again.
A couple more go arounds and the Tyler presidency ended on March 4, 1845. But not before Tyler nominated John Meredith Read to the court. And how did the Senate respond to Read’s nomination? **They did nothing. Absolutely nothing. No vote. Not even to table a nomination. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. ** Nine nominations in all with one confirmed nominee. Overall the court had a vacancy for 841 days in the Tyler–> Polk years. That’s two years, 111 days.
What makes Garland’s nomination unique is he was the only candidate put forward. His nomination expired, per Senate Rules, with the seating of the new Senate and lasted a total of 293 days (from March 16, 2016 to January 3, 2017).
The vacancy under Tyler --> Polk was 2.87 times longer than the Garland nomination.
And Tyler had two nominations go down without any vote of any kind by the Senate, not even so much as a vote to table the nomination.
- Yes, I keep going back to him since his experience was such a dramatic train wreck when it came to trying to get a nominee confirmed.
** The nomination was to fill the seat of Justice Smith Thompson, who died December 18, 1843.
*** The Whigs kicked Tyler out of the party in 1841, while he was the sitting President of the United States. That’s gotta burn!
**** While pick #2, Walworth, was up for nomination for the first time Justice Henry Baldwin died leaving two openings.
Oops, should have tallied this point…
Walworth was first nominated on March 13, 1844 and his second turn at a nomination was tabled on Jan 21, 1845 and withdrawn Feb 8, 1845. Never an up-or down vote on the nomination. That is 314 days from first nomination to second tabling and 332 days from first nomination to final withdrawal, by either measure longer than the Garland nomination.
But Tyler pulled the nomination after it was tabled and later resubmitted it. Obama didn’t withdraw Garland’s nomination when it became evident it would not go through.
Gorsuch ‘Demoralized’ by Trump Bashing ‘So-Called Judge’
Good move, Cheeto.
CNN just reported that the White House confirmed Judge Gorsuch’s remarks.
The cynic in me sees this as an underhanded way to mame Gorsuch more popular.
Make
If so, he’s a much savvier politician than he’s generally recognized as being.
I’m really okay with the Democrats opposing Gorsuch’s nomination. It’s the duty of the opposition to oppose, but they’ve got to have something on which to oppose him. Simply opposing him because he’s a Republican is just lazy and does the Dems harm.
Something else: if Ginsberg were to die before Gorsuch was confirmed, could Trump say that he’s okay with a SCOTUS of seven and that be permanent?
No. He could decide not to nominate someone but the size of the court is set by the legislature. There would simply be empty seats until sone future president decided to fill them.
He could (withdraw Gorsuch’s nomination and just refuse to make any additional SCOTUS nominations), but I can’t think of a good reason why he would. Typically, Supreme Court nominations are an important - and long-lasting - part of a President’s legacy. I can’t see why one would choose to forego that.
ETA: especially when, as CarnalK noted, he’d essentially be turning that bit of power over to whoever his successor is.
They really don’t need a reason other than that the Republicans are basically stealing the seat. The main thing Democrats need to think about is whether they want the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees to survive.
Several of them also need to consider if filibustering Trump’s SCOTUS nominee just before they have to run for re-election deep in Trump territory is the wisest course of action.
When you say “just before” do you mean in two years?