Great…So, I am supposed to be reassured that there are some somewhat parallel cases back in the times when slavery was still legal?
I really hope the Senators ask Gorsuch a lot of questions, both hypothetical and not hypothetical, about the treatment of Garland. It seems like a good thing to probe: If Gorsuch is not willing to condemn this sort of thing, then I think it is a good reason to vote against him. And, if he is, then at least he can help show what total scumbags the current Republican crime syndicate is.
If I were the nominee, I’d decline to answer that question. My opinions on the political machinations of the Senate are irrelevant to my role as a federal judge.
So far, nine Democratic Senators have said they will not filibuster Gorsuch (unless they are weaseling on what “a vote” means, and will later claim that filibuster is a “vote”)
Durbin: “I will meet with Judge Gorsuch and support a hearing and a vote for him”
Blumenthal: “I will support having a hearing and a vote”
McCaskill: “We should have a full confirmation hearing process and a vote on any nominee for the supreme court”
Coons: “I will push for a hearing and I will push for a vote.”
Manchin: "I’m not going to filibuster anybody.”
Heitkamp: “Asked if the nominee should also get a straight up-or-down vote rather than be blocked by a filibuster, she replied: ‘Absolutely.’”
Tester: “Have a hearing and vote.”
Donnelly: "As I have said part of our job as Senators includes considering, debating, and voting on judicial nominations, including the Supreme Court. I will carefully review and consider the record and qualifications of Neil Gorsuch.”
Shaheen: “Everybody I’ve talked to agrees he should get a hearing and an up-or-down vote.”
What was factually inaccurate in my post? Cite please.
Are you disputing the timeline of the SCOTUS nominees in the Tyler administration I discussed?
Boil it down and my post really entails congressional records combined with a calendar. Not a lot of analysis. Nomination for candidate X was put forth on date Y. The Senate tabled/voted on/ignored in Z manner.
Well, for example, West Virginia’s primary date is May 8, 2018. If Joe Manchin invites a left-wing challenger by refusing to go along with most Dems in sustaining a filibuster, that’s a problem he’ll be dealing with in March / April of next year, so it’s more like 13 months away.
But that’s the opposite of the concern you raised. You said filibustering Trump’s choice would be dangerous in Trumpland. I doubt there’s going to be a li’l Trump in the Dem primaries.
Unprecedented is a label that could be applied to damn near any nomination if only you qualify it enough. By failing to specify in what way you, or in your stead some legal scholars, consider the nomination battle to be unprecedented you make a meaningless assertion.
More Supreme Court history…
Let’s meet George Henry Williams, nominated to the US Supreme Court by President Grant on December 1, 1873. On the surface his resume looks good. He was the former Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court and current Attorney General of the United States at the time of his nomination to the US Supreme Court. A surefire winner, right? Not exactly.
Some rumors started circulating that Williams had drawn upon the credit of the Justice Department to cover some personal purchases. And though he repaid those sums in full with his own funds it was enough to earn him a Senatorial snub.
And so when it came time for the Senate to act on the nomination… they didn’t. The Senate did nothing. Williams asked President Grant to withdraw his nomination and Grant sent a letter to the Senate to that effect.
Now to the grand rule espoused by law professors Robin Bradley Kar and Jason Mazzone that **Dr Deth **is relying upon…
We see that it is full of qualifiers.
[ul][li]Only applies to *elected *presidents, not those who assumed office on the death of their successor.[/li][li]Only applies to nominations made prior to the election of the next president[/li][li]Nominates and appoints someone, but fails to mention that it was not always the president’s first choice.[/li][li]Does not apply to recess appointments.[/li][/ul]
So let’s ignore nominations made by Presidents Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and LBJ. That’s 15% of our presidents.
Let’s ignore the nomination of Read by Tyler since that was after the election.
Let’s ignore nominees who were ignored or rejected by the Senate like George Williams under Grant since Morrison Waite was eventually confirmed.
Let’s ignore John Rutledge, appointed Chief Justice by George Washington. The Senate rejected the nomination once they were again in session.
I gave you the cites by legal scholars. You gave us your opinion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-merrick-garland.html?_r=1
*That categorical stance is new in the nation’s history, the professors, Robin Bradley Kar and Jason Mazzone, wrote in a study published online by The New York University Law Review. The Senate has never before transferred a president’s appointment power in comparable circumstances to an unknown successor, they said — an argument that many Democratic lawmakers have also made.
In every one of the 103 earlier Supreme Court vacancies, the professors wrote, the president was able to both nominate and appoint a replacement with the Senate’s advice and consent. This did not always happen on the first try, they wrote, but it always happened.*
