Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One, while Democrats (especially Senator Edward Kennedy) were utterly opposed to Judge Bork, they did not 'delay, delay, delay'. President Reagan nominated Judge Bork on July 1, 1987, and the Senate voted on his nomination on October 23rd (after rather lengthy hearings).
While I did not think Judge Bork was a very good choice, I did think the Senate should have approved him, all in line with my thought that nominees made by a President should be approved, unless there is a very good, articulate reason not to. Simply disagreeing with their legal philosophy is not, I think, a good reason.
However, one factor was that when the political pressure got 'hot', even President Reagan began to back off, much to Bork's disappointment (as he discussed in his book). Another factor was that many were still upset over Bork's actions in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Nixon administration (however, Mr. Bork was simply carrying out orders to fire Mr. Cox and accept the others resignations).
To date there have been 12 such nominees voted on and rejected by the Senate (not counting those nominees whom withdrew their name), dating back to George Washington. To say that the "Democrats" began the process with Judge Bork is misleading, at best.
One must also recall that many people, over the years, appointed to the high court often surprise the President that nominated them. We have had 'conservative' judges become liberal Justices, and vise versa. It is indeed a different view from the top of the mountain.
I agree 100%. I have always though that Presidential nominees - court or cabinet posts - should be approved unless they are found to be unqualified or unethical. This should not be an ideological battle. Even though I really disliked Bork, I thought he should have been approved.
But that's not how its been for some time now. Obama should nominate someone, but realistically the Senate is not likely to confirm. So we won't have a 9th Justice for at least a year. If a Dem wins the election, there will be another lengthy fight next year and the seat might be vacant for a long, long time. But its all good for Dems, because in the meantime there is a liberal majority.
If the GOP effectively blocks a nomination to the supreme court, they will also effectively disable the SCOTUS to go along with their own obstructed congress. This will effectively cause an imbalance of power.......... to that of the office of the president.
Sometimes you just have to play the hand you are dealt.
"Elections have consequences" and the hand Obama was dealt is to deal with a Republican House and Senate that he's spent the last 7 years antagonizing. Maybe if Obama hadn't come of the gate doing everything he could to divide the country and push his agenda instead of being the president for EVERYONE, not just those who voted for him, his party wouldn't have taken an epic beating and he'd be able to get his nominee approved. As it stands he deserves to have his appointee blocked and the next presidents choice selected.
Note that it says that after Ike's third such appointment, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a 'report' saying that such recess appointments should only be made under 'unusual circumstances'. While not the force of law, it appears every President since then has abided.
Apparently, Reid thought there was sufficient value in permanently delaying over 300 House bills.
Is that the same Harry Reid who executed the nuclear option to undermine precedent and pack the first circuit court? The same Harry Reid who undertook unprecedented "pro forma" sessions to prevent president Bush from making recess appointments?
I didn't say it wasn't. I was basically saying they would be foolish to go that route, but hey that's there right.
Unless you have two accounts, I don't think I was responding to you. But, no, they wouldn't be foolish. They would be smart. They are not supposed to just rubber stamp a President, and since they were elected by a majority who are Republicans, they ought to be thinking of what the American people who elected them want. And right now, the Obama administration, especially Obama, is in very poor standing with the American people. Why should they allow Obama to appoint a judge? There is absolutely no reason to.
Obama is going to put forth a highly qualified nominee
Oh, please. Like Kagan, who should have recused herself in the Obamacare cases because she was solicitor general during the passage of the law, but proved herself to be unethical when she didn't? No thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
