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.
Separation of Powers. The President does NOT get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. Neither does the Senate. It is a "joint" venture between the two. In 2016, Obama was allowed to nominate Garland. The Senate was allowed to NOT confirm him. They are checks on each other, and a candidate has to meet the qualifications of both entities in order to be appointed to the office. Was McConnell "wrong" to not allow a vote? In the minds of the Dems, yes - but he did NOTHING that was disallowed by the law.
In the current case, Trump has the ability (actually, the "duty") to make a nomination. The Senate is allowed to confirm that nomination, or to reject it. If the Senate was majority Dem, they would likely reject the nomination of Trump's likely nomination. Since they are majority R, they will likely confirm. It's not Rocket Science, it's the way the system is set up. For example, Obama nominated both Kagan and Sotomayor, and a Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed them. Welcome to "politics". Not always pretty. Don't pretend that this hasn't been happening for almost two hundred and fifty years.
You make a lot of sense. That's going to ssip off and annoy the democrats.
Separation of Powers. The President does NOT get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. Neither does the Senate. It is a "joint" venture between the two. In 2016, Obama was allowed to nominate Garland. The Senate was allowed to NOT confirm him. They are checks on each other, and a candidate has to meet the qualifications of both entities in order to be appointed to the office. Was McConnell "wrong" to not allow a vote? In the minds of the Dems, yes - but he did NOTHING that was disallowed by the law.
In the current case, Trump has the ability (actually, the "duty") to make a nomination. The Senate is allowed to confirm that nomination, or to reject it. If the Senate was majority Dem, they would likely reject the nomination of Trump's likely nomination. Since they are majority R, they will likely confirm. It's not Rocket Science, it's the way the system is set up. For example, Obama nominated both Kagan and Sotomayor, and a Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed them. Welcome to "politics". Not always pretty. Don't pretend that this hasn't been happening for almost two hundred and fifty years.
Your post sums up the predicament succinctly. Not much more on the matter can be said.
No I don't believe the democrats would have stolen a pick as the republicans did in 2016
You are really over complicating this. No picks were stolen, no rules broken. The Dems just didn't have the numbers. As someone once said, elections have consequences, and an expansion of Republican senators shows the people were happy with it.
Probably has been discussed here in nearly 1500 posts, but will the ACB nomination give Trump a boost or will it lose him votes from those women afraid to see Roe V Wade overturned? That remains to be seen. It is a risky strategy.
No doubt it will please the hard Right followers of Trump, but he knows he has those votes secured no matter what transpires between now and the November election.
The only advantage is that a confirmation action distracts the national conversation away from his disastrous Covid-19 response.
Probably has been discussed here in nearly 1500 posts, but will the ACB nomination give Trump a boost or will it lose him votes from those women afraid to see Roe V Wade overturned? That remains to be seen. It is a risky strategy.
No doubt it will please the hard Right followers of Trump, but he knows he has those votes secured no matter what transpires between now and the November election.
The only advantage is that a confirmation action distracts the national conversation away from his disastrous Covid-19 response.
You need to be pretty left or right leaning to begin with to make the abortion topic your #1 priority with so much going on in this country. Any woman who votes only about being pro abortion and believes a well established Court ruling like Roe v Wade will just disappear because of conservative judges on the Court isn't going to vote republican or for Trump in a million years anyway, so no it won't lose him votes. Liberals have been using this scare tactic for years and years since I was a kid hoping the general public bites.
Abe Fortas was a close friend of Lyndon Johnson and his tenure as a Supreme Court justice went down in flames because he was extremely corrupt, taking bribes and the like. After Fortas left the Supreme Court in disgrace, he was not replaced for 391 days. The controversial nature of Fortas might have had something to do with it, but I expect it was just the usual bickering.
I do remember since I was 11 and 12 at the time. Johnson had tried to elevate Fortas to Nixon's seat when the scandal broke out. Thus, there were two vacancies, Warren's and Fortas's. Warren Burger, who Nixon nominated to fill Earl Warren's seat, was confirmed relatively quickly. Nixon announced that he wanted to appoint a "strict constructionist to the Constitution" and a southerner to fill the Fortas seat. This was the one that went down in flames (link). First Clement Haynsworth was nominated. I had forgotten the details but he had corruption issues as well. Carswell was rated "unqualified" by one bar association or another. This is not mentioned in the article. The article states that "one Senator infamously arguing unsuccessfully for his confirmation by saying, "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers, and they are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?" That Senator was Roman Hruska of Nebraska.
Nixon withdrew that nomination (or Carswell gave up, I don't remember). I think Harry Blackmun of Minnesota was the next nominee, with, from what I recall, Nixon stating that it was hopeless to get a "strict constructionist to the Constitution" and a southerner appointed. I don't have a quote or link. His next two nominees were Lewis Powell, known as a "moderate" and Rehnquist, with more right-wing leanings. They were confirmed, from what I recall, more or less as a package deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The record holding Henry Baldwin vacancy lasted 841 days, starting in 1844 when he died. President John Tyler tried to replace him 8 times. After voting down the first one, the Whig controlled Senate simply ignored every nomination President Tyler sent them. They even tried to eliminate Balwin's seat entirely, but they needed the House to agree and that didn't happen. Nobody ever created a rule against any of the things that Senate did, so it's all fair play apparently.
The thing that people today don't fully realize is just how childish the bickering two party system looked like back in the 1800's. Those chuckleheads blew past the 400 day mark for a Supreme Court vacancy 7 times!! There have only been 114 justices who have served as of right now, so you would think vacancies lasting that long would be much much rarer things. I do fear we've returned to 1800's levels of political hostility. When Harry Reid and the Democrats tossed out the 60 vote cloture rule, it was the first shot in what's shaping up to be a bloodbath in federal court confirmations.
I just learned a lot. Thanks and if possible a rep!
You think America has improved under Trump's leadership?
He has turned all of us in to enemies of each other, he has
offended practically the whole world except Israel, Russia and Saudi Arabia.
He thrives on creating chaos so here we are , a giant chaotic country.
All the mess going on right now is owned by our fearless leader tRump.
Obama deserves honorable mention or chief villain in that role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soccernerd
As much I hate to see it, Trump is going to nominate a justice and the Senate will approve him or her before November 3rd. There’s no reason for them not to.
Democrats are complaining about precedent of not nominating someone during an election year or that the Senate blocked Obama's nominee in 2016. As long as there’s no rule preventing it in the Constitution, then it’s fair game.
I would like to see an informal rule, but the Democrats have violated all adult rules, starting with Obamacare being rushed through after Scott Brown was a rare Republican elected from Massachusetts, and continuing with Reid abolishing the filibuster for al District and Circuit judicial nominations.
Probably has been discussed here in nearly 1500 posts, but will the ACB nomination give Trump a boost or will it lose him votes from those women afraid to see Roe V Wade overturned? That remains to be seen. It is a risky strategy.
No doubt it will please the hard Right followers of Trump, but he knows he has those votes secured no matter what transpires between now and the November election.
The only advantage is that a confirmation action distracts the national conversation away from his disastrous Covid-19 response.
I think their thought process is if she’s confirmed and in before most of the early voting in late October it will depress turnout and probably not have a big impact. They could get into big trouble though if this gets dragged out for weeks and she isn’t confirmed. The 18-24 demo rarely turns out for elections. This could really fire them up and make them show up
Last edited by BELMO45; 09-26-2020 at 11:28 AM..
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.
