This is the dumbest reason yet. It is a cycle, which means it is always going on in some stage. A cycle, by definition, is a never ending circle.

 

It's also something that was pulled out of thin air. There wasn't any sort of norm that Presidents don't get appointments in the last 25% of their term.

You played the part of "hyper-partisan Republican" well for a while, but you pushed it a little too far, flew a little too close to the sun and outed yourself.

Whatever helps you out I guess.

This is the dumbest reason yet. It is a cycle, which means it is always going on in some stage. A cycle, by definition, is a never ending circle.

can't decide if this is serious

Edited February 1, 20179 yr by brett05

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

You don't actually believe the Dems are obstructing here, but that the GOP wasn't with Garland. You know 100% it's both, but are unwilling to acknowledge it. I refuse to believe you are so blinded by partisan bias to actually believe it's only this (possible) Dem action that would be obstruction.

Show me where I said the Republicans have never been obstructionists please.

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.

 

“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.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/polit...rland.html?_r=0

 

can't decide if this is serious

 

I am not surprised.

can't decide if this is serious

 

So the last 18 months for both parties from now on? 21 months?

lol, what is this? Is Donald trying to force a handshake => bro-hug transition?

 

 

So the last 18 months for both parties from now on? 21 months?

 

Seriously. Donald Trump has already filed to run for President in 2020. By that definition the election cycle has literally begun, so no Supreme Court nominee.

Show me where I said the Republicans have never been obstructionists please.

You said what the GOP did to Garland was to get the "will of the people". No, it was obstructionism, pure and simple. Question now is, what do the Dems do?

 

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.

 

“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.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/polit...rland.html?_r=0

 

That's a good reminder that we've already had a constitutional crisis.

 

Our system is fairly unique and is fragile in a lot of ways. It relies heavily on norms and cooperation, both of which have largely been overrun in recent history. We may only end up with a functional government in times of one-party rule.

1. Republicans a year ago: The people should decide

2. The people vote for Hillary Clinton, but Electoral College saddles us with Trump

3. Therefore, Hillary Clinton or Obama, as the last majority President, should be given the choice.

1. Republicans a year ago: The people should decide

2. The people vote for Hillary Clinton, but Electoral College saddles us with Trump

3. Therefore, Hillary Clinton or Obama, as the last majority President, should be given the choice.

 

Electoral college is the will of the people. According to Brett, Trump didnt try to "win" the popular vote.

Exactly.

 

If I'm the democrats, I make it clear - nominate Merrick Garland, and they will both confirm him AND promise no filibuster on any future nominee during Trump's 4 years. That puts things back to the way it should work, and pops the balloon on continued obstructionism.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the right result (subject to the future nominee having the resume to actually serve on the Supreme Court - Gorsuch does have that). We can't have every single SCOTUS position filibustered forever, but the Dems caving is basically letting the Rs steal the seat. The Dems can filibuster the nominee for at least the next two years, and the unbalanced bench honestly helps D policies. The Republicans created this crisis, and it needs to be fixed.

 

Thinking out loud, but I wonder if there will be some behind the scenes negotiating - rumors that Kennedy has been talking retirement, maybe he agrees to retire on the condition that Garland takes his seat, and Gorsuch takes Scalia's seat, and then we all pray that RBG holds on for another 4 years...

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the right result (subject to the future nominee having the resume to actually serve on the Supreme Court - Gorsuch does have that). We can't have every single SCOTUS position filibustered forever, but the Dems caving is basically letting the Rs steal the seat. The Dems can filibuster the nominee for at least the next two years, and the unbalanced bench honestly helps D policies. The Republicans created this crisis, and it needs to be fixed.

 

Thinking out loud, but I wonder if there will be some behind the scenes negotiating - rumors that Kennedy has been talking retirement, maybe he agrees to retire on the condition that Garland takes his seat, and Gorsuch takes Scalia's seat, and then we all pray that RBG holds on for another 4 years...

 

The current president has called into question the results of the popular vote of the election. Until that is verified, and all issues signed off on, whether it be Russian involvement, emoluments, etc. Gorsuch or Garland or anyone shouldn't go through confirmation.

 

As was said before, the GOP opened this can of worms. They need to gather said worms and cap that can before we can move forward.

All this stuff about Trump being illegitimate does not matter to me here. If the precedent is that the President does not get to have a debate on his nominee after declaring his candidacy then the president does not get to have a debate on this nominee. That is the current precedent we are under. That precedent should remain until previous precedent is restored. Then we can discuss the merits of the nominee, the appropriateness of the appointment, and so on.

You said what the GOP did to Garland was to get the "will of the people". No, it was obstructionism, pure and simple. Question now is, what do the Dems do?

Your former VP Joe Biden disagrees with you.

 

1. Republicans a year ago: The people should decide

2. The people vote for Hillary Clinton, but Electoral College saddles us with Trump

3. Therefore, Hillary Clinton or Obama, as the last majority President, should be given the choice.

You do know how the election process works, right?

 

I am always amazed that you all reach new levels of low each and every day.

Electoral college is the will of the people. According to Brett, Trump didnt try to "win" the popular vote.

And the evidence mounts even more.

Your former VP Joe Biden disagrees with you.

 

 

Sept 8th, 2016

 

On Thursday, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be on Capitol Hill to join congressional Democrats at a news conference where they will push for a vote on Judge Garland, who was put forward by Mr. Obama in March and is now the longest pending Supreme Court nominee in American history.

Your former VP Joe Biden disagrees with you.

 

I can't watch YT from here, but... what does what Biden may have said some time ago have to do with anything?

 

You do know how the election process works, right?

 

I am always amazed that you all reach new levels of low each and every day.

 

Actually we all know that never in the history of the United States of America has a Supreme Court nominee been ignored out of the opportunity to even get a vote. Garland's nomination process was also the longest in the history of the United States of America.

 

I think a better question is you know how the Congressional approval process for the Supreme Court works, right?

I can't watch YT from here, but... what does what Biden may have said some time ago have to do with anything?

 

Basically in June of 1992, Biden said that in the event that a SCOTUS spot opened up, any vote should be held after the election. The full context of his speech at the time was that the Clarence Thomas nomination, and the recent history of confirmation votes in the 80s, meant that by the time a justice resigned, and someone was put up for the spot, the odds of confirmation were remote at best. This was merely a speech, and no rule was ever enacted.

 

The most important context here, of course, is that there was no opening on the Court when Biden made the speech! So whether Biden would have gone forward with preventing a justice (and whether the rest of Senate Judiciary would have followed suit) from getting a hearing is speculative at best. Further, Biden made the speech in June - four months after Scalia passed.

 

So... yeah, Biden in 1992 really has nothing to do with the obstructionist behavior by the Republicans in keeping Garland from getting a vote.

I really want to know what the justification behind denying a President his powers of appointment for at least 25% of his term is. Our "election season" started in early/mid 2015--should he have been denied those powers for as much as 50% of his term if Scalia had died back then?

 

And how does it even make sense to withhold these powers from President Obama because two other people are running to replace him and he has no possible way of maintaining the Presidency? It was rightfully his choice, not Trump's or Clinton's.

I really want to know what the justification behind denying a President his powers of appointment for at least 25% of his term is. Our "election season" started in early/mid 2015--should he have been denied those powers for as much as 50% of his term if Scalia had died back then?

 

And how does it even make sense to withhold these powers from President Obama because two other people are running to replace him and he has no possible way of maintaining the Presidency? It was rightfully his choice, not Trump's or Clinton's.

 

Yep. And since Trump has already taken the unconventional step of filing his 2020 candidacy with the FEC already, isn't he already in "election season?"

 

Republicans can try to spin it anyway that they want, but they stole a seat from Obama and set a very, very dangerous precedent going forward.