RBG passed

None of them ever mentioned this rule about controlling party.

"“I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

“The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.)

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

"One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'" Sen Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

“If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

“We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

“The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.”Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)
 
Here4money said:
quit trying to play down the fact that the GOP are anything but a bunch of hypocrites with zero principles:
More...

Are you suggesting the do-nothing democrats wouldn't slam through a candidate as fast as possible to fuck over Republicans if they had the chance?

If you are, I don't think you understand politics at all. I would argue based on the fervent extremist nature of their house picks a rational strategy is to get a new supreme court justice in as fast as possible. Especially with their recent threats to reverse the filibuster because muh racism and stack the supreme court with several more judges of their own choosing.

Maybe if they weren't so extreme everyone wouldn't be laughing at them. I guess going all in on rioters wasn't the smartest choice. Think "extreme" is too strong - literally click any Reza Aslan tweet and follow it down the rabbit hole.
 
Here4money said:
Merrick Garland says hi. Obama could've pushed his confirmation through during recess.
More...

No, to the assertion about the recess appointment although a full discussion is beyond what can be covered in a post and I don't want to post more than that on it.

But briefly, the possibility of a recess appointment requires: (duh!) not only that the president appoint but also (duh!) that the senate be in recess. Sounds simple? It is not.

The senate was republican controlled and they not only got to decide whether they would declare a recess BUT ALSO whether it constituted a recess. Casual viewers may think "well the senate is going home for Christmas break so that is not up for consideration." Except in other cases, the Supreme Court has decided that a recess must be for at least three days and (this is important) that the Senate must not be doing any business. NONE. If there is even a skeletal crew or committee there just holding hearing on the price of tea in China or whatever then it does not constitute a recess. Thus, if Obama had moved for a recess appointment they could have easily rigged it so that it was not technically a recess. Mitch might have to maneuver a bit to fend off the counter-offensive measures but he was more than capable of doing that.

Conversely if republicans wanted- as they might this time- for it to be a real recess, that can be made to happen too.

There are other points that could be made but I stop here. Just dont be so quick so say what O'Dufus could have done. It would have required far more than you think.
 
But if Republicans insist on filling Ginsburg's seat with some Federalist Society drone, it totally changes the calculus, both for Biden and for the most right-wing Democratic senators. A 6-3 Republican majority on the Supreme Court would be much more likely to thwart Democratic policy initiatives than a narrow 5-4 majority in which Chief Justice John Roberts could still exert some moderating influence. A President Biden and his Senate, no matter how thin the majority, would come under enormous pressure to respond in kind to the GOP's ruthlessness. And the bloc of centrist Democratic senators would then have a much more compelling story to tell their constituents when they vote to add four or more justices to the Supreme Court.

After all, nothing in the Constitution prevents court-packing, just as nothing in our founding document prevented McConnell from blocking Garland's nomination. The effort to install a hard-right justice in Ginsburg's place would, if anything, lay bare the essence of the generational right-wing project to conquer the judiciary. It's not about principles, or election year exceptions, or fair play. It's about the exercise of raw power, and the determination to use as much of it as the legal order allows.

Do you think Democrats wouldn't expand the Court if McConnell and the Republicans insist on reneging on their own nonsense precedent from 2016? Think again. It wasn't long after the news broke before Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) announced on Twitter that, "Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court." Mark my words: this will be the Democratic Party's official line by the end of the weekend. The rage and fear will be so widespread that it will reach the party's cautious leadership, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D- New York), who has already come out against replacing Ginsburg before the election. They will present Mitch McConnell with a choice: You can plunge this country further into crisis by trying to fill this seat, but if you do it and then lose in November, there will be absolute hell to pay.

This is a fluid and fast-moving situation, but the bottom line is this: If Democrats hold firm and threaten massive escalation, they can stop McConnell from doing his worst here. If they fail, they can still win in November, and then remake the judiciary. While that might seem like cold comfort to those rightly afflicted by Ginsburg's death, it is better than despair. There's enough of that going around already.

https://theweek.com/articles/938534/why-democrats-shouldnt-panic-about-rbgs-death
 
gaussian said:
Are you suggesting the do-nothing democrats wouldn't slam through a candidate as fast as possible to fuck over Republicans if they had the chance?

If you are, I don't think you understand politics at all. I would argue based on the fervent extremist nature of their house picks a rational strategy is to get a new supreme court justice in as fast as possible. Especially with their recent threats to reverse the filibuster because muh racism and stack the supreme court with several more judges of their own choosing.

Maybe if they weren't so extreme everyone wouldn't be laughing at them. I guess going all in on rioters wasn't the smartest choice. Think "extreme" is too strong - literally click any Reza Aslan tweet and follow it down the rabbit hole.
More...

Here4money said:
Merrick Garland says hi. Obama could've pushed his confirmation through during recess.
More...
 
It seems y'all recess appointment folks may have stopped reading your constitution too soon:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Recess Appointment Clause, provides that, The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. ​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top