Potential SC Nominees

[Ben]

I disagree.

That's giving ground and compromising before the battle has even begun.

No hearings, no vote is the staring point.

The Democrats should have to put up an acceptable candidates name before the R's even flirt with the possibility of an Obama nomination.

Roll over for Obama on this one and the base will sit at home.

As I said, I can certainly see the argument for this tactic, but then R's can't complain if the Dems do it under a Republican president.

[roo_ster]

As I said, I can certainly see the argument for this tactic, but then R's can't complain if the Dems do it under a Republican president.

They already did.  This is turn-about.

[Hutch]

They already did.  This is turn-about.

I have heard that, and would love to find it in any credible record.  Can you offer a link?

Kinda like having Obama in the well of the Senate, bitching about the debt limit increase.

[KD5NRH]

Is one actually required to be alive to be a SC Justice?  I mean, can't we just prop him up in the chair and assume he abstains in everything?

[Ben]

I have heard that, and would love to find it in any credible record.  Can you offer a link?

Kinda like having Obama in the well of the Senate, bitching about the debt limit increase.

Even if they did, and as pointed out Bork doesn't really count since another person was nominated after, I guess part of my argument is that it's not in the spirit of the constitution for either side to say, "no nominations".

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the language is actually pretty simple: The President has the right to nominate. Congress has a right to deny. That's pretty much it. So as per the constitution, let the President nominate, and then either accept or deny. If it's at the end of a President's term, then denying, by default, moves it over to the next President.

Also, just to be clear on where I stand, I wish there were nine Scalias on the SC.

[wmenorr67]

In 1960 Senate Resolution 334 passed a Dem controlled Senate.

Here is the jest of the deal.

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”  Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

[MillCreek]

The other thing that is interesting is if Congressional Republicans think they will get a better nominee from either President Clinton or Sanders, if the nomination is pushed off for the incoming President.

[Ben]

In 1960 Senate Resolution 334 passed a Dem controlled Senate.

Here is the jest of the deal.

That one might be a separate argument, since in some ways recess appointments circumvent power granted to Congress via the Constitution. Just guessing, I don't know for sure.

It would certainly be interesting to see what happens if Obama tries that now. I think he has, what - two weeks if he wants to get someone in right now?

[wmenorr67]

That one might be a separate argument, since in some ways recess appointments circumvent power granted to Congress via the Constitution. Just guessing, I don't know for sure.

It would certainly be interesting to see what happens if Obama tries that now. I think he has, what - two weeks if he wants to get someone in right now?

Less than 3 days right now.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/2016_schedule.htm

[brimic]

Is one actually required to be alive to be a SC Justice?  I mean, can't we just prop him up in the chair and assume he abstains in everything?

They pretty much did that for Byrd in the Senate- they carried him in and propped him up in his seat and helped him vote. I imagine he was a senator up until the point where he started to smell really bad.

[roo_ster]

I have heard that, and would love to find it in any credible record.  Can you offer a link?

Kinda like having Obama in the well of the Senate, bitching about the debt limit increase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

Senate Democrats used the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by Republican President George W. Bush. In the Republican-controlled 108th Congress, ten Bush judicial nominees were filibustered by the minority Democrats: Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III, and Janice Rogers Brown.

[Ron]

The D's have been playing hardball and kicking us in the jimmies every chance they get and you guys want to play nice.

We start at "no more SC nominations for Obama" and he can woo the R's into changing their minds by nominating someone reasonable.

This is war by other means. Start acting like it.


 

[Ben]

Joe Biden on how an election year SC vacancy should be handled:

https://amp.twimg.com/v/835bf3fd-874d-4ed2-9a03-1e7f79839384

[Hawkmoon]

I heard Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) mentioned as a possibility this morning.    She's a nanny-statist if there ever was one.  Since she's a former prosecutor, that's supposed to make it okay for Republicans.

Nancy Grace is a former prosecutor, too. 

[sumpnz]

The D's have been playing hardball and kicking us in the jimmies every chance they get and you guys want to play nice.

We start at "no more SC nominations for Obama" and he can woo the R's into changing their minds by nominating someone reasonable.

This is war by other means. Start acting like it.


 

If you're going to reach across the aisle you better be wearing brass knuckles. 

[wmenorr67]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/23/biden-argued-against-weighing-supreme-court-nomination-during-1992-campaign.html?intcmp=hpbt2

Biden in 1992 on the subject.  Of course now he is backtracking and trying to say that isn't what he meant.

[makattak]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/23/biden-argued-against-weighing-supreme-court-nomination-during-1992-campaign.html?intcmp=hpbt2

Biden in 1992 on the subject.  Of course now he is backtracking and trying to say that isn't what he meant.

Of course that isn't what he meant. What he meant was the Democrats ought to use any excuse to block a Republican nomineee, but Democrat nominees ought to be approved quickly.

I completely understand what he meant. He was, of course, lying when he laid out a principle for denying any nominations. It was just partisan politics and now he's angry the other side is finally playing by the same rules.