The biggest laugh I've had in some time has been listening to the right scream and yell that Obama shouldn't appoint anyone to replace Scalia. How absolutely rich.

After everythimg these first class a-holes have put Obama through they actually think he should not excercise his right to nominate a replacement? What a joke worth remembering.

Can you imagine if this opportunity were reversed?

dag hammarsjkold wrote:The biggest laugh I've had in some time has been listening to the right scream and yell that Obama shouldn't appoint anyone to replace Scalia. How absolutely rich.

After everythimg these first class a-holes have put Obama through they actually think he should not excercise his right to nominate a replacement? What a joke worth remembering.

Can you imagine if this opportunity were reversed?

Yes. Can you?

bbauska

Yes. Can you?

He doesn't have to imagine it. Its happening now.

But if he did want to consider a parallel event in US history, when a President in his last year had to fill a vacancy, he would only have to go back to the Reagan nomination of Anthony Kennedy.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Yes. Can you?

He doesn't have to imagine it. Its happening now.

But if he did want to consider a parallel event in US history, when a President in his last year had to fill a vacancy, he would only have to go back to the Reagan nomination of Anthony Kennedy.

Bork? Really? Did Reagan get his nomination of Bork? Will Obama put up a nominee that will garner a unanimous vote?
[url]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bo ... nomination[/url]

It was not Reagan's last year.

President Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1

Declare your falsehood.

Just not a serious topic. The Democrats, from Reid to Obama, blocked, filibustered and voted 'no' to Bush's nominees, especially as his time in office grew short. Now, the GOP is doing the same thing and the Democrats are "appalled."

Oh brother.

bbauska

Did Reagan get his nomination of Bork?

Yes.
Was the nomination confirmed? No.
He was deinied by a 58 to 42 vote. 6 Republican senators joined in voting against him. 2 Democrats voted for him.

President Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1

And Kennedy was confirmed unanimously in February. Reagan's last year.

The Constitution grants the President the authority to nominate candidates for SCOTUS vacancies. It says nothing about him losing that power at any time.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Did Reagan get his nomination of Bork?

Yes.
Was the nomination confirmed? No.
He was deinied by a 58 to 42 vote. 6 Republican senators joined in voting against him. 2 Democrats voted for him.

President Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1

And Kennedy was confirmed unanimously in February. Reagan's last year.

The Constitution grants the President the authority to nominate candidates for SCOTUS vacancies. It says nothing about him losing that power at any time.

Agree 100%.

He's free to nominate. The GOP is free to ignore that or filibuster or vote him/her down or approve him/her. All of those are Constitutionally-acceptable outcomes.

Bork had two problems.

One was that he was an Originalist - indeed the original modern Originalist. At that time Originalism was not popular and was a political hot potato. That of course is why the right and left could draw battle lines over him.

His opposition to Civil Rights legislation, support of poll taxes and supposed support of stronger executive power were all cited.

But perhaps more significant is his Watergate action. Nixon wanted Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating Watergate, sacked. Because, well Cox was finding things out and was trying to get access to the tapes. So Dicky asked the AG to fire Cox. The AG refused, and resigned. Nixon then asked the deputy AG. The Deputy AG refused, and resigned. Bork was next in line and as Acting AG did sack Cox.

That was challenged and found to be an illegal act that year. And it was certainly brought up during the debates on Bork.

We now know (following Bork's death in 2012) that Nixon promised him a Supreme Court nomination after the sacking. Which in retrospect casts even more doubt on his suitability.

The difference is that in the most part (Chuck "loudmouth" Schumer excepted), opposition to nominations in the past has been about the nominee rather than the nominator.

Miers was not just GWB's former private attorney but her law licence was expired and there were challenges on her experience of judicial practice. Alito was then approved by a majority vote (which at 58-42) could have been filibustered out.

The guy Reagan considered after Bork and before Kennedy had to pull out because he'd smoked pot with law students.

Before that Nixon had trouble, firstly because his first two nominees to replace Fortas were regarded as too close to Southern opposition to Civil Rights, and secondly because his nominees to replace Black and Harlow were going to be reported as unqualified by the American Bar Association.

Fortas was nominated by LBJ to be promoted to Chief Justice but the Senate threatened to filibuster, and cloture votes were taken, setting somewhat of a precedent). He ended up having to resign from the Court over payments made and promised to him by a dodgy financier so clearly was unsuitable anyway.

Refusing to agree to a nomination without even knowing who it is, seemingly based on enmity toward the President and/or "revenge" for earlier acts by the previous Senate majority may play well to the base, but it seems unprecedented and also politically dangerous. It escalates the partisan divide, and just imagine what might result if, say, a President Cruz has vacancies to fill in 2019 and enough annoyed Democrat Senators to block them.

danivon wrote:Refusing to agree to a nomination without even knowing who it is, seemingly based on enmity toward the President and/or "revenge" for earlier acts by the previous Senate majority may play well to the base, but it seems unprecedented and also politically dangerous. It escalates the partisan divide, and just imagine what might result if, say, a President Cruz has vacancies to fill in 2019 and enough annoyed Democrat Senators to block them.

Sorry, but that's about as one-sided as you could possibly be.

It's not "revenge." It's actually playing by the rules.

And, if Democrats try to block "President Cruz," the Republicans might go for the "Reid option." It's not the "nuclear option" because Reid already put it in place for lower nominations.

Hey, Obama can make them look like fools by nominating a conservative. He should feel free.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the Republicans to fulfill their constitutional obligations. I think it is pretty unprecedented with regard to a Supreme Court nomination, saying that they want to leave the Supreme Court vacant for a year and not even consider any nominee that the president nominates. That has never happened before. Not once. In 200 years. But we're used to the Tea Party era Republicans doing this sort of thing. We can whine all we want but they will only stop if we make the political costs too high for them. I would hope that Obama is figuring out which nominee would cause the Republicans the most discomfort in not approving them. I don't know...a Black or Hispanic female with a tough prosecutorial background should do.We have to give them a Hobson's choice--either approve whoever is nominated or make it more likely that they lose the presidency and possibly seats in the Congress. No other considerations are relevant.

freeman3 wrote:I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the Republicans to fulfill their constitutional obligations. I think it is pretty unprecedented with regard to a Supreme Court nomination, saying that they want to leave the Supreme Court vacant for a year and not even consider any nominee that the president nominates. That has never happened before. Not once. In 200 years. But we're used to the Tea Party era Republicans doing this sort of thing. We can whine all we want but they will only stop if we make the political costs too high for them. I would hope that Obama is figuring out which nominee would cause the Republicans the most discomfort in not approving them. I don't know...a Black or Hispanic female with a tough prosecutorial background should do.We have to give them a Hobson's choice--either approve whoever is nominated or make it more likely that they lose the presidency and possibly seats in the Congress. No other considerations are relevant.

With your likely nominees, lots of luck.

We'll see. The stakes are so high that I could imagine Democrats trying to do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. But Republicans not approving 2-3 well-qualified nominees prior to the election...that's going to be tough. I really could not say whether I would rather Republicans try to do this or not. Yes, I would like to get a liberal majority on the court but the Republicans looking obstructionist could offend moderates who might otherwise vote for say a Rubio and allow Hillary to win. And we could still get a liberal majority. I think if I were a Republican strategist I would say let's get the presidency back and we'll get to replace Breyer, Kennedy and Ginsberg in the next 8 years and we'll get a majority for a long time to come with those three replacements plus Thomas, Alioto, Roberts. That's a comfortable 6-3 majority. But it's hard to think long-term.

http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/supreme-court-vacancies

Only one vacancy since the Civil War has lasted longer than 300 days, That was the 391 days between Justice Abe Fortas's resignation in 1969 and Justice Harry Blackmun's placement on the court in 1970. That extraordinarily long vacancy was the result of two factors. First, it took President Nixon three months to make a nomination because his first choice declined the offer. Second, the first two nominees were advocates of racial segregation and were rejected by the Senate.

Democratic Senate, Republican President, more than a year (391 days)

freeman3 wrote:We'll see. The stakes are so high that I could imagine Democrats trying to do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. But Republicans not approving 2-3 well-qualified nominees prior to the election...that's going to be tough. I really could not say whether I would rather Republicans try to do this or not. Yes, I would like to get a liberal majority on the court but the Republicans looking obstructionist could offend moderates who might otherwise vote for say a Rubio and allow Hillary to win. And we could still get a liberal majority. I think if I were a Republican strategist I would say let's get the presidency back and we'll get to replace Breyer, Kennedy and Ginsberg in the next 8 years and we'll get a majority for a long time to come with those three replacements plus Thomas, Alioto, Roberts. That's a comfortable 6-3 majority. But it's hard to think long-term.

Great. If you have your way, we can do away with the stars and just put in the hammer and sickle.

Seriously, there will be no check on Presidential power if this is the case.

I don't think the comparison is apposite, Brad. Your post indicates that the reason for the delay was Nixon took three months and two racist nominees were rejected. So there are two differences: (1) the delay was not intentional, and (2) the opposition party never said they would not consider any nominees the president put forth. It's pretty much apples and oranges, except for the amount of time before a new justice got approved. Everything else is different.