Did Roberts pass even with Obamas no vote?
Could Obama's appointee pass without a hearing?
Difference.
Justice Antonin Scalia
- Thread starter Muggsy Blue
- Start date
Did Roberts pass even with Obamas no vote?
Could Obama's appointee pass without a hearing?
Difference.
If it was up to Obama, Alito wouldn't have gotten a vote, he wanted to filibuster him, that's the difference.
What goes around, comes around......................
And what was the end result of Alito? A vote.
And a filibuster of a vote after the hearing process is, once again, different than not even holding a hearing for a nominee.
It's okay though.
Hillary will bring in a Dem controlled senate and all the reps in purple states will lose and then we will get another liberal activist on the court.
What goes around comes around...
And a filibuster of a vote after the hearing process is, once again, different than not even holding a hearing for a nominee.
It's okay though.
Hillary will bring in a Dem controlled senate and all the reps in purple states will lose and then we will get another liberal activist on the court.
What goes around comes around...
Sadly, the government has been polarized by its own version of Boulwarism (a GE-bred labor-negotiating strategy to use an ultimatum without negotiating).
That might make sense to an intellectual --- saving time by laying out the options, but the average guy wants to see the give-and-take of compromise; that's how he judges reasonableness (sadly).
During the silly season known as the primaries, the zealots drown out all moderates and the polarization is even more strident. A candidate fears for his very election-life if he drops the wrong sound bite or does not sound as extreme as his opponents in supporting an agenda. Alas! the majority of voters seem to be sound-bite dependent.
Even without the primaries the parties in Washington err on the side of extremism. "Extremism" is different than Boulwarism based solely on "whose ox was gored".
Perhaps I am naïve, but isn't it the minority's last resort in the sequence of events starting with the nomination, then the hearings, and finally the vote? Does the president send a nomination to the floor or to the judicial committee for the hearings? Is there any way for the GOP to avoid even having the hearings?? If there is, it's news to me.
That might make sense to an intellectual --- saving time by laying out the options, but the average guy wants to see the give-and-take of compromise; that's how he judges reasonableness (sadly).
During the silly season known as the primaries, the zealots drown out all moderates and the polarization is even more strident. A candidate fears for his very election-life if he drops the wrong sound bite or does not sound as extreme as his opponents in supporting an agenda. Alas! the majority of voters seem to be sound-bite dependent.
Even without the primaries the parties in Washington err on the side of extremism. "Extremism" is different than Boulwarism based solely on "whose ox was gored".
Perhaps I am naïve, but isn't it the minority's last resort in the sequence of events starting with the nomination, then the hearings, and finally the vote? Does the president send a nomination to the floor or to the judicial committee for the hearings? Is there any way for the GOP to avoid even having the hearings?? If there is, it's news to me.
They pocket (don't hold preliminary hearings/vote) the nominee in the Judiciary Committee. They never let the nomination see the Senate floor for full hearings and a vote/filibuster process.
Nomination-Process
1. Pres sends the nominations to the Senate,
2. which then sends to Judicial Committee,
3. which sends a questionnaire to nominee
4. and then holds hearings for "several days".
5. The committee members have a week for written follow-up questions.
6.
I do not see how the GOP can avoid hearings.
1. Pres sends the nominations to the Senate,
2. which then sends to Judicial Committee,
3. which sends a questionnaire to nominee
4. and then holds hearings for "several days".
5. The committee members have a week for written follow-up questions.
6.
7.
I do not see how the GOP can avoid hearings.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/
"Those priorities reinforce each other. The Republican Senate leadership has staked out the position that no nomination by President Obama will move forward. Because Republicans hold the Senate majority, they have the power to refuse to hold confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee and/or a floor vote on the nominee. So, any effort to replace Scalia is dead on arrival unless the political dynamic in the country forces Republicans to change their minds and allow the nomination to proceed."
"Those priorities reinforce each other. The Republican Senate leadership has staked out the position that no nomination by President Obama will move forward. Because Republicans hold the Senate majority, they have the power to refuse to hold confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee and/or a floor vote on the nominee. So, any effort to replace Scalia is dead on arrival unless the political dynamic in the country forces Republicans to change their minds and allow the nomination to proceed."
I am aware of the President's "pocket veto". And I guess I am sure that certain "arcane" issues might never find a place on a committee's docket (usually referred to as "tabled"), but I guess I am too naïve to think that any committee could "table" a presidential nomination as your august scotusblog link suggests.
Congressional-Research-Service
10/29/1987, following the Senate’s rejection of the nomination of Robert H. Bork, President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Douglas H. Ginsburg of the District of Columbia to be Associate Justice. Ginsburg, however, withdrew his name from consideration on 11/07/1987, before an official nomination had been made.
Anthony M. Kennedy of California Reagan 11/30/1987 12/14/1987 12/15/1987 12/16/1987 01/27/1988 Reported favorably (14-0) 02/03/1988 Confirmed (97-0) Days from receipt: 14 to fiurst public hearing; 58 to SJC vote; 65 final Senate action.
David H. Souter of New Hampshire G. H. W. Bush 07/25/1990 09/13/1990 09/14/1990 09/17/1990 09/18/1990 09/19/1990 09/27/1990 Reported favorably (13-1) 10/02/1990 Confirmed (90-9) 50 64 69
Clarence Thomas of Virginia G. H. W. Bush 07/08/1991 09/10/1991 09/11/1991 09/12/1991 09/13/1991 09/16/1991 09/17/1991 09/19/1991 09/20/1991 10/11/1991 10/12/1991 10/13/1991 09/27/1991 Reported without recommendation Motion to report favorably failed, 09/27/1991 (7-7)k UC agreement reached, 10/08/1991, to reschedule vote on confirmation from 10/08/1991 to 10/15/991, to allow for additional hearings (13-1) 10/15/1991 Confirmed (52-48) 64 81 99
Bader Ginsburg of New York Clinton 06/22/1993 07/20/1993 07/21/1993 07/22/1993 07/23/1993 07/29/1993 Reported favorably (18-0) 08/03/1993 Confirmed (96-3) 28 37 42
Stephen G. Breyer of Massachusetts Clinton 05/17/1994 07/12/1994 07/13/1994 07/14/1994 07/15/1994 07/19/1994 Reported favorably (18-0) 07/29/1994 Confirmed (87-9) 56 63 73
John G. Roberts Jr. of Maryland G. W. Bush 07/29/2005 Referred to Judiciary Committee, 07/29/2005. No hearing held and no committee vote taken. 09/06/2005 Withdrawn — — 39 John G. Roberts Jr. of Maryland (C. J.) G. W. Bush 09/06/2005 09/12/2005 09/13/2005 09/14/2005 09/15/2005 09/22/2005 Reported favorably (13-5) 09/29/2005 Confirmed (78-22) 6 16 23
Harriet E. Miers of Texas G. W. Bush 10/07/2005 Referred to Judiciary Committee, 10/07/2005. No hearing held and no committee vote taken. 10/28/2005 Withdrawn — — 21
Samuel A. Alito Jr. G. W. Bush 11/10/2005 01/09/2006 01/10/2006 01/11/2006 01/12/2006 01/13/2006 01/24/2006 Reported favorably (10-8) 01/31/2006 Confirmed (58 - 42) 60 75 82
Median number of days from date received in Senate, 1789-2009 . . .14 . . .11 . . . 10
Median number of days from date received in Senate, 1789-1966 . . .10 . . . . 9 . . .. . 7
Median number of days from date received in Senate, 1967-2009 . . .21 . . . 50 . . . . 69
Last edited:
I separated myself from allegiance to either party, years ago.
Reading through this thread just reinforces how NEITHER R's or D's are in the service of anyone but themselves, and the sooner each American realizes that, the better. Hopefully grizzled old wingnuts like the OP will go away and stop with the "vote blue (or red, for that matter), no matter what -- the Supreme Court is at stake!" divisive, destructive nonsense. To that point, shupat commented about a liberal activist on the court. Problem is, the SCOTUS was never supposed to be activist, as the highest level of the judicial branch -- but that's out the window.
I have no love for Bernie Sanders, but his popularity gives me hope that the next generation is seeing through the bought-and-paid for Washington politician (Clinton and her scag supporters, Steinem and Albright), and demanding better, even if the promises are of the pie-in-the-sky ilk.
Reading through this thread just reinforces how NEITHER R's or D's are in the service of anyone but themselves, and the sooner each American realizes that, the better. Hopefully grizzled old wingnuts like the OP will go away and stop with the "vote blue (or red, for that matter), no matter what -- the Supreme Court is at stake!" divisive, destructive nonsense. To that point, shupat commented about a liberal activist on the court. Problem is, the SCOTUS was never supposed to be activist, as the highest level of the judicial branch -- but that's out the window.
I have no love for Bernie Sanders, but his popularity gives me hope that the next generation is seeing through the bought-and-paid for Washington politician (Clinton and her scag supporters, Steinem and Albright), and demanding better, even if the promises are of the pie-in-the-sky ilk.
Timely??? Yes!
Reliable??? the jury is out IMHO.
Is it conceivable that the GOP controlled Senate Judiciary Committee has the power and the gall to table a SCOTUS from the POTUS??? Yes
Is it likely? No, I doubt it. Why would the GOP take such an unprecedented action when --- AFTER hearings --- they can choose not to forward the nomination (although that hasn't been done in a very long time) or they can they can forward it to the floor without a recommendation (more likely), because they have the votes to defeat it legitimately in the Senate.
The threat of a filibuster is now a Democrat's weapon, but of little use on a Dem POTUS SCOTUS vote-us.
You're the one who said "your August SCOTUSBLOG link".
So I actually have no idea why you said that.
And that's what I was correcting your comment. Obviously it's timely...
And ask Mcconnell, ayotte, toomey, Cruz, et al why they are discussing "tabling" the nominee.
And now whether they follow through or not they have already made the mistake of appearing as "obstructionists". Appearance is everything in politics.
Obama will appoint a consensus, history making judge. And the Republicans have already painted themselves into a corner which they are going to have to talk themselves out of. Again appearance is everything. First they appear as "obstructionists" while Obama appears "adult" and "rational"... Then they have to do what they promised they wouldn't which would make the Reps look "weak willed" and "obstructionist".
Does this sound rational? No. Have they paved the groundworks for this? yes.
They are really playing the odds game. They have 3 options:
1) Let Obama's most likely "concensus" and "history making" nominee pass
2) Dont and a Repub wins and they keep balance
3) Don't and a Dem wins and they get a more liberal nominee
Do those odds and do those scenarios seem to work out for Reps? Very unlikely.
So I actually have no idea why you said that.
And that's what I was correcting your comment. Obviously it's timely...
And ask Mcconnell, ayotte, toomey, Cruz, et al why they are discussing "tabling" the nominee.
And now whether they follow through or not they have already made the mistake of appearing as "obstructionists". Appearance is everything in politics.
Obama will appoint a consensus, history making judge. And the Republicans have already painted themselves into a corner which they are going to have to talk themselves out of. Again appearance is everything. First they appear as "obstructionists" while Obama appears "adult" and "rational"... Then they have to do what they promised they wouldn't which would make the Reps look "weak willed" and "obstructionist".
Does this sound rational? No. Have they paved the groundworks for this? yes.
They are really playing the odds game. They have 3 options:
1) Let Obama's most likely "concensus" and "history making" nominee pass
2) Dont and a Repub wins and they keep balance
3) Don't and a Dem wins and they get a more liberal nominee
Do those odds and do those scenarios seem to work out for Reps? Very unlikely.
Last edited:
LOL NOW I get it. FYI "August" is both a noun (the month) and an adjective (respected). I'm sorry but it never entered my mind that it was FROM the MONTH of AUGUST, but (tongue-in-cheek) I was questioning it's respectability.
Sorry, 08, I'll try to be more judicious in my sarcasm.
Forgive me 08, I barely pay attention to primary rhetoric and certainly do not parse their epithets. I was ignorant of the fact that the above-mentioned antagonists were ' discussing "tabling" the nominee. ' (Your double quotation marks around "tabling". ) I was made aware --- more so from this thread than from any other source --- of threats to stop (or other euphemisms: derail? prohibit? block? defeat?) the appointment but I had failed to realize you personally chose to use "pocket" instead of the protagonists' own word: "Table". That makes me look silly, I guess, and IMHO makes them --- and you (for modifying their word) --- perhaps sillier.
That said, I would still wager that the hearings will go forth reasonably expeditiously after the nomination is received.
Wow, 08! I am super-impressed that you know what Obama will do. You say that "Obama will appoint a "concensus" (sic), history making judge."
That's great!!!!!! Then POTUS seems to be playing right into the hands of the GOP "obstructionists"!!!! It had been my guess that the GOP feared POTUS would nominate a liberal (oops ---I forgot --- I mean "progressive" --- like TR, I guess) magistrate! Silly me! You say he's going the "consensus" route, to avoid being confrontational or even "obstructionist" like his GOP antagonists!!! What a revelation! What a relief! (It worked!!!)
You loosely juxtapose a number of adjectives to describe the GOP antagonists and POTUS, many of which confuse me.
You imply that the GOP are "irrational" (in opposition to POTUS being 'rational'). I am to understand that you think it is not logical for an ultra-conservative candidate to fear a "more liberal" 'nominee'? Please explain.
You imply GOP is 'juvenile' (in opposition to POTUS being 'adult'). I am to understand that you think it is sophomoric for any candidate to play to his party's more zealous wing in a primary election? I do see that.
Anyway, this rhetoric is just that --- rhetoric! Rhetoric for the PRIMARIES. What if POTUS does as he whispered to you and 'nominates' a "consensus" magistrate, to make GOP look irrational and juvenile?? What if they then vote that person in??
Last edited:
And now I remember why I ignore this place.
You are right. Everything I post is disreputable, silly and confusing.
Everything you post is reputable, measured and correct.
Glad to have this chat.
You are right. Everything I post is disreputable, silly and confusing.
Everything you post is reputable, measured and correct.
Glad to have this chat.
Alas, it seems that I have yet again exasperated a fellow poster.
Trust me: I am well-intentioned --- just old school, conservative and more than a little pedantic.
And as the good Sisters taught us: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sigh!
08, you did precipitate my response when you clearly seemed annoyed that any Obama nominee would not get a public hearing.
emphasis added.
I was confused on why you expected there would be no hearing.
Nothing more.
As it finally came out, you were quoting SCOTUSblog, which opined just that.
From my experience and the historical records I posted above, I think SCOTUSblog is smoking something.
But since I thought that was your own opinion --- not SCOTUSblog's --- I was hoping to learn something from our dialogue.
Hope springs eternal (that's the "verb", not the "noun").
Mea culpa
Last edited:
