Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

I hope undecideds have had at least basic elementary civics lessons and not buy into the "Yeah, it's our right to choose!" illusion. Because it never has been and it never will be.

Land of the free

Home of the Braves

[Powder Miner]

Sure, we can't DIRECTLY choose. But what the Republicans here are talking about is the fact that the executive and legislative branches we DO elect are the ones who get to decide this sort of thing. The executive branch (here, Obama) gets to nominate, and the legislative branch (here, the Republicans) get to confirm or SEVERELY hinder the process all they want, it's the way it's written into the constitution. They're not blatantly abusing the spirit of the country or anything here; this is almost expressly the way it was meant to be when the Constitution was built: the executive check against the judicial branch (slash legislative branch) is the presidential nomination, and the LEGISLATIVE check against the judicial branch (slash executive branch) is the confirmation here. The government was entirely intended to have this sort of contention with this sort of thing, so that neither branch could use the judicial branch to dominate. It's basically Just As Planned, wiiith the note that the Founders entirely misjudged the power of the Supreme Court -- they thought it was going to be weak and worthless until John Marshall strode in and started kicking ass.

Ultimately, the executive branch can't entirely choose matters -- sure Obama can nominate, but Congress has been given by the very design of the country the ability to BS it up until the election, and the legislative can't choose because they're not capable of nominating. It can and possibly will be made into a stalemate where voters end up deciding which party gets to nominate their candidate by deciding the future executive and legislative branches; obviously, the Republicans are confident it will be a Republican up there nominating. You can say it isn't the right of the people to choose the political slant of the new Justice, but when you look at the reality of the situation... it kind of is.

Heck, even the

I hope undecideds have had at least basic elementary civics lessons and not buy into the "Yeah, it's our right to choose!" illusion.

proves my point here -- if the voters WEREN'T in some degree deciding matters, why would it matter what the undecideds think?

[Playergamer]

-snip-

finally, somebody in this thread understands.

[Lord Shonus]

the Founders entirely misjudged the power of the Supreme Court -- they thought it was going to be weak and worthless until John Marshall strode in and started kicking ass.

[CITATION_NEEDED]

While Marshall cemented the concept of judicial review, the Court had already decided on a few very important matters (one of which prompted the 11th Amendment), and the concept of Judicial Review was well-known to the Founders, considering that Adams attempted to use the British courts to curtail the abuses of the British governments toward the colonies (particularly the oft-ignored issue of impressment - Adams tried to force the Royal Navy to release thousands of Americans that had been drafted at gunpoint into life-long service because it was illegal to do so, but the Navy preempted him by releasing the particular individuals he was representing, depriving the case of standing. Parliament repealed the law restricting the impressment of Colonials shortly afterward).

[mainiac]

Clarence Thomas was appointed when Democrats had a 55 seat majority in the Senate.  He has consistently been the most conservative justice on the bench during his tenure.  He was accepted by the Senate because there was a tradition that any reasonably nomination would be allowed to go through.

So I will respect conservative statements that a 54 seat majority in the Senate means they can block any and all Obama nominations as soon as the people making those statements call for Clarence Thomas to step down from the bench.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What can you do? The Democrats are as spineless now as always, while the Republicans are willing to pull their realpolitik advantages.

[Helgoland]

Clarence Thomas was appointed when Democrats had a 55 seat majority in the Senate.  He has consistently been the most conservative justice on the bench during his tenure.  He was accepted by the Senate because there was a tradition that any reasonably nomination would be allowed to go through.

Pretty much this. It's called 'checks and balances' instead of 'obstructions and hindrances' for a reason: Those mechanisms have been immplemented to keep the various branches from overstepping their power, not to enable the other two branches to meddle in their affairs.

[lemon10]

Just because they are clearly not supposed to, and have historically avoided it doesn't mean the republicans won't try to do it anyways. They might fail, but they are certainly going to try.

[Powder Miner]

Clarence Thomas was appointed when Democrats had a 55 seat majority in the Senate.  He has consistently been the most conservative justice on the bench during his tenure.  He was accepted by the Senate because there was a tradition that any reasonably nomination would be allowed to go through.

So I will respect conservative statements that a 54 seat majority in the Senate means they can block any and all Obama nominations as soon as the people making those statements call for Clarence Thomas to step down from the bench.

But this is a completely false equivalency.
Not only is there a significant difference in the times of nomination (Thomas in 1991, with a president potentially capable of winning another term vs. Mystery Obama Candidate during election year with a president who IS leaving office, this is twice the time AT MINIMUM for them to hold out and if the incumbent won a WHOLE lot longer) but the Democrat's DIDN'T just let it go through at all -- it was a bitterly contentious nomination and he only got through 52-48. The democrat's didn't do what you're saying they did at all. It wasn't a saintly move to let him through because of tradition, it was a bitter contest in which very few stops weren't pulled, and only lost because of necessity.

BESIDES! If you go only 4 years back, you get the Democrats proving that they weren't following some tradition by happily accepting Republican nominations with the case of Robert Bork, a conservative judge that Reagan nominated, and they were planning to form a, to quote the Wikipedia article, "solid phalanx" to reject out of hand whatever candidate Reagan would have nominated to replace Powell... even before Powell retired. It's the same scenario, the Republicans aren't just being ahistorically quarrelsome and breaking all traditions to go full realpolitik. The Democrats DID do a very similar thing, and had it been election year Carter would have nominated the next justice. They only had Anthony Kennedy come up because it's a whole lot harder to reject two in a row, and even then Kennedy is not a hardline conservative, and is a frequent swinger.

[mainiac]

I didn't say it was saintly gentlemanly spirit.  I said that respect for tradition made 7 democrats swing over.  And this was for a man with a sex scandel trying to become a supreme court justice!

Robert Bork,

Who was in no way shape or form a reasonable nominee.

[Powder Miner]

Who was in no way shape or form a reasonable nominee.

Except that they agreed to deny whatever candidate Reagan picked before Powell even retired, and before Bork was even nominated. Just like the Republicans, except Scalia died out of nowhere so they didn't have a chance to plan beforehand.

[mainiac]

I'm guessing you are refering to this 1987 quote?

'It might not be a bad idea to say there are equally important matters facing the Senate,'' Mr. Byrd told reporters at a luncheon meeting. ''If we're going to have all this stalling by the Republicans, then let's just slow down and take a closer look at this nomination.''

Now compare it to this quote:

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,”

Notice a difference?

[Powder Miner]

I am not, no. It's a quote instead from Alan Cranston. I can't find the full quote, to my chagrin, but it was in a letter in which he was urging Democrats not to allow an "ideological court coup".
Best source I have is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/07/01/nomination-to-test-senate-role-in-shaping-of-supreme-court/dfccf701-f18f-4c78-bce1-ad38db08d0f8/
Note both A. Biden saying his position would change based on whether or not it would tip the Court's balance, and B. the Republicans of the time using the same arguments you are using now.

[nenjin]

*snip*

They're not talking about doing their duly appointed duty as a check on the Executive branch. They're talking about stymieing the entire process until (they hope) any appointment a new Republican president wants to make is confirmed without opposition. That is the the complete opposite of the intent behind the checks and balances system.

Heck, even the

I hope undecideds have had at least basic elementary civics lessons and not buy into the "Yeah, it's our right to choose!" illusion.

proves my point here -- if the voters WEREN'T in some degree deciding matters, why would it matter what the undecideds think?

There is a supreme difference between electing the guy who will choose someone, and electing them through a direct popular vote. The Republican line is acting as though it's the latter, while it's the former. Voting a Republican president only narrows the choices available, it doesn't somehow empower the electorate to decide who the next SCJ is. And trying to convince people it does is basic voter manipulation.

Despite Scalia dying within a year of the actual elections, I think this is what happens when your election cycle gets longer and longer. What if Scalia had died last year? Or the year before that? Would we wait 3 years to appoint a new SCJ because "the public should have a choice in the selection of their next SCJ. Therefore, the vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president"? No, because that'd be stupid. As is saying you respect the letter of the Constitution as long as it is convenient to do so.

It's garbage. Republicans are sorely disappointed this happened before the election was decided, and are framing the political deadlock in terms of voter choice which is total bullshit. It'd be political deadlock either way with the current congress we have, but they're actually trying to parlay their intransigence about anything Obama into votes for the election.

[mainiac]

Best source I have is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/07/01/nomination-to-test-senate-role-in-shaping-of-supreme-court/dfccf701-f18f-4c78-bce1-ad38db08d0f8/

That source states that democrats claiming they are only blocking "an ideological extremist" and republicans stating that a qualified candidate should be accepted by the other party.  So the source you provided to refute my points actually repeats them.

Mitch McConnell did not state that he would block an extreme nominee, he said that he would block any nominee whatsoever.  If republicans were to repeat this standard they would be just repeating the standard they applied on the previous appointments which is status quo these days.