3 ms·

I mean, he's also sitting on a stolen seat. Not letting Obama nominate anyone was pretty BS. Obviously it wasn't his idea, but he's benefited from it nonetheles

I mean, he's also sitting on a stolen seat. Not letting Obama nominate anyone was pretty BS. Obviously it wasn't his idea, but he's benefited from it nonetheless.

furgooswft13 8y ago
Frankly, I totally understand the reasoning of not wanting a lame-duck president to nominate a Supreme Court Justice months before a presidential election. The people appointed to that position is a huge consideration in many people's vote. Ones less justice on the court for a handful of months is not a big deal. Let the people decide, or something (and inb4 Trump lost the popular vote). And it was a gamble, as most of the Republican leadership in congress fully expected Trump to lose, in which case Hillary might have nominated someone considered even more liberal than Merrick Garland. If that had happened, and that person confirmed, would they be sitting on a stolen seat too?
- rrcaptain 8y ago
  No, the GOP was planning to block Hillary's nominees as well. And people did decide... In 2012 when they voted for Obama by like 51%. Lame duck presidents have gotten SCOTUS seats before. Reagan nominated and had a confirmation in his final year by a supermajority.
  - furgooswft13 8y ago
    Of course they were, just as the Democrats attempted to block Gorsuch. Difference is there would be no reasonable excuse to not even letting it come to a vote at that point. Regan's last nomination was an interesting one. With his first nomination for the seat coming nearly a year and a half before the next election. Then going through another potential nominee, with Kennedy not being confirmed until early 1988. Regardless, all I'm saying is I understand the reasoning for not wanting to let Obama appoint a SCOTUS justice in his last months. They could have gone the other way and let it come to a vote. Republicans would certainly have had the numbers to block it (and the yays needed 60 then). And then Obama would have appointed someone else, and so on until the election was decided and the next president in office. Though I have no doubt the Republican leadership would have acted differently if a seat was open during the last days of a Republican administration. Either way, Gorush's seat is no more stolen than a Hillary appointee would be.
    - rectang 8y ago
      It may well be that an arms race of partisanship is the norm we should expect going forwards. Careful what you wish for.
    - rrcaptain 8y ago
      >Difference is there would be no reasonable excuse to not even letting it come to a vote at that point. There was no reasonable excuse in 2016 either lmao.
- tzs 8y ago
  There was a legitimate method that the Republicans in the Senate could have used to keep any Obama nominee from replacing Scalia. They could have done their Constitutional duty and held a hearing followed by a vote, and then voted "no". The method they chose instead was illegitimate, and that's why it is a stolen seat.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  > Frankly, I totally understand the reasoning of not wanting a lame-duck president to nominate a Supreme Court Justice That's understandable. > months before a presidential election I don't think you understand the definition of "lame duck". It refers to the period between election and inauguration. It is completely unreasonable to treat the entire final year that way.

I mean, he's also sitting on a stolen seat. Not letting Obama nominate anyone was pretty BS. Obviously it wasn't his idea, but he's benefited from it nonetheless.

furgooswft13 8y ago

Frankly, I totally understand the reasoning of not wanting a lame-duck president to nominate a Supreme Court Justice months before a presidential election. The people appointed to that position is a huge consideration in many people's vote. Ones less justice on the court for a handful of months is not a big deal. Let the people decide, or something (and inb4 Trump lost the popular vote). And it was a gamble, as most of the Republican leadership in congress fully expected Trump to lose, in which case Hillary might have nominated someone considered even more liberal than Merrick Garland. If that had happened, and that person confirmed, would they be sitting on a stolen seat too?

rrcaptain 8y ago
No, the GOP was planning to block Hillary's nominees as well. And people did decide... In 2012 when they voted for Obama by like 51%. Lame duck presidents have gotten SCOTUS seats before. Reagan nominated and had a confirmation in his final year by a supermajority.
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  Of course they were, just as the Democrats attempted to block Gorsuch. Difference is there would be no reasonable excuse to not even letting it come to a vote at that point. Regan's last nomination was an interesting one. With his first nomination for the seat coming nearly a year and a half before the next election. Then going through another potential nominee, with Kennedy not being confirmed until early 1988. Regardless, all I'm saying is I understand the reasoning for not wanting to let Obama appoint a SCOTUS justice in his last months. They could have gone the other way and let it come to a vote. Republicans would certainly have had the numbers to block it (and the yays needed 60 then). And then Obama would have appointed someone else, and so on until the election was decided and the next president in office. Though I have no doubt the Republican leadership would have acted differently if a seat was open during the last days of a Republican administration. Either way, Gorush's seat is no more stolen than a Hillary appointee would be.
  - rectang 8y ago
    It may well be that an arms race of partisanship is the norm we should expect going forwards. Careful what you wish for.
  - rrcaptain 8y ago
    >Difference is there would be no reasonable excuse to not even letting it come to a vote at that point. There was no reasonable excuse in 2016 either lmao.
tzs 8y ago
There was a legitimate method that the Republicans in the Senate could have used to keep any Obama nominee from replacing Scalia. They could have done their Constitutional duty and held a hearing followed by a vote, and then voted "no". The method they chose instead was illegitimate, and that's why it is a stolen seat.
Dylan16807 8y ago
> Frankly, I totally understand the reasoning of not wanting a lame-duck president to nominate a Supreme Court Justice That's understandable. > months before a presidential election I don't think you understand the definition of "lame duck". It refers to the period between election and inauguration. It is completely unreasonable to treat the entire final year that way.