12 ms·
Of course a president should not appoint a judge on the last few months of his term, should he?
by bonzini 6y ago
Of course a president should not appoint a judge on the last few months of his term, should he?
- xwdv 6y agoHe absolutely should it is his job.
- zacksinclair 6y agoDo you recall when the republican party blocked Obama's ability to appoint in the run-up to the last election? (parent commenter is referencing this)
- hindsightbias 6y agoBiden Rule!
- tick_tock_tick 6y agoFor context https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden...
- mikeyouse 6y agoIt wasn't even in the "run up" to the election - Scalia died in early February. Garland was nominated in mid March. Obama had 10 more months in the Presidency (~23% of his presidency left when Scalia died and McConnell said we shouldn't fill a vacancy in an election year).
- jeffbee 6y ago"In the run up" meaning that Scalia died in February 2016, nine months before the election, and the very solemnly contemplative senator from Kentucky announced “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."
- elmomle 6y agoI believe the parent comment was mocking the exact stance that Republicans took four years ago, and the fact that they will very certainly not take that stance this time.
- mc32 6y agoTrue, but we’re talking politics and politicians. Compare Biden before and New Biden on issues. They ALL would do that. There is no real holier than thou politician.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rpearl 6y agocool. where's Justice Merrick Garland, then?
- nscalf 6y agoSince you clearly don’t get the context, the Republicans made this a giant issue when Obama had an open Supreme Court seat towards the end of his term. Let’s call a spade a spade: the republicans have no regard for the constitution or laws of the land if they benefit from ignoring it. They will now ignore the precedent they set and place a new Supreme Court justice.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoObama had more time left than Trump so the hypocrisy coming out of the Senate will be that much richer. > “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,” McConnell said > “You’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential year was confirmed by the party opposite the occupant of the White House,” McConnell said in March 2016 > “We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential election, which is raging, is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who’s going to make this decision,” McConnell said > Speaking in his home state of Kentucky on Tuesday, McConnell was asked what he would do about a high court vacancy if a seat were to open up [in 2020]. “Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell said
- xwdv 6y agoI get the context. Times change.
- nscalf 6y agoYep, they've gotten more corrupt.
- shajznnckfke 6y agoI think the law of the land is probably “whoever controls the Senate decides whether the Senate confirms a nominee”, but I guess we’ll find out soon.
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
- axaxs 6y agoNot sure why you are downvoted, this is correct. What the R's did to Merrick Garland was a disgrace. What kind of wink and a nod agreement is that? They should codify this into law, not keep perpetuating it forever. How long until it's 'oh, he's only got 3 more years left...lame duck!'
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- paxys 6y agoHe ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed. Republicans, however, set the precedent by not allowing Obama to appoint one in his last year in office. My money, however, is on them ramming someone through anyways.
- bsimpson 6y agoMcConnell is pretty transparent about his hypocritical political bullshit: > "Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky on Tuesday when asked what he would do if a Supreme Court justice died in 2020 while President Trump was still in office > https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fill-it-how-mcconnell-is-doing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi... edit: Am I really getting downvoted for pointing out how the current administration already said it would handle this? edit #2: Individual Republicans are declaring they're against rushing an appointment before the election (https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1307113546136784897 https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1307113546136784897).
- stock_toaster 6y agoMcConnell has done more harm to the USA than any other politician I can think of in recent memory.
- tyre 6y agoThis. Seeing trump as a cause and not a symptom or as the leading disaster for American democracy is a very common distraction. McConnell is the heart of all of it. He is nothing but an appetite for power. He’ll do anything. No morals whatsoever (and I say that neutrally, as a fact and not a moral judgement.) And he wins.
- basementcat 6y agoMcConnell is just doing what his constituents want. Otherwise, they wouldn't have voted for him repeatedly since 1984. EDIT: One might argue that Mr. McConnell correctly anticipated the desires of the USA electorate because in November of 2016 they expressed a wish for more conservative judges in federal courts. If the voting public was outraged by McConnell's actions, one might expect they'd vote accordingly.
- minimaxir 6y agoFrom back in 2019: ‘Oh, we’d fill it’: How McConnell is doing a 180 on Supreme Court vacancies in an election year https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fill-it-how-mcconnell-is-doing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi...
- ascendantlogic 6y agoBecause it's not about consistency, it's about winning. And McConnell sure is doing a lot of that in terms of his agenda to stuff courts full of conservative justices.
- johndevor 6y agoWhy not? What's the cutoff?
- MithrilTuxedo 6y agoThe Senate majority leader.
- rootusrootus 6y agoI imagine it's closer to a year.
- juniper_strong 6y agoIf the Senate confirms the President's nomination then I don't see why the President wouldn't follow through with the appointment.
- SloopJon 6y agoOne possible strategy for Trump (which would be very much out of character) would be to wait out of respect for RBG and/or the Garland precedent. Meanwhile, he uses the empty seat as a campaign issue to keep reluctant conservatives from jumping ship.
- rootusrootus 6y agoAnd if he loses the election, he still has time to push through a quick nomination before he gets booted out and a new Democratic Senate is sworn in.
- selimthegrim 6y agoAnd if the Democrats dangle a sweetheart plea deal in front of him as inducement to leave it be?
- pbourke 6y agoThis Would be so beyond the pale that it could lead to honest to goodness civil disorder.
- rdxm 6y agotrump's not that smart.... his russian handlers....now that's a different story....
- gundmc 6y agoYep. This is what I fully expect to happen. It's despicable, but it makes way too much sense. You motivate moderate conservatives, and if you win you get to claim the moral high ground. If you lose, you push a lame duck justice through anyway. This is a gift from a campaign strategy point of view. I feel terrible focusing on the political maelstrom and not RBG's legacy, but these are also important conversations to have.
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoA 4-4 deadlocked vote in a “Bush v Gore” type of situation would be a constitutional nightmare. It’s absolutely in his interest to fill that seat.
- cwhiz 6y agoTrump may try, but it will be interesting to hear the reasoning to rush it before November 4. If Trump is going to win, as he says he is, there is no need to rush. I believe there is no precedent for the Senate confirming a Supreme Court justice in a lame duck session. If Trump loses to Biden and the Senate then confirms a Trump nominee in a lame duck session, that will probably be the end of the Supreme Court. I’d expect Biden and Harris to just stack the Court, and it to devolve from there. Remember, there is no law requiring nine justices. Just a handshake agreement and precedent. FDR threatened the stack the Court unless he got his way. And who would ultimately determine the legality of stacking the Court? You guessed it, the Supreme Court.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- JacobAldridge 6y agoAt what point should a President, especially in their first term running for re-election, stop being able to fulfill parts of their duties? Declaring war? Responding to an attack? Talking to other world leaders? Advocating Congress to act on matters? Signing bills into laws? Naming post offices? Being allowed into the Oval Office? Independent of this specific situation, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. And that line is Inauguration Day. (A case could be made that some powers cease on Election Day for a lame duck President.)
- MoosePirate 6y agoYes, the point is that Republicans violated the principles you are laying out here under the exact same situation. So violating this principle again in the exact same way would be the only non-hypocritical way to handle this situation.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoTrump most likely has had plans for this for months and knows who he's going to pick, expect a choice by the end of next week and confirmation within a month. They don't have much time to get a new person in there so they've had a plan for this for months, if not years.
- FireBeyond 6y agoIf only he had similar plans for healthcare, like he told people. They'd still be terrible plans, but he obviously has absolutely no plan whatsoever.
- perryizgr8 6y agoWhy? Should I stop writing code if I think I'm leaving this job in a year? Why should the president stop doing his job?
- ViViDboarder 6y agoBecause Mitch said so.
- perryizgr8 6y agoWhat one person said about some other issue years ago is irrelevant to the question at hand.
- namarie 6y agoNot when he's been the senate majority leader in both situations
- perryizgr8 6y agoDoesn't matter. His statements do not modify the powers of the President, or the duties of the Senate. Just for fun, here's another irrelevant quote: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” - Ruth Bader, on whether the Senate should hold hearings and a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland
- ViViDboarder 6y agoI think most people agree that it should be the case that we nominate and vote on a justice regardless of the term, however for years ago Mitch set a precedent. He claimed it was because we should wait for an election, when really he was being purely obstructionist and his position now is hypocritical. In short, it’s not the President’s fault. He should nominate someone. Mitch is the one who said the Senate should not vote. The Majority Leader does have some say over the duties of the Senate as it’s up to him to bring the vote. If it doesn’t change the duties and he was derelict of his 4 years ago then I would have hoped to see some repercussions.