10 ms·

Since 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 ca

by nscalf 6y ago

Since 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 ago
Obama 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 ago
I get the context. Times change.
- nscalf 6y ago
  Yep, they've gotten more corrupt.
shajznnckfke 6y ago
I 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
  I mean legally it's always been this the Supreme Court has been very clear on every cases regarding confirmation that Congress is free to act or not act at it's leisure.
- nscalf 6y ago
  This wasn't always the case, here's an excerpt from the wiki on recent changes making this the case: "Senate cloture rules historically required a two-thirds affirmative vote to advance nominations to a vote; this was changed to a three-fifths supermajority in 1975. In November 2013, the then-Democratic Senate majority eliminated the filibuster for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees except for Supreme Court nominees by invoking the so-called nuclear option. In April 2017, the Republican Senate majority applied the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations as well,[2] enabling the nominations of Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to proceed to a vote.[3][4] "
  - jlawson 6y ago
    Interesting, so if Trump can nominate and pass another judge, it'll be by using the rule that the Democrats changed in 2013 to benefit themselves.
    - nscalf 6y ago
      To be fair, they passed the ruling for non-supreme court justices. Republicans extended it to include them in 2017. Still, an example of terrible governance and foresight on both sides.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      That would be incorrect, unless you are talking about a regular federal judge and not a Supreme Court justice. In the latter case, it was a rule the Republicans changed in 2017 to benefit themselves.
  - ghufran_syed 6y ago
    The filibuster has always seemed anti-democratic - it’s not in the constitution, and I’m pretty sure that historically it was a way to make give the minority senators more power at the expense of the people.
lumost 6y ago
I'm still surprised the Democrats try to discuss compromise at this point. You can't compromise with someone running a madman strategy, realistically I don't know any true independents on the political spectrum at this point.
- ryanobjc 6y ago
  The Democratic Party legislates as if it represents all Americans. Which means compromise. Rarely has the Democratic Party held all three branches recently. Holding the senate is a huge win for the republicans - they can be as obstinate and block things and only need a barest majority to do appointments and many other procedural shenanigans. Like what the fuck is the house supposed to negotiate with? “We won’t pass bills”: the republican senate is entirely happy not to have bills passed. Now what? The Republican Party is entirely devoted to debasing government and spoiling the notion of governance.
  - nscalf 6y ago
    Well, the house explicitly has financial powers, and they can impeach officials. If the house was republican and the senate was democratic, you would see much more financing for projects Trump wanted. Like, just to make up the most ridiculous example we could think of, a giant wall...
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      Unless I am out of date with my civics knowledge, the House may have a bit of financial power, but legislation still has to pass through the Senate. The upside of being the anti-government party is that you don't have to worry about being judged by how well you govern. It's a much easier position.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Respectfully, you probably do know independents. We just don't often talk about our political views to people who say compromise is dead and you have to be on one side or the other.
juniper_strong 6y ago
Do you think Obama asked the Republicans in the Senate for their advice on who to nominate when he nominated Merrick Garland?
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  Merrick was a pretty moderate choice who had been praised by many Republicans. Since they never voted on him, we don’t really know if they would have changed their minds and voted against him.
- tomrod 6y ago
  Time for some history. The GOP senators never expected a moderate like Merrick Garland, who was named by senators in the news before Obama announced his confirmation.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Obama is more of a realist than many in his party. He knew going in that no one would make it through the Senate, and that's why he nominated Garland. Why waste a quality Democrat jurist on a lost cause? I bet he was tempted to nominate Kavanaugh...
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
It's more like the congress exercised there constitution power to do fuck all if they wanted. Just cause it's a shitty thing doesn't make it un-constitution. What happened to Obama was his party didn't have the votes to approve someone so it didn't happen that's it.
- kennywinker 6y ago
  If they hold hearing for a 45 nominee before the election, they prove they were acting in bad faith. The expectation is that the president gets to appoint judges during his term, unless there is a reason to deny the nominee. By denying that they challenge the power of the executive branch. I.e. Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party?
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    > Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party? This is the next logical step.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ribosometronome 6y ago
    Who is paying attention to politics and thinks they are not acting in bad faith?
- nscalf 6y ago
  It's a bad faith enforcement of the constitution. In democracies like the US, precedents are as powerful as laws. This was not literally breaking any laws, but this was as bad as breaking a law.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Following the constitution is “bad faith”?
protomyth 6y ago
Ultimately, a President with a friendly Senate will always fill the seat. An unfriendly Senate is going to delay the heck out of it. Any rhetoric around that is pretty much just noise. They will send someone through as they've published a couple of lists and have been filling the lower courts pretty quickly. It is not like people weren't aware Justice Ginsburg was very sick. Frankly, given the President, I would bet it will occur within the next week or two. I do wonder what the polling will be like on this issue. I can actually see a couple of scenarios where Democrats would want to run on a filled seat.
- coredog64 6y ago
  Early noise on Twitter is that Biden’s response to a filled seat is an expansion of the court to 11 seats. Not sure what the calculus is. If it’s unfilled, Biden will fill it. If it’s filled, he’ll expand the court. Not sure if that also depends on a senate flip, but I have a hard time believing the senate doesn’t flip during a Biden win.
  - ngcazz 6y ago
    Sure. It’s just not very likely Biden will win, since Trump is a better campaigner with the EC arithmetic tilted in his favor.
  - glenstein 6y ago
    It would be a proportionate and appropriate response, and hopefully restore an equilibrium in response to a constitutional crisis provoked by McConnell.
    - protomyth 6y ago
      It would be a disaster and escalate beyond reason. What one side does, the other side will do harder.
      - sukilot 6y ago
        The Republicans already take everything to 11, as a matter of stated policy, since 2008, regardless of whether the Democrats go to 10. Note that Trump and McConnell are rushing to fill the Supreme Court, despite 4 years of leaving about half the government posts vacant.
jlawson 6y ago
This is a laughable inability to distinguish between 'I don't like it' and 'it's unconstitutional and illegal', mixed with obvious massive hypocrisy. When the Republicans refused to confirm Garland, they did it fully within the processes laid out in the constitution. If the Democrats had the senate now, we can guarantee they would have blocked every Trump nominee past and future. Or do you think they would have allowed Kavanaugh through? Of course not, they tried everything to stop him, inside and outside the process. And I know you cheered their efforts. You're just being massively hypocritical. You want the Dems to block Trump nominees by any means necessary, but if elected Republicans simply use established processes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution". EDIT: Clarify garland situation, doesn't change the point.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > but if elected Republicans simply use votes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution". They didn’t use votes. If it had gone to vote, Garland would have been confirmed. McConnell refused to bring it to vote.
  - jlawson 6y ago
    Fine - used established, legal processes.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      Confirming Supreme Court nominees is the Senate’s constitutional duty.
- nscalf 6y ago
  Do you know how laws are often interpreted? It's asking what is the faith and meaning of the law, NOT what is literally written in paper. This means past precedents are incredibly important for defining what a law is. Refusing to hold a vote for a nomination of a qualified supreme court justice is not against the law on paper, but it is against the meaning of the laws and the precedents of how the president interacts with the supreme court. It is not the senates job to decide if a nominee is worthy of being nominated, or if the president should make a nomination. It is their job to vote on the nominee. They did not do that.
Igelau 6y ago
> no regard for the constitution or laws of the land if they benefit from ignoring it Any American politician who appears to have such a regard 9 times out of 10 is a manipulative psychopath who is stringing you along.
refurb 6y ago
The decision to not fill a seat in an election year has nothing to do with the constitution or laws. The president nominates and senate confirms.
- gdubs 6y ago
  I find this “thems the laws” theme in this thread pretty outrageous. Congress used run on decorum, arcane rules, and norms. Those norms were thrown out the window when the Senate refused to even have a hearing on Merrick Garland. Arguably, they had a legal requirement to do at least that. But now we’re supposed to pretend that “rules are rules”, and this is all totally normal.
  - refurb 6y ago
    I was specifically replying to the comment "they aren't following the constitution or laws". Sure, it may be very hypocritical to fill the seat before the election, but has politics not been hypocritical? And in "norms", the refusal to have a hearing on Merrick Garland is not the first example. Congress flouting "norms" goes back centuries.
dvrendal 6y ago
Precedent doesn't mean anything because what happened wasn't a legal ruling. None of the rules changed. Senate acted the way it was allowed to and will act the way it is allowed to now as well to get our guy in and keep their guy out.

by nscalf 6y ago

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

Obama 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 ago

I get the context. Times change.

nscalf 6y ago
Yep, they've gotten more corrupt.

shajznnckfke 6y ago

I 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
I mean legally it's always been this the Supreme Court has been very clear on every cases regarding confirmation that Congress is free to act or not act at it's leisure.
nscalf 6y ago
This wasn't always the case, here's an excerpt from the wiki on recent changes making this the case: "Senate cloture rules historically required a two-thirds affirmative vote to advance nominations to a vote; this was changed to a three-fifths supermajority in 1975. In November 2013, the then-Democratic Senate majority eliminated the filibuster for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees except for Supreme Court nominees by invoking the so-called nuclear option. In April 2017, the Republican Senate majority applied the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations as well,[2] enabling the nominations of Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to proceed to a vote.[3][4] "
- jlawson 6y ago
  Interesting, so if Trump can nominate and pass another judge, it'll be by using the rule that the Democrats changed in 2013 to benefit themselves.
  - nscalf 6y ago
    To be fair, they passed the ruling for non-supreme court justices. Republicans extended it to include them in 2017. Still, an example of terrible governance and foresight on both sides.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    That would be incorrect, unless you are talking about a regular federal judge and not a Supreme Court justice. In the latter case, it was a rule the Republicans changed in 2017 to benefit themselves.
- ghufran_syed 6y ago
  The filibuster has always seemed anti-democratic - it’s not in the constitution, and I’m pretty sure that historically it was a way to make give the minority senators more power at the expense of the people.

lumost 6y ago

I'm still surprised the Democrats try to discuss compromise at this point. You can't compromise with someone running a madman strategy, realistically I don't know any true independents on the political spectrum at this point.

ryanobjc 6y ago
The Democratic Party legislates as if it represents all Americans. Which means compromise. Rarely has the Democratic Party held all three branches recently. Holding the senate is a huge win for the republicans - they can be as obstinate and block things and only need a barest majority to do appointments and many other procedural shenanigans. Like what the fuck is the house supposed to negotiate with? “We won’t pass bills”: the republican senate is entirely happy not to have bills passed. Now what? The Republican Party is entirely devoted to debasing government and spoiling the notion of governance.
- nscalf 6y ago
  Well, the house explicitly has financial powers, and they can impeach officials. If the house was republican and the senate was democratic, you would see much more financing for projects Trump wanted. Like, just to make up the most ridiculous example we could think of, a giant wall...
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    Unless I am out of date with my civics knowledge, the House may have a bit of financial power, but legislation still has to pass through the Senate. The upside of being the anti-government party is that you don't have to worry about being judged by how well you govern. It's a much easier position.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Respectfully, you probably do know independents. We just don't often talk about our political views to people who say compromise is dead and you have to be on one side or the other.

juniper_strong 6y ago

Do you think Obama asked the Republicans in the Senate for their advice on who to nominate when he nominated Merrick Garland?

shajznnckfke 6y ago
Merrick was a pretty moderate choice who had been praised by many Republicans. Since they never voted on him, we don’t really know if they would have changed their minds and voted against him.
tomrod 6y ago
Time for some history. The GOP senators never expected a moderate like Merrick Garland, who was named by senators in the news before Obama announced his confirmation.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Obama is more of a realist than many in his party. He knew going in that no one would make it through the Senate, and that's why he nominated Garland. Why waste a quality Democrat jurist on a lost cause? I bet he was tempted to nominate Kavanaugh...

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

It's more like the congress exercised there constitution power to do fuck all if they wanted. Just cause it's a shitty thing doesn't make it un-constitution. What happened to Obama was his party didn't have the votes to approve someone so it didn't happen that's it.

kennywinker 6y ago
If they hold hearing for a 45 nominee before the election, they prove they were acting in bad faith. The expectation is that the president gets to appoint judges during his term, unless there is a reason to deny the nominee. By denying that they challenge the power of the executive branch. I.e. Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party?
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party? This is the next logical step.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ribosometronome 6y ago
  Who is paying attention to politics and thinks they are not acting in bad faith?
nscalf 6y ago
It's a bad faith enforcement of the constitution. In democracies like the US, precedents are as powerful as laws. This was not literally breaking any laws, but this was as bad as breaking a law.
- refurb 6y ago
  Following the constitution is “bad faith”?

protomyth 6y ago

Ultimately, a President with a friendly Senate will always fill the seat. An unfriendly Senate is going to delay the heck out of it. Any rhetoric around that is pretty much just noise. They will send someone through as they've published a couple of lists and have been filling the lower courts pretty quickly. It is not like people weren't aware Justice Ginsburg was very sick. Frankly, given the President, I would bet it will occur within the next week or two. I do wonder what the polling will be like on this issue. I can actually see a couple of scenarios where Democrats would want to run on a filled seat.

coredog64 6y ago
Early noise on Twitter is that Biden’s response to a filled seat is an expansion of the court to 11 seats. Not sure what the calculus is. If it’s unfilled, Biden will fill it. If it’s filled, he’ll expand the court. Not sure if that also depends on a senate flip, but I have a hard time believing the senate doesn’t flip during a Biden win.
- ngcazz 6y ago
  Sure. It’s just not very likely Biden will win, since Trump is a better campaigner with the EC arithmetic tilted in his favor.
- glenstein 6y ago
  It would be a proportionate and appropriate response, and hopefully restore an equilibrium in response to a constitutional crisis provoked by McConnell.
  - protomyth 6y ago
    It would be a disaster and escalate beyond reason. What one side does, the other side will do harder.
    - sukilot 6y ago
      The Republicans already take everything to 11, as a matter of stated policy, since 2008, regardless of whether the Democrats go to 10. Note that Trump and McConnell are rushing to fill the Supreme Court, despite 4 years of leaving about half the government posts vacant.

jlawson 6y ago

This is a laughable inability to distinguish between 'I don't like it' and 'it's unconstitutional and illegal', mixed with obvious massive hypocrisy. When the Republicans refused to confirm Garland, they did it fully within the processes laid out in the constitution. If the Democrats had the senate now, we can guarantee they would have blocked every Trump nominee past and future. Or do you think they would have allowed Kavanaugh through? Of course not, they tried everything to stop him, inside and outside the process. And I know you cheered their efforts. You're just being massively hypocritical. You want the Dems to block Trump nominees by any means necessary, but if elected Republicans simply use established processes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution". EDIT: Clarify garland situation, doesn't change the point.

mcphage 6y ago
> but if elected Republicans simply use votes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution". They didn’t use votes. If it had gone to vote, Garland would have been confirmed. McConnell refused to bring it to vote.
- jlawson 6y ago
  Fine - used established, legal processes.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    Confirming Supreme Court nominees is the Senate’s constitutional duty.
nscalf 6y ago
Do you know how laws are often interpreted? It's asking what is the faith and meaning of the law, NOT what is literally written in paper. This means past precedents are incredibly important for defining what a law is. Refusing to hold a vote for a nomination of a qualified supreme court justice is not against the law on paper, but it is against the meaning of the laws and the precedents of how the president interacts with the supreme court. It is not the senates job to decide if a nominee is worthy of being nominated, or if the president should make a nomination. It is their job to vote on the nominee. They did not do that.

Igelau 6y ago

> no regard for the constitution or laws of the land if they benefit from ignoring it Any American politician who appears to have such a regard 9 times out of 10 is a manipulative psychopath who is stringing you along.

refurb 6y ago

The decision to not fill a seat in an election year has nothing to do with the constitution or laws. The president nominates and senate confirms.

gdubs 6y ago
I find this “thems the laws” theme in this thread pretty outrageous. Congress used run on decorum, arcane rules, and norms. Those norms were thrown out the window when the Senate refused to even have a hearing on Merrick Garland. Arguably, they had a legal requirement to do at least that. But now we’re supposed to pretend that “rules are rules”, and this is all totally normal.
- refurb 6y ago
  I was specifically replying to the comment "they aren't following the constitution or laws". Sure, it may be very hypocritical to fill the seat before the election, but has politics not been hypocritical? And in "norms", the refusal to have a hearing on Merrick Garland is not the first example. Congress flouting "norms" goes back centuries.

dvrendal 6y ago

Precedent doesn't mean anything because what happened wasn't a legal ruling. None of the rules changed. Senate acted the way it was allowed to and will act the way it is allowed to now as well to get our guy in and keep their guy out.