10 ms·

McConnell immediately clarified his position was "the Senate shouldn't consider a nomination in an election year if it's controlled by my party and the presiden

McConnell immediately clarified his position was "the Senate shouldn't consider a nomination in an election year if it's controlled by my party and the president isn't in my party" -- no kidding, this was his actual clarification.

treeman79 6y ago
Honest at least.
pandaman 6y ago
And he just cited the position Joseph Biden asserted in 1992, no kidding: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-arg...
- rayiner 6y ago
  Biden didn’t just suggest the idea, he was also citing historical practice!
- matthewbauer 6y ago
  Biden's speech was just saying that the nomination shouldn't happen during an election. I don't think he ever said it couldn't happen during a lame duck session of the Senate.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    Let’s be clear. A lame duck is one that has been shot, is still in flight, but is headed down. In politics, it refers to after a sitting representative loses an election (or term limit ends) but before before the term ends. Obama was not a lame duck when Scalia died. McConnell et al redefined the term to suit their needs. As they will no doubt redefine it now.
  - pandaman 6y ago
    He was just saying that the nomination should not happen during an election year and then he expands that he won't consider conservative nominees from the conservative i.e. different party president. It's just 4 minute video of several speech fragments, does not take long to watch and be informed.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  So we are in agreement. Trump should not appoint.
- sukilot 6y ago
  June 1992, quite a bit ways past February. There's always another election coming up.
hajile 6y ago
Source? (Not saying you're wrong. If I repeat something, I like to have direct sources)
- sp332 6y ago
  https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-2020/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supr...
- blake1 6y ago
  https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mcconnell-statement-on-the-passing-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-relea... He’s basically that the partisan makeup of the Senate as of the most recent election should be the controlling factor. It has the veneer of a neutral rule, and that’s all they need.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    you forgot "and is after 1890" since he is ignoring the contradictory cases before then.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  He tweeted it today https://mobile.twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1307121192516628480 https://mobile.twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1307121192516...
rayiner 6y ago
That is, in fact, the actual practice. The constitution splits the appointment between the presidency and the senate. When the same party controls both, vacancies are filled immediately. Otherwise, the party controlling the senate can exercise its heckler’s veto: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid... What happened with Garland had happened numerous times before: > In short: There have been ten vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination when the president and Senate were from opposite parties. In six of the ten cases, a nomination was made before Election Day. Only one of those, Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s nomination by Grover Cleveland in 1888, was confirmed before the election. By contrast, if Trump doesn’t put up a nominee, it will be literally unprecedented.
- rectang 6y ago
  The proper response to this cynical argument is to pack the court.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    How is it “cynical” to point out that where a split senate/presidency exists in an election year, the senate has historically used its confirmation authority to postpone filling the vacancy? And the response is to demand something that actually would be unprecedented: packing the senate? Which only Democrats have done before, under circumstances where it was obviously to coerce the Supreme Court into deciding cases differently. Acting like Democrats hold the moral high ground here is utterly absurd.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      So if norms don't matter (as you, McConnel, and Trump seem to argue), the Democrats ought to pack the court, no?
      - nwienert 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
non-entity 6y ago
At least he's honest about it.
draw_down 6y ago
Guys, politicians care about POWER. Not your little “well what about this” gotchas or airy ideals of evenhandedness and fair play, power. Power power power.
happythomist 6y ago
What's so surprising about that? It's not so much a "rule" as a statement of political fact. Now that Supreme Court has become a de facto legislative body, no nominee has a chance of getting through when the presidency and Senate are not controlled by the same party. The reality is that if we had a Democratic President and Senate, nobody on the left would be arguing that we have to hold off until the election. Chuck Schumer would no doubt be insisting that the Senate "do [its] job", as he did in 2016. [1] It's hard to fault McConnell for doing precisely what he was elected to do -- confirm conservative judges and justices. [1] https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/701953299268902912 https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/701953299268902912
cm2187 6y ago
I don't know that in the current political climate, the democrats would extend the same courtesy if it happened under their control of the Senate and White House.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  Lately I see a lot of people saying things like “this particular example of real behavior is bad and conflicts with my values so should be electorally punished, but my mental model of the other side tells me that they would probably do the same thing if they hypothetically got the opportunity, and so I’m not going to uphold my values.”
  - intended 6y ago
    I’m surprised that most people in america didn’t see this coming. It’s been clear that “winning” has been the strategy for the republicans and they’ve been doing it consistently for decades now. They’ve shown up at elections, they’ve shown up for local elections, they’ve worked for every single advantage in power they could get. I mean these are the chaps who suffered a massive electoral defeat to Obama the first time and found their mettle by saying “one term president” like a mantra. They converted that into a fight for every micro meter. Eventually anyone m would also realize that “winning” (at all costs) is the strategy that works and adopt it. The best strategies get adopted by market players. The media environment for the past many decades now ensures that bipartisanship won’t work either. Maybe it’s an incorrect cultural reading on my part,
    - cm2187 6y ago
      I don’t disagree with your characterisation, but I do disagree with the idea that it is republicans alone. Unfortunately this has been the way both parties have operated for a long time. The democrats have also done their fair share of abuse of power just in the last 4 years.
      - intended 6y ago

treeman79 6y ago

Honest at least.

pandaman 6y ago

And he just cited the position Joseph Biden asserted in 1992, no kidding: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-arg...

rayiner 6y ago
Biden didn’t just suggest the idea, he was also citing historical practice!
matthewbauer 6y ago
Biden's speech was just saying that the nomination shouldn't happen during an election. I don't think he ever said it couldn't happen during a lame duck session of the Senate.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Let’s be clear. A lame duck is one that has been shot, is still in flight, but is headed down. In politics, it refers to after a sitting representative loses an election (or term limit ends) but before before the term ends. Obama was not a lame duck when Scalia died. McConnell et al redefined the term to suit their needs. As they will no doubt redefine it now.
- pandaman 6y ago
  He was just saying that the nomination should not happen during an election year and then he expands that he won't consider conservative nominees from the conservative i.e. different party president. It's just 4 minute video of several speech fragments, does not take long to watch and be informed.
Hnrobert42 6y ago
So we are in agreement. Trump should not appoint.
sukilot 6y ago
June 1992, quite a bit ways past February. There's always another election coming up.

hajile 6y ago

Source? (Not saying you're wrong. If I repeat something, I like to have direct sources)

sp332 6y ago
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-2020/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supr...
blake1 6y ago
https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mcconnell-statement-on-the-passing-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-relea... He’s basically that the partisan makeup of the Senate as of the most recent election should be the controlling factor. It has the veneer of a neutral rule, and that’s all they need.
- sukilot 6y ago
  you forgot "and is after 1890" since he is ignoring the contradictory cases before then.
cortesoft 6y ago
He tweeted it today https://mobile.twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1307121192516628480 https://mobile.twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1307121192516...

rayiner 6y ago

That is, in fact, the actual practice. The constitution splits the appointment between the presidency and the senate. When the same party controls both, vacancies are filled immediately. Otherwise, the party controlling the senate can exercise its heckler’s veto: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid... What happened with Garland had happened numerous times before: > In short: There have been ten vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination when the president and Senate were from opposite parties. In six of the ten cases, a nomination was made before Election Day. Only one of those, Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s nomination by Grover Cleveland in 1888, was confirmed before the election. By contrast, if Trump doesn’t put up a nominee, it will be literally unprecedented.

rectang 6y ago
The proper response to this cynical argument is to pack the court.
- rayiner 6y ago
  How is it “cynical” to point out that where a split senate/presidency exists in an election year, the senate has historically used its confirmation authority to postpone filling the vacancy? And the response is to demand something that actually would be unprecedented: packing the senate? Which only Democrats have done before, under circumstances where it was obviously to coerce the Supreme Court into deciding cases differently. Acting like Democrats hold the moral high ground here is utterly absurd.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    So if norms don't matter (as you, McConnel, and Trump seem to argue), the Democrats ought to pack the court, no?
    - nwienert 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

non-entity 6y ago

At least he's honest about it.

draw_down 6y ago

Guys, politicians care about POWER. Not your little “well what about this” gotchas or airy ideals of evenhandedness and fair play, power. Power power power.

happythomist 6y ago

What's so surprising about that? It's not so much a "rule" as a statement of political fact. Now that Supreme Court has become a de facto legislative body, no nominee has a chance of getting through when the presidency and Senate are not controlled by the same party. The reality is that if we had a Democratic President and Senate, nobody on the left would be arguing that we have to hold off until the election. Chuck Schumer would no doubt be insisting that the Senate "do [its] job", as he did in 2016. [1] It's hard to fault McConnell for doing precisely what he was elected to do -- confirm conservative judges and justices. [1] https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/701953299268902912 https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/701953299268902912

cm2187 6y ago

I don't know that in the current political climate, the democrats would extend the same courtesy if it happened under their control of the Senate and White House.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
Lately I see a lot of people saying things like “this particular example of real behavior is bad and conflicts with my values so should be electorally punished, but my mental model of the other side tells me that they would probably do the same thing if they hypothetically got the opportunity, and so I’m not going to uphold my values.”
- intended 6y ago
  I’m surprised that most people in america didn’t see this coming. It’s been clear that “winning” has been the strategy for the republicans and they’ve been doing it consistently for decades now. They’ve shown up at elections, they’ve shown up for local elections, they’ve worked for every single advantage in power they could get. I mean these are the chaps who suffered a massive electoral defeat to Obama the first time and found their mettle by saying “one term president” like a mantra. They converted that into a fight for every micro meter. Eventually anyone m would also realize that “winning” (at all costs) is the strategy that works and adopt it. The best strategies get adopted by market players. The media environment for the past many decades now ensures that bipartisanship won’t work either. Maybe it’s an incorrect cultural reading on my part,
  - cm2187 6y ago
    I don’t disagree with your characterisation, but I do disagree with the idea that it is republicans alone. Unfortunately this has been the way both parties have operated for a long time. The democrats have also done their fair share of abuse of power just in the last 4 years.
    - intended 6y ago