4 ms·

I read it. The last time was over 150 years ago. Stop pretending this is a common occurrence.

• rayiner 6y ago
  It's not "common" because election-year Supreme Court vacancies where different parties control the Senate and Presidency are "not common." Republicans filibustered the nominee when LBJ sought to appoint Warren's replacement, leading to Warren not retiring. Then before that, Eisenhower, a Republican, got an election year nomination through by nominating a Democrat. Then you're back in the 1800s. But we routinely look back to the 1800s to establish what is accepted practice in our government.
  • jakelazaroff 6y ago
    > It's not "common" because election-year Supreme Court vacancies where different parties control the Senate and Presidency are "not common." The number of qualifications needed in order to establish this "precedent" should tip you off that it's manufactured expressly to gain a political advantage.
    • rayiner 6y ago
      The "qualifications" come from the appointment and confirmation process itself. The Constitution splits the job of filling Supreme Court vacancies between the two political branches of government. The fact that the process can become political where different parties control those two branches in an election year is utterly unsurprising.
      • jakelazaroff 6y ago
        > The fact that the process can become political where different parties control those two branches in an election year is utterly unsurprising. Correct, no one is actually surprised that Mitch McConnell abandoned the flimsy justification for his power grab the instant it outlived its use to him.
        • zaroth 6y ago
          How is doing something exactly as it’s spelled out in the Constitution a “power grab”? Alternatively, McConnell could have called the vote and the Republican majority in the Senate could have just voted it down. Pre-nuclear option (an actual example of a power grab) even a minority of Senators could stop a nominee from getting through. The Republicans had a majority.
          • _qulr 6y ago
            > Alternatively, McConnell could have called the vote and the Republican majority in the Senate could have just voted it down. It can't be assumed that there wouldn't be Republican defections on a Garland confirmation. This is exactly the reason the majority leader refused to allow a vote. Even now, a number of Republican Senators have already "defected" and declared they won't vote on a nominee before the 2021 inauguration.
          • aaronblohowiak 6y ago
            They should have voted on it!
  • _qulr 6y ago
    > But we routinely look back to the 1800s to establish what is accepted practice in our government. Routinely?
    • rayiner 6y ago
      Yes. In fact, the usual presumption is the opposite. The closer in time to the adoption of the constitution we can trace some pattern (or in the case of a law to enactment of the law) that is more persuasive. If the generation that wrote the constitution engaged in this political gamesmanship (and they did) that strongly suggests they understood such conduct was permissible within the framework they created.
      • _qulr 6y ago
        > The closer in time to the adoption of the constitution we can trace some pattern (or in the case of a law to enactment of the law) that is more persuasive. This sounds a lot like "originalism", which is controversial at best.
  • jgwil2 6y ago
    You, I and everyone else knows that this was a pretext, not a precedent. You can dress it up however you like, but the fact is that McConnell was going to do whatever he wanted no matter what.
  • woopwoop 6y ago
    Come on. Kennedy was confirmed in November of the year before the election.
    • rayiner 6y ago
      On the third try to fill a vacancy that opened up in a non election year.
      • woopwoop 6y ago
        Again: come on.