3 ms·

> It's not "common" because election-year Supreme Court vacancies where different parties control the Senate and Presidency are "not common." The number of qua

> 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!

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!