Millhiser: Sotomayor and Kagan must retire now.

[Del Tachi]

Prior to 2016, Democrats would have never had the balls to outright refuse to confirm any nominee of a president and hold open a seat for a whole year. And if they had somehow found that courage, they wouldn't have dropped that phony, made-up precedent literally just 4 years later and confirmed a justice anyway.

Would they play hardball today? Yes. The floodgates have been opened. Too bad they didn't back in 1988 when they confirmed Kennedy during an election year.

I get you have to spin these hypotheticals to keep your fantasy alive that Democrats are always the morally superior party, but there's absolutely no evidence for what you say.  Do you seriously think Harry Reid would have sat back and let George W. Bush appoint John Paul Stevens' replacement had he died in 2008?

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Prior to 2016, Democrats would have never had the balls to outright refuse to confirm any nominee of a president and hold open a seat for a whole year. And if they had somehow found that courage, they wouldn't have dropped that phony, made-up precedent literally just 4 years later and confirmed a justice anyway.

Would they play hardball today? Yes. The floodgates have been opened. Too bad they didn't back in 1988 when they confirmed Kennedy during an election year.

I get you have to spin these hypotheticals to keep your fantasy alive that Democrats are always the morally superior party, but there's absolutely no evidence for what you say.  Do you seriously think Harry Reid would have sat back and let George W. Bush appoint John Paul Stevens' replacement had he died in 2008?

Hell let's check what the current president had to say:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635

[TheTide]

I think of them as being fairly young, or at least new, Justices. Maybe because they were appointed after I became interested in U.S. politics. Thomas, Alito and Roberts were all on the Court prior to that point. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

Prior to 2016, Democrats would have never had the balls to outright refuse to confirm any nominee of a president and hold open a seat for a whole year. And if they had somehow found that courage, they wouldn't have dropped that phony, made-up precedent literally just 4 years later and confirmed a justice anyway.

Would they play hardball today? Yes. The floodgates have been opened. Too bad they didn't back in 1988 when they confirmed Kennedy during an election year.

I get you have to spin these hypotheticals to keep your fantasy alive that Democrats are always the morally superior party, but there's absolutely no evidence for what you say.  Do you seriously think Harry Reid would have sat back and let George W. Bush appoint John Paul Stevens' replacement had he died in 2008?

Hell let's check what the current president had to say:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635

Yes, let’s check what he had to say:

The clips and quotes Republicans seized on, however, ignored a passage buried deep in the transcript where Biden called for a “compromise” pick, much as he’s done in the past week.


“I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,”
Biden also said at the time.

“If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter. But if he does not, as is the President’s right, then I will oppose his future nominees as is my right.”

Merrick Garland was a perfectly dull centrist nominee. Both you and DT know this—you can stop being hacks.

[freepcrusher]

Prior to 2016, Democrats would have never had the balls to outright refuse to confirm any nominee of a president and hold open a seat for a whole year. And if they had somehow found that courage, they wouldn't have dropped that phony, made-up precedent literally just 4 years later and confirmed a justice anyway.

Would they play hardball today? Yes. The floodgates have been opened. Too bad they didn't back in 1988 when they confirmed Kennedy during an election year.

I get you have to spin these hypotheticals to keep your fantasy alive that Democrats are always the morally superior party, but there's absolutely no evidence for what you say.  Do you seriously think Harry Reid would have sat back and let George W. Bush appoint John Paul Stevens' replacement had he died in 2008?

democrat senates confirmed 12 republican appointed scotus judges from 1955 to 1991. The last time an R senate did for a dem president did was in 1895. What's your retort now?

[Del Tachi]

Prior to 2016, Democrats would have never had the balls to outright refuse to confirm any nominee of a president and hold open a seat for a whole year. And if they had somehow found that courage, they wouldn't have dropped that phony, made-up precedent literally just 4 years later and confirmed a justice anyway.

Would they play hardball today? Yes. The floodgates have been opened. Too bad they didn't back in 1988 when they confirmed Kennedy during an election year.

I get you have to spin these hypotheticals to keep your fantasy alive that Democrats are always the morally superior party, but there's absolutely no evidence for what you say.  Do you seriously think Harry Reid would have sat back and let George W. Bush appoint John Paul Stevens' replacement had he died in 2008?

democrat senates confirmed 12 republican appointed scotus judges from 1955 to 1991. The last time an R senate did for a dem president did was in 1895. What's your retort now?

My retort is that it was 20th century liberals and progressives who openly embraced an activist judicial philosophy that politicized the court and got us to where we are today.   

[Skill and Chance]

Prior to 2016, Democrats would have never had the balls to outright refuse to confirm any nominee of a president and hold open a seat for a whole year. And if they had somehow found that courage, they wouldn't have dropped that phony, made-up precedent literally just 4 years later and confirmed a justice anyway.

Would they play hardball today? Yes. The floodgates have been opened. Too bad they didn't back in 1988 when they confirmed Kennedy during an election year.

I get you have to spin these hypotheticals to keep your fantasy alive that Democrats are always the morally superior party, but there's absolutely no evidence for what you say.  Do you seriously think Harry Reid would have sat back and let George W. Bush appoint John Paul Stevens' replacement had he died in 2008?

democrat senates confirmed 12 republican appointed scotus judges from 1955 to 1991. The last time an R senate did for a dem president did was in 1895. What's your retort now?

They voted down several judges seen as too socially conservative during that period and confirmed compromise nominees only after having direct input on who would be selected.

The counterfactual here for a fair comparison would be something like Obama withdrawing Garland and then nominating John Bel Edwards for Scalia's seat in 2016 after a lengthy meeting with swing state Republicans.   

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Prior to 2016, Democrats would have never had the balls to outright refuse to confirm any nominee of a president and hold open a seat for a whole year. And if they had somehow found that courage, they wouldn't have dropped that phony, made-up precedent literally just 4 years later and confirmed a justice anyway.

Would they play hardball today? Yes. The floodgates have been opened. Too bad they didn't back in 1988 when they confirmed Kennedy during an election year.

I get you have to spin these hypotheticals to keep your fantasy alive that Democrats are always the morally superior party, but there's absolutely no evidence for what you say.  Do you seriously think Harry Reid would have sat back and let George W. Bush appoint John Paul Stevens' replacement had he died in 2008?

democrat senates confirmed 12 republican appointed scotus judges from 1955 to 1991. The last time an R senate did for a dem president did was in 1895. What's your retort now?

years with a R senate and D president since 1895:
1895–1897
1919–1921
1947–1949
1995-2001
2015–2017

[SuzerainOfSwat]

Jesus Christ, this thread is a doomer circle jerk. Type 1 diabetes isn’t a death sentence, and Sotomayor seems to be in good health.

We have a 6-3 right wing majority that has already taken away women's rights and people are still talking about "doomers".

“Women’s rights”

[freepcrusher]

Prior to 2016, Democrats would have never had the balls to outright refuse to confirm any nominee of a president and hold open a seat for a whole year. And if they had somehow found that courage, they wouldn't have dropped that phony, made-up precedent literally just 4 years later and confirmed a justice anyway.

Would they play hardball today? Yes. The floodgates have been opened. Too bad they didn't back in 1988 when they confirmed Kennedy during an election year.

I get you have to spin these hypotheticals to keep your fantasy alive that Democrats are always the morally superior party, but there's absolutely no evidence for what you say.  Do you seriously think Harry Reid would have sat back and let George W. Bush appoint John Paul Stevens' replacement had he died in 2008?

democrat senates confirmed 12 republican appointed scotus judges from 1955 to 1991. The last time an R senate did for a dem president did was in 1895. What's your retort now?

My retort is that it was 20th century liberals and progressives who openly embraced an activist judicial philosophy that politicized the court and got us to where we are today.   

that's not an answer and you know it. Eight of those twelve I mentioned happened after the warren court. So the democrats/left acted in good faith. You don't get to just close the door once you get in or however the metaphor goes.

[It’s so Joever]

Jesus Christ, this thread is a doomer circle jerk. Type 1 diabetes isn’t a death sentence, and Sotomayor seems to be in good health.

Forgive him, Snowlab has yet to unlock the insulin technology. He probably needs to grind out some more research points first.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Prior to 2016, Democrats would have never had the balls to outright refuse to confirm any nominee of a president and hold open a seat for a whole year. And if they had somehow found that courage, they wouldn't have dropped that phony, made-up precedent literally just 4 years later and confirmed a justice anyway.

Would they play hardball today? Yes. The floodgates have been opened. Too bad they didn't back in 1988 when they confirmed Kennedy during an election year.

I get you have to spin these hypotheticals to keep your fantasy alive that Democrats are always the morally superior party, but there's absolutely no evidence for what you say.  Do you seriously think Harry Reid would have sat back and let George W. Bush appoint John Paul Stevens' replacement had he died in 2008?

democrat senates confirmed 12 republican appointed scotus judges from 1955 to 1991. The last time an R senate did for a dem president did was in 1895. What's your retort now?

My retort is that it was 20th century liberals and progressives who openly embraced an activist judicial philosophy that politicized the court and got us to where we are today.   

The Court has always been politicized.

[7,052,770]

Does anyone on the Democratic side still doubt that at least Sotomayor needs to step down? The odds that she is eventually replaced by a conservative are pretty high if she doesn't.