Republicans: When would Scalia have had to die?

[SteveRogers]

July 27, 2015.

Your rules.

Link

Something someone arbitrarily says is not a rule just because they said it and you find it useful in an argument later on. He wasn't even majority leader back then, and that """rule""" never even came to pass.

What makes a rule at least for arguments sake is some sort of rule a decision-making politician (eg majority leader) makes and actually executes. Mitch McConnell's rule is an actual rule because he actually put it into play & denied a president the chance to fill a seat, and was in a position to do so in the first place. Likewise, just because Burr suggested he wouldn't confirm any SCOTUS nominees from Clinton doesn't make that the "Burr Rule" unless they actually deny a real President Clinton a chance to fill an actual opening for the duration of her presidency.

Otherwise you have no proof that these things would have escalated from political rhetoric to actual policy. You know better than this krazen. Stop being disingenuous for once.

Schumer was 3rd or 4th in leadership at the time. And he was very high profile being the Senator from New York, he had featured prominently in the immigration debates in 2006 and 2007 and he had just come off a very successful term as DSCC chair during which they regained the Senate. So yea, not majority leader but he was in a position of strong influence.

There is a valid point in what Krazen is saying and that is for 20 years, it was Democrats throwing around the idea of blocking justices for the Supreme Court be it Biden in 1992 or Schumer in 2007. This doesn't come out of nowhere. It is not just some random Senator, each time it is a high profile Senator in Judiciary related matters. There was a reason for this and that is because post Casey, there was an understanding of just how close they had come, and if Bush got to replace Blackmun; or if Bush 43 got to replace Stevens, it would be the apocalypse. If either had happened, I haven't the slightest doubt that those Senators and most of the left-wing Democratic Senators at the time would have burned down the Senate rather then let a 5th anti-Roe vote on the court.

As I see it, the abortion issue has nearly completely corrupted the Supreme Court and the confirmation process to the point that either side trying to claim a position of credibility, is rather hollow at best, because both sides at different times reach the point of view of being willing to do anything to achieve their ultimate victory.

None of those Democrats ever at any point suggested that a SCOTUS nominee shouldn’t even get a hearing.

[SteveRogers]

July 27, 2015.

Your rules.

Link

Something someone arbitrarily says is not a rule just because they said it and you find it useful in an argument later on. He wasn't even majority leader back then, and that """rule""" never even came to pass.

What makes a rule at least for arguments sake is some sort of rule a decision-making politician (eg majority leader) makes and actually executes. Mitch McConnell's rule is an actual rule because he actually put it into play & denied a president the chance to fill a seat, and was in a position to do so in the first place. Likewise, just because Burr suggested he wouldn't confirm any SCOTUS nominees from Clinton doesn't make that the "Burr Rule" unless they actually deny a real President Clinton a chance to fill an actual opening for the duration of her presidency.

Otherwise you have no proof that these things would have escalated from political rhetoric to actual policy. You know better than this krazen. Stop being disingenuous for once.

Schumer was 3rd or 4th in leadership at the time. And he was very high profile being the Senator from New York, he had featured prominently in the immigration debates in 2006 and 2007 and he had just come off a very successful term as DSCC chair during which they regained the Senate. So yea, not majority leader but he was in a position of strong influence.

There is a valid point in what Krazen is saying and that is for 20 years, it was Democrats throwing around the idea of blocking justices for the Supreme Court be it Biden in 1992 or Schumer in 2007. This doesn't come out of nowhere. It is not just some random Senator, each time it is a high profile Senator in Judiciary related matters. There was a reason for this and that is because post Casey, there was an understanding of just how close they had come, and if Bush got to replace Blackmun; or if Bush 43 got to replace Stevens, it would be the apocalypse. If either had happened, I haven't the slightest doubt that those Senators and most of the left-wing Democratic Senators at the time would have burned down the Senate rather then let a 5th anti-Roe vote on the court.

As I see it, the abortion issue has nearly completely corrupted the Supreme Court and the confirmation process to the point that either side trying to claim a position of credibility, is rather hollow at best, because both sides at different times reach the point of view of being willing to do anything to achieve their ultimate victory.

None of those Democrats ever at any point suggested that a SCOTUS nominee shouldn’t even get a hearing.

You mean outside of pledging to scuttle the nomination however possible? Because that definitely sounds like a suggestion to deny hearings to me.

They didn’t say that either