Republicans: When would Scalia have had to die?

[Indy Texas]

Mitch McConnell said there is no hypocrisy in demanding a vote to replace Kennedy immediately because we are not in the "final months" of an outgoing president's administration.

So what qualifies as final months?

Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016 -- over 11 months before the next president would take office.

If he had died on December 31, 2015, would you have agreed to let Obama nominate someone? If not, when?

[krazen1211]

July 27, 2015.

Your rules.

Link

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The rule is Republicans were the majority so they can do whatever they want.

[Indy Texas]

The rule is Republicans were the majority so they can do whatever they want.

So do you agree that from now on, going forward, presidents can only confirm judges if their party has a majority in the Senate?

[Virginiá]

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.

[TJ in Oregon]

The rule is Republicans were the majority so they can do whatever they want.

So do you agree that from now on, going forward, presidents can only confirm judges if their party has a majority in the Senate?

The rule going forward is that whoever has the votes makes the decision. I can't believe it worked either, yet here we are.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It will serve Leader McConnell right if Dems win back the Senate after he Rams this judge through and he becomes Minority Leader and Grimes win Gov and he loses to Beshear in 2020. Look what happened to Leader Reid in 2014 after he rammed Obama's picks through and he lost majority.

I hope the same thing happens

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[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.

[UncleSam]

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.

[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

[Badger]

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.

Virginia, if the mods aren't going to ban Krazy like they should-- and Nym even said he would if krazen continue trolling after return from his one-year ban--at least do us the favor of not feeding the troll.

Or, did I just fall into the same trap by so responding to this post...?

[Badger]

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.

Free go too deep down the road of Democrats supposedly "throwing around" the idea of blocking Supreme Court justices During the period you describe, the only Justices who faced a serious confirmation fights through the Obama presidency were bork and Thomas.  opposition to both is well-born out by history. Perhaps if Republicans nominated such boober ideological right-wingers, such opposition wouldn't have materialized.

To compare the anything--but Unified opposition to either Alito or Roberts and not raising a filibuster to either to a relative Centrist nominee  like Garland never even being brought before the Judiciary committee, let alone the senate floor, for consideration, let alone a vote, is the mother of all false equivalencies.

And before you try false equivalencies, nominees such as Ginsberg and Meier withdrew of their own accord in the face of quite bipartisan pressure after skeletons in their closet came to light.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The Senate gets EQUAL say in the confirmation of a SCOTUS justice as the president.  If the vacancy had been a year earlier, we might have just voted several straight nominees down and told him we wouldn't confirm a justice that supported Roe v. Wade.

[twenty42]

The rule is Republicans were the majority so they can do whatever they want.

So do you agree that from now on, going forward, presidents can only confirm judges if their party has a majority in the Senate?

If you actually had the permanent majority you speak of, it wouldn’t have been an issue. Dems would’ve won in 2014 like Dems are supposed to win every election, you could’ve gotten your court pick.

Doubly hilarious how Ginsberg believed the same BS, which is going to cost you yet another spot on the court.

[Virginiá]

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.

I'm not saying that Democrats are innocent in their rhetoric but you can't just start taking people's words and calling them "rules" whenever they say something stupid or troublesome. They have to actually do something to put that into effect, otherwise it's just them blowing hot air out of their face. Would Democrats have blocked a Republican president their right to fill a seat? There is a chance, sure, but we don't know that for sure because it never happened. They never changed Senate rules nor did they actually block any scotus nominee at any point.

So I still stand by what I said.

[krazen1211]

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.

The statement was not made in an arbitrary manner.

Senator Schumer went to the ACS meeting and planned out his statements and make them unprovoked despite the fact that there was no such vacancy.

You are trying to claim that Senator Schumer is engaging in bluster and boasting and locker room talk. But he has no history of such. More likely he said what he meant and he meant what he said when he said it.

[krazen1211]

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.

Sheldon Whitehouse was on record applying the Schumer rule to the Rhode Island seat on the first circuit. He decided he didn't like W and held the seat open.


Success creates copycats.

[Virginiá]

The statement was not made in an arbitrary manner.

Senator Schumer went to the ACS meeting and planned out his statements and make them unprovoked despite the fact that there was no such vacancy.

You are trying to claim that Senator Schumer is engaging in bluster and boasting and locker room talk. But he has no history of such. More likely he said what he meant and he meant what he said when he said it.

Again, you're essentially trying to predict the outcome of an alternate reality scenario using rhetoric from a lawmaker who was in leadership at the time but not even the one with the final say. You can say whatever you want, but you have no idea what would have happened had a spot opened up between Jan 2007 - end of 2009. You can keep throwing whatever excuses or justifications you want, but you can't state the outcome of a what-if that never happened.

And that is my point. You guys keep latching onto all these politicians words to justify the behavior of your party, and it's a pretty weak defense. It's completely based on hypotheticals that you can't prove because they never happened. You can keep talking, posting links and offering up generously-seasoned prime cuts of bullsh**t, but it'll never make your defense anything more than a what-if based on the rhetoric of a politician who was not even majority leader at the time.

That is really all I have to say about this.

[krazen1211]

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

Yes, the Biden rule of 1992 stated that the Senate should deny hearings until after the 1992 election.

The Senate of 1980 confirmed a fellow named Stephen Breyer to the 1st Circuit Court in November 1980.....after the Democrat party was routed in the 1980 election.  Very nice!

Does anyone think the Democrat controlled 1992 Senate would have confirmed a nomination in November 1992 after finally winning a national election for a change? No way.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The fact that my post has been thoroughly misread and words placed in my mouth and narratives spun about my post by people who have known me for a long time and frankly should know better, I think is illustrative of my underlying point.

The supreme court has been turned into boxing match and you are either on side or the other. Well I refuse to play this bs game any longer and I thought I made myself clear.

Perhaps my memory is fading, but I do recall saying either on AAD or here at the time that Garland should have been given a hearing. Yet I am somehow justifying a decision to not do so? lol. Perhaps categorization is a form of a denial?

What I am trying to tell you is that both sides are just going to keep using the other's transgressions either real or imagined until this thing blows up in our faces. "Well I only broke the window, but you guys actually stole the merchandise, that's completely different". So you are a vandal that degraded the sanctity of the store owner's property rights. but that cannot possibly have any direct or indirect relationship when those people jump threw the broken window and rob the joint.

I started with History and then got into politics. I see the lines, the flows, the causation long before I ever consider personal ideology. This two, gets combined with that three and makes a five.  95% of my posts are analysis along these lines, not personal opinions.
 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

Yes, the Biden rule of 1992 stated that the Senate should deny hearings until after the 1992 election.

The Senate of 1980 confirmed a fellow named Stephen Breyer to the 1st Circuit Court in November 1980.....after the Democrat party was routed in the 1980 election.  Very nice!

Does anyone think the Democrat controlled 1992 Senate would have confirmed a nomination in November 1992 after finally winning a national election for a change? No way.

Joe Biden gave consent to several Bush nominees after that speech.

[America Needs R'hllor]

WARNING, AMERICAN PATRIOTS!
The LIBERAL fake news media and the SOROS-FUNDED Indy Texas is trying to fool all you good folks! If ya tell them when would Scalia have to die, they will use the JEWISH TECHNOLOGY to go back in time, and KILL JUSTICE SCALIA before they did in our timeline! WE CAN'T LET THE LIBERALS TAKE OVER THE COURTS AND MAKE US ALL PERFORM A GAY ABORTION!

[krazen1211]

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

No hearings is a means play, not and end play. There were many means for Chuck Schumer to enforce the Schumer rule. Hearings are historically not necessary or proper for a nominee and are a recent phenomenon.

For example, he could have deployed his media to use Maxine Waters style tactics to intimidate, harass, and threaten the nominee and his/her families.

Alternatively, the Schumer rule could have been enforced by simply dissolving the vacant seat on the Supreme Court and reviving it on January 20, 2009. That is what the Democrats did to a seat on the DC circuit because they didn't like then current President.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Any retribution that Republicans want over Bush's supreme court appointees, is irrelevant at this point in time. Bush's picks had their hearings and they were seated. It doesn't matter what the senate went through in between. Obama and Garland were cheated. It isn't any more complicated than that, no matter how much Republicans try to rationalize it.