Even if Dems refused to confirm Trumps SCOTUS pick, which they can’t because they don’t have a senate majority, it wouldn’t be a flip-flop. Not even close.
By any and all measures, forcing a selection through 40 days from an election is unheard of and idiotic. No confirmation can be sufficiently vetted in that amount of time, let alone chosen and confirmed.
I've been consistent all along: the GOP is not living up to their rhetoric from 2016. No doubt.
The claim that I am making (with a lot of mental gymnastics as the only response), is that the Democrats were fine in concept with an election year nomination in 2016, and now they are NOT fine with an election year nomination.
2016: fine with the concept
2020: not fine with the concept.
I'm not sure such a simple statement of fact is particularly controversial. And recognizing it seems to be the opposite of obtuse.
2016: fine with the concept because that was the rule/norm at the time 2016: Republicans change the rule/norm
2020: not fine with the concept because apparently it is no longer the rule/norm.
It is not a simple statement of fact because it leaves out the most important fact relevant to the entire discussion.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Its a good question. I always assumed it was because there would have still been sufficient time for Obama to nominate a replacement (even more than one replacement) before the election and that eventually the political pressure to approve one of the nominees would become too strong? I don't know though. Is there a precedent in US history where a Senate just refused to approve any of a President's nominees for the Supreme Court bench?
No precedent. What McConnell did was unheard of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
I've been consistent all along: the GOP is not living up to their rhetoric from 2016. No doubt.
The claim that I am making (with a lot of mental gymnastics as the only response), is that the Democrats were fine in concept with an election year nomination in 2016, and now they are NOT fine with an election year nomination.
2016: fine with the concept
2020: not fine with the concept.
I'm not sure such a simple statement of fact is particularly controversial. And recognizing it seems to be the opposite of obtuse.
It’s not a “concept”. In one case we were 9 months from an election. Nine. Months. That’s a long goddamn time to go without a SCOTUS pick, let alone for Moscow Mitch to delay even longer.
In 2020 we’re talking 47 days. That’s 1.5 months. That would be, correct me if I’m wrong New Era, the shortest time for confirmation in the nations history.
See Bo, 47 days is approximately 223 days less than 270 days. That’s because they represent different periods of time. 47 days very short time for SCOTUS pick. 270 days very long time for SCOTUS pick. Clear yeah?
You continually refusing to acknowledge that 47 days is much, much less time than 270 days makes you obtuse, a troll or a massive ####ing idiot who can’t do basic math or comprehend a concept that even my four year old nephew can figure out.
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 09-20-2020 at 07:24 PM.
Its a good question. I always assumed it was because there would have still been sufficient time for Obama to nominate a replacement (even more than one replacement) before the election and that eventually the political pressure to approve one of the nominees would become too strong? I don't know though. Is there a precedent in US history where a Senate just refused to approve any of a President's nominees for the Supreme Court bench?
I think Garland was, by far, the longest nominee without a confirmation vote.
It's very uncommon for a senate to confirm the nomination when the president is from another party [edit: in an election year]. I think the last time was in the 19th century or something like that. Obama was playing a political game with the nomination, just like the GOP played a game by ignoring it. I don't think either side thought that Trump would win at that point.
That's why comparing 2016 to today is a bit misguided, as it was a fundamentally different situation. History has shown that the parties will behave basically the same as each other when they are faced with either situation.
I've been consistent all along: the GOP is not living up to their rhetoric from 2016. No doubt.
The claim that I am making (with a lot of mental gymnastics as the only response), is that the Democrats were fine in concept with an election year nomination in 2016, and now they are NOT fine with an election year nomination.
2016: fine with the concept
2020: not fine with the concept.
I'm not sure such a simple statement of fact is particularly controversial. And recognizing it seems to be the opposite of obtuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
Not really. I think Garland was, by far, the longest nominee without a confirmation vote.
It's very uncommon for a senate to confirm the nomination when the president is from another party. I think the last time was in the 19th century or something like that. Obama was playing a political game with the nomination, just like the GOP played a game by ignoring it. I don't think either side thought that Trump would win at that point.
That's why comparing 2016 to today is a bit misguided, as it was a fundamentally different situation. History has shown that the parties will behave basically the same as each other when they are faced with either situation.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following User Says Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
I want to be sure I understand your position so please correct me if I am wrong.
You are upset at the GOP for flip-flopping on a rule that they made.
But you think it is acceptable that the Dems flip-flop on the concept of a nomination in an election year.
If I have that wrong, please clarify.
In 2012, the American people elected Barack Obama to a 2nd term, meaning he was to have all the powers that come with being US president, including the power to nominate Supreme Court nominees, for the entire 4 years (meaning the entirety of 2013-2016).
In 2016, MM made up a rule out of thin air, claiming that the Senate should not be allowed to vote on a SC nominee if the nomination was made in the final year of a presidential term. He specifically used the justification that since the election was less than a year away, the American people should have a say in whether or not the nominee should be confirmed, by going to the ballot box and choosing the next president, and then that president would make the decision. The Democrats were appalled at MM's move to essentially undermine the final portion of Obama's 2nd term, while also denying the elected Senate the opportunity to vote on the nomination. Indeed, the Democrats strongly disagreed with MM's "reasoning", as they should have. However, they were mindful of the new precedent being set.
Now in 2020, RBG has passed away, and MM's decision to bring a Trump SC nomination to the Senate floor for a vote, in extremely close proximity to a presidential election, flies directly in the face of everything he said in 2016. As such, the Democrats are asking the Republicans to have some consistency, and to hold true to the precedent that they set 4 years ago. This is not a Democrat flip flop - it's the furthest thing from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
Seems the Democrats are mostly interested in "rules" when it benefits them. I don't blame them, of course - and clearly the GOP take the same position.
Which is my point.
Wrong. Democrats are interested in precedents and norms being respected. In 2016, the norm was for SC nominees to be voted on by the Senate, regardless of whether it was the final year of a president's term. MM then brazenly changed that norm by introducing a new precedent (clearly for the benefit of he and his party). Fast forward 4 years, the Democrats once again want the established norm to be respected.
Sorry BL, you're grasping at straws to try to paint Democrats as flip floppers. They aren't (at least not in regards to this topic).
__________________
Last edited by Mathgod; 09-20-2020 at 07:39 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
2016: fine with the concept because that was the rule/norm at the time 2016: Republicans change the rule/norm
2020: not fine with the concept because apparently it is no longer the rule/norm.
It is not a simple statement of fact because it leaves out the most important fact relevant to the entire discussion.
Seems the Democrats are mostly interested in "rules" when it benefits them. I don't blame them, of course - and clearly the GOP take the same position.
Not really. I think Garland was, by far, the longest nominee without a confirmation vote.
It's very uncommon for a senate to confirm the nomination when the president is from another party. I think the last time was in the 19th century or something like that. Obama was playing a political game with the nomination, just like the GOP played a game by ignoring it. I don't think either side thought that Trump would win at that point.
That's why comparing 2016 to today is a bit misguided, as it was a fundamentally different situation. History has shown that the parties will behave basically the same as each other when they are faced with either situation.
There was a Dem. senate when Kennedy was confirmed, way back in 1987. Reagan's first two choices weren't confirmed but you're still wrong.
I think Garland was, by far, the longest nominee without a confirmation vote.
It's very uncommon for a senate to confirm the nomination when the president is from another party. I think the last time was in the 19th century or something like that. Obama was playing a political game with the nomination, just like the GOP played a game by ignoring it. I don't think either side thought that Trump would win at that point.
That's why comparing 2016 to today is a bit misguided, as it was a fundamentally different situation. History has shown that the parties will behave basically the same as each other when they are faced with either situation.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Seems the Democrats are mostly interested in "rules" when it benefits them. I don't blame them, of course - and clearly the GOP take the same position.
Which is my point.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following User Says Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
The issue is, as touched on in that talk, is that this is actually our natural state as human beings. Attempting not to be divided in this manner is fighting against our base instincts. It's an uphill struggle, and more and more people aren't really willing to spend the energy to try to fight against those instincts.
This is one of the more depressing and accurate posts on CP in a long time, unfortunately.
Wrong. Democrats are interested in precedents and norms being respected. In 2016, the norm was for SC nominees to be voted on by the Senate, regardless of whether it was the final year of a president's term. MM then brazenly changed that norm by introducing a new precedent (clearly for the benefit of he and his party). Fast forward 4 years, the Democrats once again want the established norm to be respected.
The Democrats' rhetoric then and now is to "follow the rules". That's pretty clear.
The question I have, for them, and the posters here: is it a good idea for a justice to be nominated in an election year, or not. If you could tear up the rules, and start again - if you could give Nancy Pelosi the power to write the precedent, instead of the GOP, what would you like to see her do?
I should have been more clear in my post, I didn't mean ANY justice, I meant when the vacancy happened in an election year.
Even with these incredibly narrow restrictions, you're still wrong. The Democratic Senate confirmed Ronald Regan's nominee Anthony Kennedy in an election year.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
The Democrats' rhetoric then and now is to "follow the rules". That's pretty clear.
The question I have, for them, and the posters here: is it a good idea for a justice to be nominated in an election year, or not. If you could tear up the rules, and start again - if you could give Nancy Pelosi the power to write the precedent, instead of the GOP, what would you like to see her do?
I don't think it's reasonable to limit presidential powers just because it is an election year. It's actually ridiculous IMO.
But it's what the Republicans wanted 4 years ago. And we are not just talking about the same party. It's mostly the same people. They should have to abide by the precedent they set. You can't just make up the rules as you go. That is not how good democracies function.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 09-20-2020 at 08:04 PM.
Even with these incredibly narrow restrictions, you're still wrong. The Democratic Senate confirmed Ronald Regan's nominee Anthony Kennedy in an election year.
I tink the vacancy occurred in early 1987 if memory serves. Election was in 88.
