If Republicans block nominee bid...

[SIXERS24]

Both Parties play the game!

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time.

 

[mstp1992]

The Republicans were victorious in winning control of the Senate. If the President wants to get a judge confirmed, he needs to nominate someone that the Senate will approve of. He's not King.

How about one of the judges who were unanimously confirmed by the senate (of those who voted)?

As long as he nominates someone who is eminently qualified there should be no issue for the Senate to confirm that candidate. Sri Srinivasan appears to be a very good candidate without significant political ties to only one side of the ledger.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Kennedy was Reagan's third choice. The nomination(s) were held up by the Democrats longer than would be the case of Republicans hold up this one.

Simply untrue. Look at the timeline. Late June '87 to mid February '88.

If Obama nominates someone this month and the GOP stalls as long as it took to dispose of 2 candidates and confirm the third, Obama's nominee will join the Court in October.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Both Parties play the game!

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time.

Hardly relevant today since apparently the Senate is technically never out of session any more - as we learned from the recent pocket veto discussion.

But if your point is that both parties have been hypocritical on this over a period of decades (at least), I don't think anyone is arguing with you.

 

[The Tradition]

How about one of the judges who were unanimously confirmed by the senate (of those who voted)?

As long as he nominates someone who is eminently qualified there should be no issue for the Senate to confirm that candidate. Sri Srinivasan appears to be a very good candidate without significant political ties to only one side of the ledger.

I'd be okay with Srinivasan. Unions hate him, so he can't be all bad.

He would be the first Asian-American and the first Hindu ever on the court.

 

[NoleandDawg]

Shumer said the dems were going to hold up any Bush potential nominee in 2007 when 2008 was an election year.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nate-can-block-scotus-nominees-for-18-months/