ADVERTISEMENT

Moving on a Supreme Nominee

Nipigu

HR Heisman
Oct 31, 2005
8,616
4,816
113
A full Court of nine Justices could settle election disputes.

Republicans are moving with dispatch to nominate and vote on a successor to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps before the Nov. 3 election. This is within their constitutional authority, and it also makes the most sense for the courts and any post-election controversy.

Lamar Alexander, a senior member of the Senate GOP conference, put the argument as succinctly as anyone on Sunday:

“No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican President’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year. The Constitution gives senators the power to do it. The voters who elected them expect it. Going back to George Washington, the Senate has confirmed many nominees to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year. It has refused to confirm several when the President and Senate majority were of different parties. Senator [Mitch] McConnell is only doing what Democrat leaders have said they would do if the shoe were on the other foot.”

Mr. Alexander is leaving the Senate at the end of this Congress and thus has no personal political stake in a confirmation. But he is an institutional-ist who cares about the reputations of the Senate and the High Court.

President Trump says he’ll announce his nominee at the end of this week following some days honoring Justice Ginsburg at the Capitol. The names being floated are all qualified, though Judge Amy Coney Barrett has been the most thoroughly vetted and has demonstrated her intellectual chops in some 100 opinions on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Based on that and other evidence, she’d be a worthy addition to the Court.

As for the argument that this is all moving too fast, there are 43 days until Nov. 3. John Paul Stevens was confirmed in 19 days, Sandra Day O’Connor in 33, and Justice Ginsburg in 42. The Senate can do the job in a month if it focuses on the task.

One good argument for a vote before Nov. 3 is having a full Court of nine Justices in the event of a contested election (see nearby). The country would not be well served by 4-4 votes that allow disputes to be settled by a cacophony of lower courts. The Court itself will suffer if it looks dysfunctional on the crucial legal questions surrounding the legitimacy of an election. If Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the votes to confirm, the case for doing so before Nov. 3 is compelling.

By The WSJ Editorial Board
September 21, 2020 07:03 p.m. EDT
 
  • Like
Reactions: haw-key
A full Court of nine Justices could settle election disputes.

Republicans are moving with dispatch to nominate and vote on a successor to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps before the Nov. 3 election. This is within their constitutional authority, and it also makes the most sense for the courts and any post-election controversy.

Lamar Alexander, a senior member of the Senate GOP conference, put the argument as succinctly as anyone on Sunday:

“No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican President’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year. The Constitution gives senators the power to do it. The voters who elected them expect it. Going back to George Washington, the Senate has confirmed many nominees to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year. It has refused to confirm several when the President and Senate majority were of different parties. Senator [Mitch] McConnell is only doing what Democrat leaders have said they would do if the shoe were on the other foot.”

Mr. Alexander is leaving the Senate at the end of this Congress and thus has no personal political stake in a confirmation. But he is an institutional-ist who cares about the reputations of the Senate and the High Court.

President Trump says he’ll announce his nominee at the end of this week following some days honoring Justice Ginsburg at the Capitol. The names being floated are all qualified, though Judge Amy Coney Barrett has been the most thoroughly vetted and has demonstrated her intellectual chops in some 100 opinions on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Based on that and other evidence, she’d be a worthy addition to the Court.

As for the argument that this is all moving too fast, there are 43 days until Nov. 3. John Paul Stevens was confirmed in 19 days, Sandra Day O’Connor in 33, and Justice Ginsburg in 42. The Senate can do the job in a month if it focuses on the task.

One good argument for a vote before Nov. 3 is having a full Court of nine Justices in the event of a contested election (see nearby). The country would not be well served by 4-4 votes that allow disputes to be settled by a cacophony of lower courts. The Court itself will suffer if it looks dysfunctional on the crucial legal questions surrounding the legitimacy of an election. If Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the votes to confirm, the case for doing so before Nov. 3 is compelling.

By The WSJ Editorial Board
September 21, 2020 07:03 p.m. EDT
Did the board have the same opinion in 2016? Otherwise this opinion piece is complete bullshit.
 
I don’t know much about him. What do you know about him...without googling?
I know he’s willing to risk the legitimacy of Congress and the court to get the decisions he wants. He just told us that.
 
Did the board have the same opinion in 2016?

The wsj editorial board? You’ll have to research it. I don’t know if I have access to archives that far back. But as I recall historical precedent shows the Senate doesn’t confirm a nominee in an election year when the White House and the Senate are controlled by opposing parties.
 
The wsj editorial board? You’ll have to research it. I don’t know if I have access to archives that far back. But as I recall historical precedent shows the Senate doesn’t confirm a nominee in an election year when the White House and the Senate are controlled by opposing parties.
They're only doing it because they can. Any arguments on it's merits is bull crap. The distortion of precedent is phony. At least be honest about it.
 
The wsj editorial board? You’ll have to research it. I don’t know if I have access to archives that far back. But as I recall historical precedent shows the Senate doesn’t confirm a nominee in an election year when the White House and the Senate are controlled by opposing parties.

Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan nominee in 88.

FIFY!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tumorboy
If Republicans think the benefit of adding to their already strong conservative majority is worth the blowback then stfu and confirm Trump’s nominee when the time comes. No need to piss on our legs and tell us it’s raining. Everyone sees the hypocrisy and won’t forget it, regardless of the cover the WSJ is trying to give Trump/McConnell.
 
And Kennedy voted with the liberals plenty. He was a very moderate pick.

What’s your point? The statement that Supreme Court nominees are not confirmed in an election year if the President and Senate are opposite parties is simply wrong:

A Democratic Senate confirmed Reagan’s pick in an election year, 88.
 
They're only doing it because they can. Any arguments on it's merits is bull crap. The distortion of precedent is phony. At least be honest about it.

Oh no doubt about it. And the Democrats would do the same. Agree?
 
I do not understand why this is so controversial or so difficult to understand. The Democrats are going to always attempt to narrow the window so that at some point, they will seek to deny a Republican President his right to make an appointment after say, his first two weeks in office. That cannot be allowed to happen.

The only constraint should be what is written in the Constitution. The President has from the date of his inauguration until his last day in office to make appointments. In short, for a full four years, he has this power. This should not even be in question.

Keep in mind that the Democrats were behaving badly at the front end of his administration as well. They have been slow-walking his appointments since day one. They have forfeited their right to urge any further delays ... on anything ... for any reason.

Why anyone would side with a politician who considers it cool to utterly destroy the reputation of any individual based on salacious hearsay is to me unforgivable. Certain of those senators had no compunction in destroying the reputation of Judge Kavanaugh. ... all simply to push back the legislative agenda of a popular Republican President.

This entire Presidency is probably a year behind schedule simply because certain opposing politicians are low-rent, scumball, win-at-all-costs obstructionists. We need to get caught up with the agenda so that we can hit the ground running after the election.

...

She died in office, the President has the power to appoint a replacement, and the senate has the power to confirm that person.

Period! Let's get on with it!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: haw-key
I do not understand why this is so controversial or so difficult to understand. The Democrats are going to always attempt to narrow the window so that at some point, they will seek to deny a Republican President his right to make an appointment after say, his first two weeks in office. That cannot be allowed to happen.

The only constraint should be what is written in the Constitution. The President has from the date of his inauguration until his last day in office to make appointments. In short, for a full four years, he has this power. This should not even be in question.

Keep in mind that the Democrats were behaving badly at the front end of his administration as well. They have been slow-walking his appointments since day one.

Why anyone would side with a politician who considers it cool to utterly destroy the reputation of any individual based on salacious hearsay is to me unforgivable. Certain of those senators had no compunction in destroying the reputation of Judge Kavanaugh. ... all simply to push back the legislative agenda of a popular Republican President.

This entire Presidency is probably a year behind schedule simply because certain opposing politicians are low-rent, scumball, win-at-all-costs obstructionists. We need to get caught up with the agenda so that we can hit the ground running after the election.

...

She died in office, the President has the power to appoint a replacement, and the senate has the power to confirm that person.

Period! Let's get on with it!

You act like Trump got in with a mandate. You psychopath, you realized he lost the popular vote by millions?
 
Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan nominee in 88.

FIFY!
Ah yes, back when elected representatives viewed their jobs as doing what was best for the country and not simply "to get re-elected."

Sign me up for that mentality again. As is today, I'm going to be surprised if ever a Senate confirms a judge from the other party's president.
 
@83Hawk was more honest about it on Friday on Saturday. Then his reasoning was that Democrats are winning this November and he's afraid of that so he supports this. He's since looked up a lot of new reasons but he's put everyone on ignore who was paying attention to him on Friday and Saturday. He's going to have convinced himself he knew he was right about this all along and for the right reasons. That's what they're all doing right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noleclone2
Oh no doubt about it. And the Democrats would do the same. Agree?
Attempts to do What-about-isms where they don't even have any examples they can cite. The imaginary Democrats in your head are not evidence for any assertions you want to make about Democrats in the real world.
 
I do not understand why this is so controversial or so difficult to understand. The Democrats are going to always attempt to narrow the window so that at some point, they will seek to deny a Republican President his right to make an appointment after say, his first two weeks in office. That cannot be allowed to happen.

The only constraint should be what is written in the Constitution. The President has from the date of his inauguration until his last day in office to make appointments. In short, for a full four years, he has this power. This should not even be in question.

Keep in mind that the Democrats were behaving badly at the front end of his administration as well. They have been slow-walking his appointments since day one. They have forfeited their right to urge any further delays ... on anything ... for any reason.

Why anyone would side with a politician who considers it cool to utterly destroy the reputation of any individual based on salacious hearsay is to me unforgivable. Certain of those senators had no compunction in destroying the reputation of Judge Kavanaugh. ... all simply to push back the legislative agenda of a popular Republican President.

This entire Presidency is probably a year behind schedule simply because certain opposing politicians are low-rent, scumball, win-at-all-costs obstructionists. We need to get caught up with the agenda so that we can hit the ground running after the election.

...

She died in office, the President has the power to appoint a replacement, and the senate has the power to confirm that person.

Period! Let's get on with it!
So you were upset when Mitch held up the Garland confirmation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler
I do not understand why this is so controversial or so difficult to understand. The Democrats are going to always attempt to narrow the window so that at some point, they will seek to deny a Republican President his right to make an appointment after say, his first two weeks in office. That cannot be allowed to happen.

The only constraint should be what is written in the Constitution. The President has from the date of his inauguration until his last day in office to make appointments. In short, for a full four years, he has this power. This should not even be in question.

Keep in mind that the Democrats were behaving badly at the front end of his administration as well. They have been slow-walking his appointments since day one. They have forfeited their right to urge any further delays ... on anything ... for any reason.

Why anyone would side with a politician who considers it cool to utterly destroy the reputation of any individual based on salacious hearsay is to me unforgivable. Certain of those senators had no compunction in destroying the reputation of Judge Kavanaugh. ... all simply to push back the legislative agenda of a popular Republican President.

This entire Presidency is probably a year behind schedule simply because certain opposing politicians are low-rent, scumball, win-at-all-costs obstructionists. We need to get caught up with the agenda so that we can hit the ground running after the election.

...

She died in office, the President has the power to appoint a replacement, and the senate has the power to confirm that person.

Period! Let's get on with it!

We are a nation of laws, not "might makes right".
 
You act like Trump got in with a mandate. You psychopath, you realized he lost the popular vote by millions?

Are you serious? Winning the Electoral College by any amount provides a mandate. Nothing else matters aside from making for polite cocktail party chatter. I have never heard of the popular vote being the source of such a mandate.

The President does not have a graduated scale of duties; varying according to the "degree" of his victory. If you carry the vote in the Electoral College, you inherit them all, and hopefully you will be tough enough to carry them out in spite of nonsensical claims of there being some sort of gradations.
 
Are you serious? Winning the Electoral College by any amount provides a mandate. Nothing else matters aside from making for polite cocktail party chatter. I have never heard of the popular vote being the source of such a mandate.

The President does not have a graduated scale of duties; varying according to the "degree" of his victory. If you carry the vote in the Electoral College, you inherit them all, and hopefully you will be tough enough to carry them out in spite of nonsensical claims of there being some sort of gradations.
And his opponents in Congress are supposed to simply submit no matter what? That's what you were implying.
 
The wsj editorial board? You’ll have to research it. I don’t know if I have access to archives that far back. But as I recall historical precedent shows the Senate doesn’t confirm a nominee in an election year when the White House and the Senate are controlled by opposing parties.
Bullshit. That “precedent” was invented by Grassley and McConnell in 2016. The “precedent” was sighted by GOP Senators based on an off handed comment made by Joe Biden in a Judiciary Committee hearing.
 
We are a nation of laws, not "might makes right".

Except that the political discourse is just that; based on political considerations. At some point in time, with any election one moves from making political decisions to making decisions based on laws, statutes, and various underlying documents.

The future of the nation is in the balance; one must follow the law scrupulously. The voters said that Donald J. Trump was to have the right to make Supreme Court appointments for four years ... No one ever mentioned that other part ... the stuff about the losing party getting some sort of automatic delay until another election comes along.
 
Last edited:
Bullshit. That “precedent” was invented by Grassley and McConnell in 2016. The “precedent” was sighted by GOP Senators based on an off handed comment made by Joe Biden in a Judiciary Committee hearing.

*cited

And Harry was the first one to go nuclear, so.....
 
@83Hawk was more honest about it on Friday on Saturday. Then his reasoning was that Democrats are winning this November and he's afraid of that so he supports this. He's since looked up a lot of new reasons but he's put everyone on ignore who was paying attention to him on Friday and Saturday. He's going to have convinced himself he knew he was right about this all along and for the right reasons. That's what they're all doing right now.
Why do you oppose the Constitution?
 
ADVERTISEMENT