The Goat Pen

I understand blocking a nomination b/c of substantive reasons, and of course I understand that the opposing party is going to find such differences even in the best of times. But if as a senator you block a nominee that you know you would eventually approve if Hilary is elected and she keeps the same nominiee, but you block it just b/c Obama only has 11 months left in office, that's just bullshit. But of course, we're talking about congress, so of course it's bullshit...

When it's not your party, it's bullshit. When it's your party, it's the defense of freedom.

https://www.progressivestoday.com/in-20 ... ees-video/

I don't have a party and none of these motherfuckers are doing anything for me but I would love to witness a rabid raccoon gnaw Mitch McConnell's neck bubble while he screamed like an old lady who caught her clit in the zipper of her Jordache jeans

This is kinda hilarious...

1. Urging filibusters, threatening filibusters and positioning yourself in ways via the press to influence the nomination is one thing. Has it ever happened that a SCOTUS nomination has sat on the shelf for over a year in US history? If so, what were the circumstances for that situation?

2. When does "lame duck presidency" begin? When I was a wee lad, lame duck started after the first Tuesday in November of an election year and ended the following January (Inauguration). Has the definition been expanded? What is the timeframe now?

3. How does Obama stack up with the number Executive Orders issued versus the last 5 Presidents? How have any of those presidents fared when trying to get nominations on the SCOTUS bench (or any federal bench)...even during election years?

4. What is the average amount of time it takes for a nomination to the SCOTUS to be confirmed over the history of US? How about the average length of time for confirmation over the last 40? How much time would elapse before a ninth judge is confirmed if the GOP has their way this year?

5. If the SCOTUS is sitting at 4 - 4 ties on crucial points of law, does that mean that law will not be codified until a ninth justice is confirmed? Does it go back to the lower court's opinion and enter binding into law at that point? Can the court be neutered during a "lame duck" era, like is being proposed?

These are all real questions I have (some I have the answers to, others I do not). If we are going to have a real discussion and not "pick your party corners and pretend history and practicality does not exist" then I think we can get some groound covered. If these posts are just about reinforcing your own position without a sensible look at what's right or possible, then keep swinging away. I'll just wait for the next hot topic to come along to add my thoughts.

#5. The President decides.

2013......Reid eliminates all debate/procedures so Obama can pack U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit....keep on whining.


Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

Reid (and his DEM cohorts) reversing a 30 some years parliamentary rule is one thing. Doing something unprecedented in American history is another. Seriously, those 5 questions I have being answered will go a long way, for me, in separating the wheat from the chaff to see what we're doing blocking a justice confirm...unless we're saying (presumably) that history does not matter anymore.

I guess history and precedence do matter, depending on your POV. For instance, our history of being Israel's staunchest ally is important, and keeping our borders secure is important. I dare say their importance has dropped precipitously in last 7 years. I also dare say, reverse the situation and put a repub in the oval office and a dem majority in the Senate, and the same arguments would be made by opposite parties.

Toe wrote:I guess history and precedence do matter, depending on your POV. For instance, our history of being Israel's staunchest ally is important, and keeping our borders secure is important. I dare say their importance has dropped precipitously in last 7 years. I also dare say, reverse the situation and put a repub in the oval office and a dem majority in the Senate, and the same arguments would be made by opposite parties.

This seems like a pivot from my point and my questions. I'm not talking theoretical scenarios or how things would be if tables were turned. I'm talking about where we are now. What is being said now. The precedent for this proposed action (which may not happen, tbh. I doubt the GOP would totally stall this out, without realizing the damage they do as a result, on a national politics level) appears to totally be new. We've had Dem presidents with GOP controlling the Hill in our recent history. I've struggled to come up with anything matching this scenario and the (apparent) course the GOP is taking.

Like I said, this may wind up being nothing at the end of the day. If it wasn't for the fact that Cruz is on the Judiciary Committee I would bet money things don't grind to a halt for the next year. With Eduardo in that conference, however, anything can happen. He appears to be willing to sacrifice what may come in order to be seen as strong in the face of Obama exercising what he feels is his responsibility as President.

The only "rule" of partisan politics is to say or do whatever you think will help you get over on the other guys.

I'm fine with a filibuster for political reasons. It's just the sausage being made.

Let's be honest, invoking the so-called "Thurmond Rule" is really not the issue. Republicans would have denied an easy confirmation even if Scalia had died a year ago. And the Democrats would be doing the same thing if the situations were reversed in this climate. And Obama did filibuster Alito in 2006...

I have no doubt that back room deals are being worked now.

It's not gonna stop here. RBG will be 83 in a couple of weeks, Kennedy will be 80 this summer, Breyer will be 78 in a few months, and even Thomas is just a couple years from 70. The next president has the potential to change the Court dramatically.

Like I said, I'm totally fine with political theater. Threats and bluster come with the territory with the new Machiavellian reality of politics in America. I don't put too much weight on past filibusters, threats and press conferences. I put weight on what has actually happened in the past. I would be surprised if a nominee to the SCOTUS sat on a shelf for over 300 days because the ruling party on the Hill was not the ruling party in the Oval Office. Shit is another step in march to invalidating our political structure.

According to Roll Call, the longest length of time before a Supreme Court vacancy was filled — since 1900 — was 363 days.

And 11 (since 1900) 150 days or longer.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/15/11003686/s ... epublicans

"Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades."

Oooo, nearly four decades! What a long-standing tradition!

So now, we're all about tradition...

Well, toe's quote did use "standard", not "tradition." Still "nearly" four decades is not what I really call set in stone...

AlabamAlum wrote:According to Roll Call, the longest length of time before a Supreme Court vacancy was filled — since 1900 — was 363 days.

That was old corrupt Fortas. The seat was vacant, true, but that was because 2 other nominees (before Harry Blackmun) were not passed. It wasn't that it was stuck in the Judiciary Committee and not brought to Senate. This is different.

I need to look up the other ones with 4 or 5 months delay.

More interesting to me is the current Senate is 54-44-2 (54-46 in practice). With 60 votes needed, if this becomes a contentious partisan power-play, it will make for great theater if it a nominee passes the Judiciary Committee. Because Obama would need some crossovers.

That would be interesting to watch. I've been thinking about it. Cruz may play ball coming out of Committee because of the election. I don't know if it will hurt his Primary numbers, but it would be a liability in a general election to stall on this.