...isn't Biden beating Trump, it's that the Dems look likely to win the Senate as well. Can you imagine what is about to happen with unified socialist government? Court packing, massive tax hikes, energy dependence again, millions of job losses, National Firearms Database...the list goes on and on...
Scary tim for sure. Help us ACB, you're our only hope...
Also gonna need the Conservative Supremes to all stay alive for the next 4 years. Lose one and it's back to a lib court because that fag Roberts votes with the libs on everything. Bush fucked that appointment up beyond belief.
They're going to pack the court so their lives will be irrelevant.
I tend to not believe that. The Dems are dumb, but doing that loses them at least one chamber of Congress in 2022, and probably the Presidency in 2024. That policy is wildly unpopular with voters.
I don't think the Dems GAF what is popular with voters.
They're out for blood.
The GOP played dirty to get ACB in there. Winners win but yeah DNC is going to retaliate for that move. Im not a fan of the current DNC talking points to pack the courts which is basically just adding justices carte blanche.
Buttigieg had an interesting proposal to depoliticise the process which I guess could still fall under the umbrella of court packing given the current balance. GOP gets 5 justices. DNC gets 5 justices. This initial allotment does not change. Those initial 10 justices appoint 5 more. 15 justices in total. This was floated well before RBG/ACB.
The GOP used existing rules to nominate and vote in favor of a Supreme Court Justice
Nothing dirty about it at all
Thanks to Harry Reid it was possible. Maybe the dems can change some more stuff that blows up in their face
The playing dirty is setting a precedent that if you control congress you delay or expedite court appointments until you get your guy into the executive office. It's supposed to be an apolitical office.
Playing dirty is not hearing an appointment for Garland on the grounds that it was an election year and then ramming through ACB a month before the election. I never said that it was against the rules but it was massively hypocritical.
2016 Obama was a democrat, the Senate was controlled by republicans
2020 Trump is a Republican, the senate was controlled by republicans
This isn't complicated
Mind blown...so whoever controls senate can just delay an appointment for how long?
Your mind is blown that a branch of the legislature can exercise a check on the power of the executive making a life long appointment into the judicial??? Thats the entire fucking point.
No wonder you are peddling Beto type ideas...
JFC you are talking about breaking down judges by republican vs democrat (as if no other political party does/could exist) and then having its own body pick additional justices...
Read a god damn book , Start with the federalist papers, maybe Hamilton's (that guy from the spoken word musical was actually a real guy!) No. 76.
So how long can the senate delay a judicial appointment? It's not a check against the executive branch if the senate is just refusing to do its elected duty. The way things are going the controlling party is just going to just refuse to hear any appointments if the other party controls the executive and makes the nomination. Or worse continual court packing.
The politicization of the judiciary is not a radical idea and most agree that it's a bad thing. I never said that I think Buttigieg's idea is the best approach or that I even support it. I do appreciate that he at least calls attention to the issue and puts an idea out there. Also you seem to not understand the proposal. It doesn't matter what the judge's political affiliation is. The judges are nominated by the GOP/DEM members of the senate. The GOP senate block could nominate a liberal judge and vice versa.
Thanks for the list of books.
Yes, the senate can block the appointment of the seat forever, just like the Executive could just refuse to nominate anyone to the seat forever. Its not absconding from a duty, its exercising its check. If the executive was intended to appoint justices directly it wouldn't say the executive shall nominate to the senate.
Seriously, go read Federalist 76... "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."
What does "politicization" actually mean and when you think it started in the supreme court?
Why do you think the Supreme court exists in the first place and what do you think their main directive is?
Barrett will represent the interests of the State, the UN, The Vatican, Bill Gates and the NWO. She has already ruled in favor of Medical Tyranny in Illinois, using a forced inoculation ruling from the previous century to enable JB Pritzker's power grab.
...isn't Biden beating Trump, it's that the Dems look likely to win the Senate as well. Can you imagine what is about to happen with unified socialist government? Court packing, massive tax hikes, energy dependence again, millions of job losses, National Firearms Database...the list goes on and on...
Scary tim for sure. Help us ACB, you're our only hope...
Also gonna need the Conservative Supremes to all stay alive for the next 4 years. Lose one and it's back to a lib court because that fag Roberts votes with the libs on everything. Bush fucked that appointment up beyond belief.
They're going to pack the court so their lives will be irrelevant.
I tend to not believe that. The Dems are dumb, but doing that loses them at least one chamber of Congress in 2022, and probably the Presidency in 2024. That policy is wildly unpopular with voters.
I don't think the Dems GAF what is popular with voters.
They're out for blood.
The GOP played dirty to get ACB in there. Winners win but yeah DNC is going to retaliate for that move. Im not a fan of the current DNC talking points to pack the courts which is basically just adding justices carte blanche.
Buttigieg had an interesting proposal to depoliticise the process which I guess could still fall under the umbrella of court packing given the current balance. GOP gets 5 justices. DNC gets 5 justices. This initial allotment does not change. Those initial 10 justices appoint 5 more. 15 justices in total. This was floated well before RBG/ACB.
The GOP used existing rules to nominate and vote in favor of a Supreme Court Justice
Nothing dirty about it at all
Thanks to Harry Reid it was possible. Maybe the dems can change some more stuff that blows up in their face
The playing dirty is setting a precedent that if you control congress you delay or expedite court appointments until you get your guy into the executive office. It's supposed to be an apolitical office.
Playing dirty is not hearing an appointment for Garland on the grounds that it was an election year and then ramming through ACB a month before the election. I never said that it was against the rules but it was massively hypocritical.
2016 Obama was a democrat, the Senate was controlled by republicans
2020 Trump is a Republican, the senate was controlled by republicans
This isn't complicated
Mind blown...so whoever controls senate can just delay an appointment for how long?
Your mind is blown that a branch of the legislature can exercise a check on the power of the executive making a life long appointment into the judicial??? Thats the entire fucking point.
No wonder you are peddling Beto type ideas...
JFC you are talking about breaking down judges by republican vs democrat (as if no other political party does/could exist) and then having its own body pick additional justices...
Read a god damn book , Start with the federalist papers, maybe Hamilton's (that guy from the spoken word musical was actually a real guy!) No. 76.
So how long can the senate delay a judicial appointment? It's not a check against the executive branch if the senate is just refusing to do its elected duty. The way things are going the controlling party is just going to just refuse to hear any appointments if the other party controls the executive and makes the nomination. Or worse continual court packing.
The politicization of the judiciary is not a radical idea and most agree that it's a bad thing. I never said that I think Buttigieg's idea is the best approach or that I even support it. I do appreciate that he at least calls attention to the issue and puts an idea out there. Also you seem to not understand the proposal. It doesn't matter what the judge's political affiliation is. The judges are nominated by the GOP/DEM members of the senate. The GOP senate block could nominate a liberal judge and vice versa.
Thanks for the list of books.
Yes, the senate can block the appointment of the seat forever, just like the Executive could just refuse to nominate anyone to the seat forever. Its not absconding from a duty, its exercising its check. If the executive was intended to appoint justices directly it wouldn't say the executive shall nominate to the senate.
Seriously, go read Federalist 76... "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."
What does "politicization" actually mean and when you think it started in the supreme court?
Why do you think the Supreme court exists in the first place and what do you think their main directive is?
There is no constitutional recourse for the senate not holding a hearing or voting down a nominee but it is their elected duty to confirm justices. Same with the executive to appoint. I'm not arguing that the senate shouldn't act as a check against the executive. It should and that check should happen during the confirmation process when the qualifications of the nominee are measured.
To borrow from your Federlist 76 quote the check from the Senate is to prevent "unfit characters" from appointment not to block a qualified appointee because they happen to be nominated by an opposing political party. Federalist 76 also points out that under this system that it is "not probable that the nomination would often be overruled" likely because the author assumes that the executive and senate both act in good faith.
Politicization of the courts is what we're currently seeing. Party line votes for confirmations. Delays in holding confirmation hearings because of partisanship. Retaliatory threats to pack the court. All of this erodes the public perception of the independence of the judiciary which is really the crux of the problem.
Why do I think the Supreme Court exists? Seriously it's not worth my time to write this or for you to read it.
...isn't Biden beating Trump, it's that the Dems look likely to win the Senate as well. Can you imagine what is about to happen with unified socialist government? Court packing, massive tax hikes, energy dependence again, millions of job losses, National Firearms Database...the list goes on and on...
Scary tim for sure. Help us ACB, you're our only hope...
Also gonna need the Conservative Supremes to all stay alive for the next 4 years. Lose one and it's back to a lib court because that fag Roberts votes with the libs on everything. Bush fucked that appointment up beyond belief.
They're going to pack the court so their lives will be irrelevant.
I tend to not believe that. The Dems are dumb, but doing that loses them at least one chamber of Congress in 2022, and probably the Presidency in 2024. That policy is wildly unpopular with voters.
I don't think the Dems GAF what is popular with voters.
They're out for blood.
The GOP played dirty to get ACB in there. Winners win but yeah DNC is going to retaliate for that move. Im not a fan of the current DNC talking points to pack the courts which is basically just adding justices carte blanche.
Buttigieg had an interesting proposal to depoliticise the process which I guess could still fall under the umbrella of court packing given the current balance. GOP gets 5 justices. DNC gets 5 justices. This initial allotment does not change. Those initial 10 justices appoint 5 more. 15 justices in total. This was floated well before RBG/ACB.
The GOP used existing rules to nominate and vote in favor of a Supreme Court Justice
Nothing dirty about it at all
Thanks to Harry Reid it was possible. Maybe the dems can change some more stuff that blows up in their face
The playing dirty is setting a precedent that if you control congress you delay or expedite court appointments until you get your guy into the executive office. It's supposed to be an apolitical office.
Playing dirty is not hearing an appointment for Garland on the grounds that it was an election year and then ramming through ACB a month before the election. I never said that it was against the rules but it was massively hypocritical.
2016 Obama was a democrat, the Senate was controlled by republicans
2020 Trump is a Republican, the senate was controlled by republicans
This isn't complicated
Mind blown...so whoever controls senate can just delay an appointment for how long?
Your mind is blown that a branch of the legislature can exercise a check on the power of the executive making a life long appointment into the judicial??? Thats the entire fucking point.
No wonder you are peddling Beto type ideas...
JFC you are talking about breaking down judges by republican vs democrat (as if no other political party does/could exist) and then having its own body pick additional justices...
Read a god damn book , Start with the federalist papers, maybe Hamilton's (that guy from the spoken word musical was actually a real guy!) No. 76.
So how long can the senate delay a judicial appointment? It's not a check against the executive branch if the senate is just refusing to do its elected duty. The way things are going the controlling party is just going to just refuse to hear any appointments if the other party controls the executive and makes the nomination. Or worse continual court packing.
The politicization of the judiciary is not a radical idea and most agree that it's a bad thing. I never said that I think Buttigieg's idea is the best approach or that I even support it. I do appreciate that he at least calls attention to the issue and puts an idea out there. Also you seem to not understand the proposal. It doesn't matter what the judge's political affiliation is. The judges are nominated by the GOP/DEM members of the senate. The GOP senate block could nominate a liberal judge and vice versa.
Thanks for the list of books.
Yes, the senate can block the appointment of the seat forever, just like the Executive could just refuse to nominate anyone to the seat forever. Its not absconding from a duty, its exercising its check. If the executive was intended to appoint justices directly it wouldn't say the executive shall nominate to the senate.
Seriously, go read Federalist 76... "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."
What does "politicization" actually mean and when you think it started in the supreme court?
Why do you think the Supreme court exists in the first place and what do you think their main directive is?
There is no constitutional recourse for the senate not holding a hearing or voting down a nominee but it is their elected duty to confirm justices. Same with the executive to appoint. I'm not arguing that the senate shouldn't act as a check against the executive. It should and that check should happen during the confirmation process when the qualifications of the nominee are measured.
To borrow from your Federlist 76 quote the check from the Senate is to prevent "unfit characters" from appointment not to block a qualified appointee because they happen to be nominated by an opposing political party. Federalist 76 also points out that under this system that it is "not probable that the nomination would often be overruled" likely because the author assumes that the executive and senate both act in good faith.
Politicization of the courts is what we're currently seeing. Party line votes for confirmations. Delays in holding confirmation hearings because of partisanship. Retaliatory threats to pack the court. All of this erodes the public perception of the independence of the judiciary which is really the crux of the problem.
Why do I think the Supreme Court exists? Seriously it's not worth my time to write this or for you to read it.
There is no "elected duty to confirm justices" in the Senate. The executive nominates, the Senate can confirm if it wishes. Just because you FEEL like there is a "duty" doesn't mean there is.
There is a well established history of not voting on nominees...
1) Jon Quincy Adams in 1829 had his nominee postponed without a vote until after President Andrew Jackson won and instead filled the position.
2) Andrew Jackson's nominee in 1835 had his nominee postponed and the senate even voted to "Postpone indefinitely" until the Senate composition changed after the election.
3) John Tyler experienced extreme difficulty in obtaining approval of his nominees... Reuben H. Walworth was nominated on March 13, 1844, and a resolution to table the nomination passed on a 27–20 vote on June 15, 1844. Edward King was nominated on June 5, 1844. A resolution to table the nomination passed by a vote of 29–18 on June 15, 1844. No other action was taken on this nomination.
The same day that Walworth's nomination was withdrawn, Walworth was then re-nominated, but the motion to act on the nomination in the Senate was objected to, and no further action was taken.
Walworth and King were re-nominated on December 10, 1844, but both nominations were tabled on January 21, 1845. John M. Read was nominated on February 8, 1845, and there was a motion to consider the nomination in the Senate on January 21, 1845, but the motion was unsuccessful and no other action was taken.
4) Milliard Fillmore (the last Whig) nominated 3 difference justices for the democrat controlled Senate and they did not take action on any of the nominees. Democratic President Franklin Pierce later filled the vacancy with John Archibald Campbell.
5) Grant nominated George Henry Williams to be Chief Justice of the United States in 1873, the Senate Judiciary Committee declined to recommend confirmation to the entire Senate.
6) Rutherford B Hayes (a republican), in 1881, nominated Thomas Stanley Matthews, The democrat party controlled Senate declared the nomination to close to the election and took not action or vote. After the election the next president Garfield nominated.
7) Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated John Marshall Harlan II in 1954, but his nomination was not reported out of the judiciary committee. He had to re-nominate the next year after the Senate elections.
You dont know what you are talking about. There is no duty to confirm or even vote, what was done was nothing new.
During President Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency, federal judicial appointments played a central role. Johnson appointed two individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States in just over five years as president.
In 1965, Johnson nominated his friend, high-profile Washington, D.C. lawyer Abe Fortas, to the Supreme Court, and he was confirmed by the United States Senate. In 1967, Johnson nominated United States Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, and he also was confirmed by the Senate. In 1968, however, Johnson made two failed nominations to the Supreme Court. He nominated Fortas to become Chief Justice to replace the retiring Earl Warren, and he nominated United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit judge Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas as Associate Justice. However, Johnson wound up withdrawing Fortas' nomination after his confirmation was filibustered by Sen. Robert Griffin (R-MI), and he was not able to make another Chief Justice nomination before his presidency ended. As a result, Warren continued as Chief Justice and Fortas as an Associate Justice, so Johnson also ended up withdrawing Thornberry's nomination. Ultimately, Johnson's successor, President Richard Nixon, appointed Warren E. Burger as Chief Justice of the United States. After Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court, Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun to fill Fortas' seat after his previous nominations of Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell to that seat both were voted down by the United States Senate.
At the appellate level, Johnson formally nominated one person, Barefoot Sanders, for a federal appellate judgeship who was never confirmed. The United States Senate did not act on Sanders' nomination before Johnson's presidency ended, and Nixon did not renominate him. Johnson also considered other appeals court nominees whom he never wound up nominating.
If Garland never happened and the dems held the Senate now does anyone think they'd approve a Trump nomination?
Of course not
We don't deal in hypotheticals but that's kind of my point. I don't like that the nomination process can be held hostage by either party. The judiciary was not designed to be part of the political theatre. Right now it is.
Has been forever friend
Well you were there when the Judiciary Act was established but I'm told that it used to not be unheard of for a Republican/Democratic president to nominate a liberal/conservative leaning justice.
Ike nominated the most liberal justice of our lifetime. Didn't want to but got Robertsed
Not sure there is an equivalent
Ford nominating “moderate” turned liberal John Paul Stevens is close. Notice how justices nominated by Democrat presidents don’t flip to conservatives on the bench.
If Garland never happened and the dems held the Senate now does anyone think they'd approve a Trump nomination?
Of course not
We don't deal in hypotheticals but that's kind of my point. I don't like that the nomination process can be held hostage by either party. The judiciary was not designed to be part of the political theatre. Right now it is.
Has been forever friend
Well you were there when the Judiciary Act was established but I'm told that it used to not be unheard of for a Republican/Democratic president to nominate a liberal/conservative leaning justice.
Ike nominated the most liberal justice of our lifetime. Didn't want to but got Robertsed
Not sure there is an equivalent
Ford nominating “moderate” turned liberal John Paul Stevens is close. Notice how justices nominated by Democrat presidents don’t flip to conservatives on the bench.
Trump might float some comments about adding more justices just to get key Dems on the record as opposing court packing but I don't think he would actually do it.
I would agree with this. It does seem that letting the dems go on record about issues tends to bite them in the ass.
...isn't Biden beating Trump, it's that the Dems look likely to win the Senate as well. Can you imagine what is about to happen with unified socialist government? Court packing, massive tax hikes, energy dependence again, millions of job losses, National Firearms Database...the list goes on and on...
Scary tim for sure. Help us ACB, you're our only hope...
Also gonna need the Conservative Supremes to all stay alive for the next 4 years. Lose one and it's back to a lib court because that fag Roberts votes with the libs on everything. Bush fucked that appointment up beyond belief.
They're going to pack the court so their lives will be irrelevant.
I tend to not believe that. The Dems are dumb, but doing that loses them at least one chamber of Congress in 2022, and probably the Presidency in 2024. That policy is wildly unpopular with voters.
I don't think the Dems GAF what is popular with voters.
They're out for blood.
The GOP played dirty to get ACB in there. Winners win but yeah DNC is going to retaliate for that move. Im not a fan of the current DNC talking points to pack the courts which is basically just adding justices carte blanche.
Buttigieg had an interesting proposal to depoliticise the process which I guess could still fall under the umbrella of court packing given the current balance. GOP gets 5 justices. DNC gets 5 justices. This initial allotment does not change. Those initial 10 justices appoint 5 more. 15 justices in total. This was floated well before RBG/ACB.
The GOP used existing rules to nominate and vote in favor of a Supreme Court Justice
Nothing dirty about it at all
Thanks to Harry Reid it was possible. Maybe the dems can change some more stuff that blows up in their face
The playing dirty is setting a precedent that if you control congress you delay or expedite court appointments until you get your guy into the executive office. It's supposed to be an apolitical office.
Playing dirty is not hearing an appointment for Garland on the grounds that it was an election year and then ramming through ACB a month before the election. I never said that it was against the rules but it was massively hypocritical.
2016 Obama was a democrat, the Senate was controlled by republicans
2020 Trump is a Republican, the senate was controlled by republicans
This isn't complicated
Mind blown...so whoever controls senate can just delay an appointment for how long?
Your mind is blown that a branch of the legislature can exercise a check on the power of the executive making a life long appointment into the judicial??? Thats the entire fucking point.
No wonder you are peddling Beto type ideas...
JFC you are talking about breaking down judges by republican vs democrat (as if no other political party does/could exist) and then having its own body pick additional justices...
Read a god damn book , Start with the federalist papers, maybe Hamilton's (that guy from the spoken word musical was actually a real guy!) No. 76.
So how long can the senate delay a judicial appointment? It's not a check against the executive branch if the senate is just refusing to do its elected duty. The way things are going the controlling party is just going to just refuse to hear any appointments if the other party controls the executive and makes the nomination. Or worse continual court packing.
The politicization of the judiciary is not a radical idea and most agree that it's a bad thing. I never said that I think Buttigieg's idea is the best approach or that I even support it. I do appreciate that he at least calls attention to the issue and puts an idea out there. Also you seem to not understand the proposal. It doesn't matter what the judge's political affiliation is. The judges are nominated by the GOP/DEM members of the senate. The GOP senate block could nominate a liberal judge and vice versa.
Thanks for the list of books.
Yes, the senate can block the appointment of the seat forever, just like the Executive could just refuse to nominate anyone to the seat forever. Its not absconding from a duty, its exercising its check. If the executive was intended to appoint justices directly it wouldn't say the executive shall nominate to the senate.
Seriously, go read Federalist 76... "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."
What does "politicization" actually mean and when you think it started in the supreme court?
Why do you think the Supreme court exists in the first place and what do you think their main directive is?
There is no constitutional recourse for the senate not holding a hearing or voting down a nominee but it is their elected duty to confirm justices. Same with the executive to appoint. I'm not arguing that the senate shouldn't act as a check against the executive. It should and that check should happen during the confirmation process when the qualifications of the nominee are measured.
To borrow from your Federlist 76 quote the check from the Senate is to prevent "unfit characters" from appointment not to block a qualified appointee because they happen to be nominated by an opposing political party. Federalist 76 also points out that under this system that it is "not probable that the nomination would often be overruled" likely because the author assumes that the executive and senate both act in good faith.
Politicization of the courts is what we're currently seeing. Party line votes for confirmations. Delays in holding confirmation hearings because of partisanship. Retaliatory threats to pack the court. All of this erodes the public perception of the independence of the judiciary which is really the crux of the problem.
Why do I think the Supreme Court exists? Seriously it's not worth my time to write this or for you to read it.
There is no "elected duty to confirm justices" in the Senate. The executive nominates, the Senate can confirm if it wishes. Just because you FEEL like there is a "duty" doesn't mean there is.
There is a well established history of not voting on nominees...
1) Jon Quincy Adams in 1829 had his nominee postponed without a vote until after President Andrew Jackson won and instead filled the position.
2) Andrew Jackson's nominee in 1835 had his nominee postponed and the senate even voted to "Postpone indefinitely" until the Senate composition changed after the election.
3) John Tyler experienced extreme difficulty in obtaining approval of his nominees... Reuben H. Walworth was nominated on March 13, 1844, and a resolution to table the nomination passed on a 27–20 vote on June 15, 1844. Edward King was nominated on June 5, 1844. A resolution to table the nomination passed by a vote of 29–18 on June 15, 1844. No other action was taken on this nomination.
The same day that Walworth's nomination was withdrawn, Walworth was then re-nominated, but the motion to act on the nomination in the Senate was objected to, and no further action was taken.
Walworth and King were re-nominated on December 10, 1844, but both nominations were tabled on January 21, 1845. John M. Read was nominated on February 8, 1845, and there was a motion to consider the nomination in the Senate on January 21, 1845, but the motion was unsuccessful and no other action was taken.
4) Milliard Fillmore (the last Whig) nominated 3 difference justices for the democrat controlled Senate and they did not take action on any of the nominees. Democratic President Franklin Pierce later filled the vacancy with John Archibald Campbell.
5) Grant nominated George Henry Williams to be Chief Justice of the United States in 1873, the Senate Judiciary Committee declined to recommend confirmation to the entire Senate.
6) Rutherford B Hayes (a republican), in 1881, nominated Thomas Stanley Matthews, The democrat party controlled Senate declared the nomination to close to the election and took not action or vote. After the election the next president Garfield nominated.
7) Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated John Marshall Harlan II in 1954, but his nomination was not reported out of the judiciary committee. He had to re-nominate the next year after the Senate elections.
You dont know what you are talking about. There is no duty to confirm or even vote, what was done was nothing new.
The question on duty to confirm is a matter of interpretation. People smarter than both of us have argued it either way. The Senate itself explains this succinctly in describing its powers and procedures related to appointments: Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason that a majority of its members deems appropriate. This is our argument boiled down into a single sentence and the Appointments Clause is to ambiguous to say that either view is objectively right or wrong. But keep spinning this as me FEELING something and you citing a cold hard fact.
If you want to pivot the argument now to historical precedent then OK but seems like a bad angle considering that court packing is what started this discussion in the first place. Started digging into your list and realized you just copy/pasted this straight from off a Wikipedia page titled "Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States". Out of over 150 SC nominations you're able to list 7 examples where the Senate has postponed or not taken action on a nominee and most are from the 1800s. Not sure it qualifies as a "well established history" if you can count the number of times it has occurred on your fingers over a several hundred year period.
...isn't Biden beating Trump, it's that the Dems look likely to win the Senate as well. Can you imagine what is about to happen with unified socialist government? Court packing, massive tax hikes, energy dependence again, millions of job losses, National Firearms Database...the list goes on and on...
Scary tim for sure. Help us ACB, you're our only hope...
Also gonna need the Conservative Supremes to all stay alive for the next 4 years. Lose one and it's back to a lib court because that fag Roberts votes with the libs on everything. Bush fucked that appointment up beyond belief.
They're going to pack the court so their lives will be irrelevant.
I tend to not believe that. The Dems are dumb, but doing that loses them at least one chamber of Congress in 2022, and probably the Presidency in 2024. That policy is wildly unpopular with voters.
Who says that the voice of the people matters in 2024?
...isn't Biden beating Trump, it's that the Dems look likely to win the Senate as well. Can you imagine what is about to happen with unified socialist government? Court packing, massive tax hikes, energy dependence again, millions of job losses, National Firearms Database...the list goes on and on...
Scary tim for sure. Help us ACB, you're our only hope...
Also gonna need the Conservative Supremes to all stay alive for the next 4 years. Lose one and it's back to a lib court because that fag Roberts votes with the libs on everything. Bush fucked that appointment up beyond belief.
They're going to pack the court so their lives will be irrelevant.
I tend to not believe that. The Dems are dumb, but doing that loses them at least one chamber of Congress in 2022, and probably the Presidency in 2024. That policy is wildly unpopular with voters.
I don't think the Dems GAF what is popular with voters.
They're out for blood.
The GOP played dirty to get ACB in there. Winners win but yeah DNC is going to retaliate for that move. Im not a fan of the current DNC talking points to pack the courts which is basically just adding justices carte blanche.
Buttigieg had an interesting proposal to depoliticise the process which I guess could still fall under the umbrella of court packing given the current balance. GOP gets 5 justices. DNC gets 5 justices. This initial allotment does not change. Those initial 10 justices appoint 5 more. 15 justices in total. This was floated well before RBG/ACB.
The GOP used existing rules to nominate and vote in favor of a Supreme Court Justice
Nothing dirty about it at all
Thanks to Harry Reid it was possible. Maybe the dems can change some more stuff that blows up in their face
The playing dirty is setting a precedent that if you control congress you delay or expedite court appointments until you get your guy into the executive office. It's supposed to be an apolitical office.
Playing dirty is not hearing an appointment for Garland on the grounds that it was an election year and then ramming through ACB a month before the election. I never said that it was against the rules but it was massively hypocritical.
2016 Obama was a democrat, the Senate was controlled by republicans
2020 Trump is a Republican, the senate was controlled by republicans
This isn't complicated
Mind blown...so whoever controls senate can just delay an appointment for how long?
Your mind is blown that a branch of the legislature can exercise a check on the power of the executive making a life long appointment into the judicial??? Thats the entire fucking point.
No wonder you are peddling Beto type ideas...
JFC you are talking about breaking down judges by republican vs democrat (as if no other political party does/could exist) and then having its own body pick additional justices...
Read a god damn book , Start with the federalist papers, maybe Hamilton's (that guy from the spoken word musical was actually a real guy!) No. 76.
So how long can the senate delay a judicial appointment? It's not a check against the executive branch if the senate is just refusing to do its elected duty. The way things are going the controlling party is just going to just refuse to hear any appointments if the other party controls the executive and makes the nomination. Or worse continual court packing.
The politicization of the judiciary is not a radical idea and most agree that it's a bad thing. I never said that I think Buttigieg's idea is the best approach or that I even support it. I do appreciate that he at least calls attention to the issue and puts an idea out there. Also you seem to not understand the proposal. It doesn't matter what the judge's political affiliation is. The judges are nominated by the GOP/DEM members of the senate. The GOP senate block could nominate a liberal judge and vice versa.
Thanks for the list of books.
Yes, the senate can block the appointment of the seat forever, just like the Executive could just refuse to nominate anyone to the seat forever. Its not absconding from a duty, its exercising its check. If the executive was intended to appoint justices directly it wouldn't say the executive shall nominate to the senate.
Seriously, go read Federalist 76... "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."
What does "politicization" actually mean and when you think it started in the supreme court?
Why do you think the Supreme court exists in the first place and what do you think their main directive is?
There is no constitutional recourse for the senate not holding a hearing or voting down a nominee but it is their elected duty to confirm justices. Same with the executive to appoint. I'm not arguing that the senate shouldn't act as a check against the executive. It should and that check should happen during the confirmation process when the qualifications of the nominee are measured.
To borrow from your Federlist 76 quote the check from the Senate is to prevent "unfit characters" from appointment not to block a qualified appointee because they happen to be nominated by an opposing political party. Federalist 76 also points out that under this system that it is "not probable that the nomination would often be overruled" likely because the author assumes that the executive and senate both act in good faith.
Politicization of the courts is what we're currently seeing. Party line votes for confirmations. Delays in holding confirmation hearings because of partisanship. Retaliatory threats to pack the court. All of this erodes the public perception of the independence of the judiciary which is really the crux of the problem.
Why do I think the Supreme Court exists? Seriously it's not worth my time to write this or for you to read it.
There is no "elected duty to confirm justices" in the Senate. The executive nominates, the Senate can confirm if it wishes. Just because you FEEL like there is a "duty" doesn't mean there is.
There is a well established history of not voting on nominees...
1) Jon Quincy Adams in 1829 had his nominee postponed without a vote until after President Andrew Jackson won and instead filled the position.
2) Andrew Jackson's nominee in 1835 had his nominee postponed and the senate even voted to "Postpone indefinitely" until the Senate composition changed after the election.
3) John Tyler experienced extreme difficulty in obtaining approval of his nominees... Reuben H. Walworth was nominated on March 13, 1844, and a resolution to table the nomination passed on a 27–20 vote on June 15, 1844. Edward King was nominated on June 5, 1844. A resolution to table the nomination passed by a vote of 29–18 on June 15, 1844. No other action was taken on this nomination.
The same day that Walworth's nomination was withdrawn, Walworth was then re-nominated, but the motion to act on the nomination in the Senate was objected to, and no further action was taken.
Walworth and King were re-nominated on December 10, 1844, but both nominations were tabled on January 21, 1845. John M. Read was nominated on February 8, 1845, and there was a motion to consider the nomination in the Senate on January 21, 1845, but the motion was unsuccessful and no other action was taken.
4) Milliard Fillmore (the last Whig) nominated 3 difference justices for the democrat controlled Senate and they did not take action on any of the nominees. Democratic President Franklin Pierce later filled the vacancy with John Archibald Campbell.
5) Grant nominated George Henry Williams to be Chief Justice of the United States in 1873, the Senate Judiciary Committee declined to recommend confirmation to the entire Senate.
6) Rutherford B Hayes (a republican), in 1881, nominated Thomas Stanley Matthews, The democrat party controlled Senate declared the nomination to close to the election and took not action or vote. After the election the next president Garfield nominated.
7) Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated John Marshall Harlan II in 1954, but his nomination was not reported out of the judiciary committee. He had to re-nominate the next year after the Senate elections.
You dont know what you are talking about. There is no duty to confirm or even vote, what was done was nothing new.
The question on duty to confirm is a matter of interpretation. People smarter than both of us have argued it either way. The Senate itself explains this succinctly in describing its powers and procedures related to appointments: Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason that a majority of its members deems appropriate. This is our argument boiled down into a single sentence and the Appointments Clause is to ambiguous to say that either view is objectively right or wrong. But keep spinning this as me FEELING something and you citing a cold hard fact.
If you want to pivot the argument now to historical precedent then OK but seems like a bad angle considering that court packing is what started this discussion in the first place. Started digging into your list and realized you just copy/pasted this straight from off a Wikipedia page titled "Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States". Out of over 150 SC nominations you're able to list 7 examples where the Senate has postponed or not taken action on a nominee and most are from the 1800s. Not sure it qualifies as a "well established history" if you can count the number of times it has occurred on your fingers over a several hundred year period.
It's not a matter of interpretation. There is no duty to confirm. There is a duty to not consent or to consent. That's it. I can argue that historically that the Senate confirmed nominees based on whether they were deemed fit to be a Supreme Court Justice based on education and experience. That went out the window when the dems attacked an extremely well qualified candidate in Robert Bork. All the last nominated partisan dem candidates were confirmed on a bipartisan basis including Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor.
Comments
#maltby
Seriously, go read Federalist 76... "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."
What does "politicization" actually mean and when you think it started in the supreme court?
Why do you think the Supreme court exists in the first place and what do you think their main directive is?
She doesn't work for you. None of them do.
To borrow from your Federlist 76 quote the check from the Senate is to prevent "unfit characters" from appointment not to block a qualified appointee because they happen to be nominated by an opposing political party. Federalist 76 also points out that under this system that it is "not probable that the nomination would often be overruled" likely because the author assumes that the executive and senate both act in good faith.
Politicization of the courts is what we're currently seeing. Party line votes for confirmations. Delays in holding confirmation hearings because of partisanship. Retaliatory threats to pack the court. All of this erodes the public perception of the independence of the judiciary which is really the crux of the problem.
Why do I think the Supreme Court exists? Seriously it's not worth my time to write this or for you to read it.
There is a well established history of not voting on nominees...
1) Jon Quincy Adams in 1829 had his nominee postponed without a vote until after President Andrew Jackson won and instead filled the position.
2) Andrew Jackson's nominee in 1835 had his nominee postponed and the senate even voted to "Postpone indefinitely" until the Senate composition changed after the election.
3) John Tyler experienced extreme difficulty in obtaining approval of his nominees... Reuben H. Walworth was nominated on March 13, 1844, and a resolution to table the nomination passed on a 27–20 vote on June 15, 1844. Edward King was nominated on June 5, 1844. A resolution to table the nomination passed by a vote of 29–18 on June 15, 1844. No other action was taken on this nomination.
The same day that Walworth's nomination was withdrawn, Walworth was then re-nominated, but the motion to act on the nomination in the Senate was objected to, and no further action was taken.
Walworth and King were re-nominated on December 10, 1844, but both nominations were tabled on January 21, 1845. John M. Read was nominated on February 8, 1845, and there was a motion to consider the nomination in the Senate on January 21, 1845, but the motion was unsuccessful and no other action was taken.
4) Milliard Fillmore (the last Whig) nominated 3 difference justices for the democrat controlled Senate and they did not take action on any of the nominees. Democratic President Franklin Pierce later filled the vacancy with John Archibald Campbell.
5) Grant nominated George Henry Williams to be Chief Justice of the United States in 1873, the Senate Judiciary Committee declined to recommend confirmation to the entire Senate.
6) Rutherford B Hayes (a republican), in 1881, nominated Thomas Stanley Matthews, The democrat party controlled Senate declared the nomination to close to the election and took not action or vote. After the election the next president Garfield nominated.
7) Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated John Marshall Harlan II in 1954, but his nomination was not reported out of the judiciary committee. He had to re-nominate the next year after the Senate elections.
You dont know what you are talking about. There is no duty to confirm or even vote, what was done was nothing new.
In 1965, Johnson nominated his friend, high-profile Washington, D.C. lawyer Abe Fortas, to the Supreme Court, and he was confirmed by the United States Senate. In 1967, Johnson nominated United States Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, and he also was confirmed by the Senate. In 1968, however, Johnson made two failed nominations to the Supreme Court. He nominated Fortas to become Chief Justice to replace the retiring Earl Warren, and he nominated United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit judge Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas as Associate Justice. However, Johnson wound up withdrawing Fortas' nomination after his confirmation was filibustered by Sen. Robert Griffin (R-MI), and he was not able to make another Chief Justice nomination before his presidency ended. As a result, Warren continued as Chief Justice and Fortas as an Associate Justice, so Johnson also ended up withdrawing Thornberry's nomination. Ultimately, Johnson's successor, President Richard Nixon, appointed Warren E. Burger as Chief Justice of the United States. After Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court, Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun to fill Fortas' seat after his previous nominations of Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell to that seat both were voted down by the United States Senate.
At the appellate level, Johnson formally nominated one person, Barefoot Sanders, for a federal appellate judgeship who was never confirmed. The United States Senate did not act on Sanders' nomination before Johnson's presidency ended, and Nixon did not renominate him. Johnson also considered other appeals court nominees whom he never wound up nominating.
https://fee.org/articles/65-of-college-students-say-rioting-and-looting-is-justified-new-poll-finds/
If you want to pivot the argument now to historical precedent then OK but seems like a bad angle considering that court packing is what started this discussion in the first place. Started digging into your list and realized you just copy/pasted this straight from off a Wikipedia page titled "Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States". Out of over 150 SC nominations you're able to list 7 examples where the Senate has postponed or not taken action on a nominee and most are from the 1800s. Not sure it qualifies as a "well established history" if you can count the number of times it has occurred on your fingers over a several hundred year period.
I'm 81% joking