Filibuster Court Nominee

[Supposn]

Filibuster Republican Supreme Court Nominee:

The Republican Party’s Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and their judiciary committee members deliberately prevented the U.S. Senate from discussing and voting upon the Democratic president’s nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court while a Democratic president was in office. If this was in the best interests of our nation, then surely Democratic Senators should behave no less patriotically. Until at least the year 2021, Democrats should filibuster any discussion or vote regarding a U.S. Supreme Court nominee.

If Republicans behaved contrary to our nation’s best interests, their behavior should not be rewarded to encourage similar or worse occurrences in future senate sessions.

At very least the Democrats should insist that Senator McConnell on behalf of the Republican Party lead the passage of a vote for his own censure and publicly apologize for their undermining the reputation of the U.S. Senate; I do not believe the Democrats should insist upon McConnell’s resignation (if he wishes to remain in the U.S.Senate).

Until such a public Republican apology, it’s Democrats patriotic duty to filibuster any discussion or vote regarding a U.S. Supreme Court nominee while a Republican President is in office.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[arcturus88]

Until obuma took office many republicans did not realize that this (politics) is war. They have learned this lesson now.

 

[Supposn]

NOTHING to apologize for - hello?! Tradition has ALWAYS been that no Supreme Court nominee in lame duck year is considered. Doofus Obama apparently played DUMB about it.

Aufgeblassen, if B.S. were gold, you’d be a millionaire. Throughout our nation’s history there’s no precedent for the U.S. Senate refusing to consider the president’s nominee for the supreme court.

Supposn

 

[tecoyah]

Fact Check.
• 1968: President Lyndon Johnson — who announced he would not run for re-election — nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas as Chief Justice and Homer Thornberry to fill Fortas’ vacancy. Fortas’ nomination failed, Thornberry withdrew his nomination and Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench, delaying his retirement.
• 1932, President Herbert Hoover nominated Benjamin Cardozo. Hoover lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
• 1912: President William Taft successfully nominated Mahlon Pitney to the Supreme Court. Taft lost to Woodrow Wilson.
Three other presidents made successful*Supreme Court*nominations while running for re-election, but unlike Taft and Hoover, they won another term: *
• 1956: Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan.
• 1940: Franklin Delano Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy.
• 1916: Woodrow Wilson nominated John Clarke and Louis Brandeis

Do presidents stop nominating judges in final year? | PolitiFact

 

[tecoyah]

Fact Check.
• 1968: President Lyndon Johnson — who announced he would not run for re-election — nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas as Chief Justice and Homer Thornberry to fill Fortas’ vacancy. Fortas’ nomination failed, Thornberry withdrew his nomination and Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench, delaying his retirement.
• 1932, President Herbert Hoover nominated Benjamin Cardozo. Hoover lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
• 1912: President William Taft successfully nominated Mahlon Pitney to the Supreme Court. Taft lost to Woodrow Wilson.
Three other presidents made successful*Supreme Court*nominations while running for re-election, but unlike Taft and Hoover, they won another term: *
• 1956: Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan.
• 1940: Franklin Delano Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy.
• 1916: Woodrow Wilson nominated John Clarke and Louis Brandeis

Do presidents stop nominating judges in final year? | PolitiFact

 

[Supposn]

There has NEVER been in all of our history a President who tried to put someone on the court THAT late in the lame duck period. It would have been UNPRECIDENTED. ZERO B.S. about that truism.

Aufgeblassen, I can’t conceive your motive for making such a foolish statement and then doubling down and by continuing to insist you wrote the truth.
There’s no tradition and no precedent for not naming a nominee for a supreme court vacancy during a president’s last year in office. Your dislike for ex-president Obama leads you to write irrational posts.

If B.S. were gold, you’d certainly be a millionaire.

Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Until obuma took office many republicans did not realize that this (politics) is war. They have learned this lesson now.

Arcturus, Due to a lack of sincere attempted compromise and accommodation between the political parties in the U.S. Senate, a super majority necessary to avoid filibusters could not be assembled to confirm president Obam’s nominees.

Regretably in 2013, senate majority leader Harry Ried led his Democratic Party to reduce the plurality required to confirm president’s nominated appointees. There’s no doubt that the need for such a rule change is in itself a reduction of the U.S. Senate’s standards of decorum.

Although in recent years our supreme court has heard some politically controversal cases, the supreme court still retains its national reputation and status. With good reason the Democrats retained the senate super-plurality requirement to confirm a U.S. Supreme Court appointment.

In Febuary 2016 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died. Since then senate majority leader McConnell led the Republican Party to prevent any President Obama nominee from even being voted upon within the U.S. Senate (while a Democratic president’s in office).

Under the present senate rules, it’s possible for Democrats to withhold a super majority from President Trump’s supreme court nominee.
I’m among those believing Democrats must try to withhold the super-plurality for any supreme court nominee until 2021 or until Senator MCconnell apologizes on behalf of his party and lead the passage of his own senatorial censure for acting to undermine the reputation of the U.S. Senate.

Senator MCconnell is not expected to comply but rather to lead Republicans to further extend the senate rule change to be additionally applicable for nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. That of course would be additionally more detrimental to the decorum and reputation of the U.S. Senate.

The alternative of Democrats not attempting to block all President Trump’s nominations to the Supreme Court would be to accept that no Democratic President should be able to appoint a U.S. Supreme Court Justice unless Democrats at that time also hold 67 seats in the U.S. Senate.

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////
Excerpted from https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm :
A key goal of the framers was to create a Senate differently constituted from the House so it would be less subject to popular passions and impulses. "The use of the Senate," wrote James Madison in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, "is to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch." An oft-quoted story about the "coolness" of the Senate involves George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who was in France during the Constitutional Convention. Upon his return, Jefferson visited Washington and asked why the Convention delegates had created a Senate. "Why did you pour that tea into your saucer?" asked Washington. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," responded Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it”.]

 

[tecoyah]

Arcturus, Due to a lack of sincere attempted compromise and accommodation between the political parties in the U.S. Senate, a super majority necessary to avoid filibusters could not be assembled to confirm president Obam’s nominees.

Regretably in 2013, senate majority leader Harry Ried led his Democratic Party to reduce the plurality required to confirm president’s nominated appointees. There’s no doubt that the need for such a rule change is in itself a reduction of the U.S. Senate’s standards of decorum.

Although in recent years our supreme court has heard some politically controversal cases, the supreme court still retains its national reputation and status. With good reason the Democrats retained the senate super-plurality requirement to confirm a U.S. Supreme Court appointment.

In Febuary 2016 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died. Since then senate majority leader McConnell led the Republican Party to prevent any President Obama nominee from even being voted upon within the U.S. Senate (while a Democratic president’s in office).

Under the present senate rules, it’s possible for Democrats to withhold a super majority from President Trump’s supreme court nominee.
I’m among those believing Democrats must try to withhold the super-plurality for any supreme court nominee until 2021 or until Senator MCconnell apologizes on behalf of his party and lead the passage of his own senatorial censure for acting to undermine the reputation of the U.S. Senate.

Senator MCconnell is not expected to comply but rather to lead Republicans to further extend the senate rule change to be additionally applicable for nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. That of course would be additionally more detrimental to the decorum and reputation of the U.S. Senate.

The alternative of Democrats not attempting to block all President Trump’s nominations to the Supreme Court would be to accept that no Democratic President should be able to appoint a U.S. Supreme Court Justice unless Democrats at that time also hold 67 seats in the U.S. Senate.

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////
Excerpted from https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm :
A key goal of the framers was to create a Senate differently constituted from the House so it would be less subject to popular passions and impulses. "The use of the Senate," wrote James Madison in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, "is to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch." An oft-quoted story about the "coolness" of the Senate involves George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who was in France during the Constitutional Convention. Upon his return, Jefferson visited Washington and asked why the Convention delegates had created a Senate. "Why did you pour that tea into your saucer?" asked Washington. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," responded Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it”.]

Excellent factual synopsis.

 

[arcturus88]

Regretably in 2013, senate majority leader Harry Ried led his Democratic Party to reduce the plurality required to confirm president’s nominated appointees. There’s no doubt that the need for such a rule change is in itself a reduction of the U.S. Senate’s standards of decorum.

I appreciate your grasp of the subject and history, However, just curious...

Did you hold the same standard for Ried?

That he should apologize for his party? the "nuclear option" after all, sounds pretty bold and empowering , that is until its being used against you.

 

[arcturus88]

Harry Reid's 'nuclear option' will assure Donald Trump's appointments - Washington Times

The wheel that goes around comes around, and the fancy footwork of a boxer is required to avoid getting run over. Harry Reid, a onetime boxer who was then the leader of a Democratic majority in the Senate, thought he had the footwork three years ago to risk repealing the Senate’s filibuster rule, which required 60 votes to suspend debate and vote on presidential nominations to high federal office. A new rule requires only a simple majority, or 51 votes.

Mr. Reid’s change enabled President Obama and the Democrats to push to confirmation three very liberal nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is almost as important as the U.S. Supreme Court.

All but three of the 55 Democrats voted for the change. None of the 45 Republicans did, because at the time the old rule was the only way they could block President Obama from packing U.S. district and appellate courts with liberal ideologues, as well as nominees to Cabinet and executive-branch jobs requiring Senate confirmation. The 60-vote requirement was left in place for nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Mr. Reid and his leadership team held a victory party after the vote with liberal activists and lobbyists in a room just off the Senate floor. It was an occasion for mirth and champagne. Now the party positions are reversed, and Mr. Reid, retiring from the Senate, won’t be around to live with the fallout from his so-called “nuclear option.”

 

[Supposn]

I appreciate your grasp of the subject and history, However, just curious...

Did you hold the same standard for Ried?

That he should apologize for his party? the "nuclear option" after all, sounds pretty bold and empowering , that is until its being used against you.

Arcturus88, I did then as now appreciate, (but I did not then write of my opinion) regarding the need for the regrettable rule change’s reduction of the U.S. Senate’s standards of decorum. Then as now, I seldom post on other than the economic forum boards.

I did then as now believe majority party leaders are not expected (in cases such as these), to apologize on behalf of their parties and lead the passage of their own senatorial censure for acting to undermine the reputation of the U.S. Senate.

You correctly bring attention to my then not publicly posting of my regrets.

Respectfully, Supposn