Rules for appointing Supreme Court Justices?

[Peter1469]

What has been done 29 times?

Attempts to fill a SCOTUS vacancy in the 4th year of a president's term.

[Chris]

The “rule” that you shouldn’t confirm a justice during a presidential election year is bull$#@!. But, it was bull$#@! when McConnell and the Republicans pulled it in 2016 and promised that they would do the same during the final year of a Republican president’s term. Democrats were right to try to hold them to their promises, as worthless as they turned out to be. The Republicans are hypocrites and liars and I hope that the Democrats stop with this nonsense of trying to maintain decorum by working with them within the system. They need to add seats to the Court to counteract the Republican abuses of power while they held the majority in the Senate.

Appeal to hypocrisy is not a rational argument.

[Chris]

Only rule I'd like to see is this: No politicking in questioning or speaking about the nominee. That means anything related to how a judge might vote is out of bounds as it politicizes the court. The only questions and speeches allowed should be about the judge's ability to follow the law in a reasoned way. Now this doesn't mean those nominees who are judicial activists are disqualified but that is what ought to be voted on, whether or not they are advocates of the law.

[Peter1469]

Only rule I'd like to see is this: No politicking in questioning or speaking about the nominee. That means anything related to how a judge might vote is out of bounds as it politicizes the court. The only questions and speeches allowed should be about the judge's ability to follow the law in a reasoned way. Now this doesn't mean those nominees who are judicial activists are disqualified but that is what ought to be voted on, whether or not they are advocates of the law.

That would leave the Dem senators with nothing to ask. They wouldn't go for that.

[RichardMZhlubb]

Attempts to fill a SCOTUS vacancy in the 4th year of a president's term.

And, since the Senate started holding hearings on Supreme Court nominees, Garland was the only nominee who was refused a hearing or a vote.

[Peter1469]

And, since the Senate started holding hearings on Supreme Court nominees, Garland was the only nominee who was refused a hearing or a vote.

So. End result is the same. McConnel told O ahead of time his list was not acceptable.

[RichardMZhlubb]

So. End result is the same. McConnel told O ahead of time his list was not acceptable.

That's not how Senate votes work. McConnell isn't a dictator with unilateral authority, even if he chose to act like one.

McConnell's power play had nothing to do with Garland. It didn't matter who Obama nominated. McConnell saw the opportunity to abuse his power to block Scalia's replacement, and he did it. If a vote had been held, Garland would almost certainly have been confirmed.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Thursday he would help moderate jurist Merrick Garland win Senate confirmation if President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court.Senator Orrin Hatch said he had known the federal appeals court judge, seen as a leading contender for the Supreme Court, for years and that he would be “a consensus nominee.”Asked if Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support, Hatch told Reuters, “No question.”“I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes. And I will do my best to help him get them,” added Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...6456QY20100506

[Chris]

That would leave the Dem senators with nothing to ask. They wouldn't go for that.

Just arguing implementation of a rule would expose that.

[Peter1469]

You are taking this hard.

I suggest that had roles been reversed the exact same thing would have happened.

That's not how Senate votes work. McConnell isn't a dictator with unilateral authority, even if he chose to act like one.

McConnell's power play had nothing to do with Garland. It didn't matter who Obama nominated. McConnell saw the opportunity to abuse his power to block Scalia's replacement, and he did it. If a vote had been held, Garland would almost certainly have been confirmed.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...6456QY20100506

[RichardMZhlubb]

You are taking this hard.

I suggest that had roles been reversed the exact same thing would have happened.

You mean like in the final year of Reagan's term when the Democratic majority Senate approved Anthony Kennedy's nomination?