Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[Spider-Dan]

For the third time: Anthony Kennedy, a Justice on the current Supreme Court, was confirmed by Democrats in 1988, the final year of Reagan's presidency.  You're referring to things that Schumer said; I'm referring to votes that were actually cast.

Now, it's entirely possible that the Republicans will feel the same sense of duty to the Constitution that Democrats felt when they put Anthony Kennedy on the court.  But given that the thrust of your post was that they shouldn't even feel obligated to, I think we both agree that they won't.

[Rich]

You are correct to point out that there has been no nominee yet.  If/when there is, we will compare hypotheticals to actuals, which should be pretty easy since (again) Democrats actually confirmed Anthony Kennedy in the final year of a Republican president's second term.

I notice that although you seem to view my statement about Srinivasan with scorn, you did not address its accuracy.  Are you saying that you think Srinivasan would, in fact, be confirmed by the GOP Senate?  Perhaps it is your position that a judge who was confirmed 93-0 (including yes votes from both Cruz and Rubio) is "too extreme"?

It's pretty easy to say that Obama should nominate some Theoretical Unnamed Moderate and then laugh derisively when real, existing persons are cited.

I didn't meet your statement about Srinivasan with scorn. I was doing that to your penchant for giving your opinion as if it were irrefutable fact. Obviously that flew right over your head, as do many other things.

Chuck Grassley just said Republicans should consider any nominee seriously, campaign season or no campaign season. I believe he has more say than Mitch McConnell in these matters given his chairmanship.

[Spider-Dan]

In what way does Chuck Grassley have "more say" than Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell?  The Judiciary Committee can elect not to hold any hearings, or to hold as many hearings as they want, but the confirmation vote is taken by the full Senate.

[CF DolFan]

So it comes to light that Senate Democrats in 1960 passed a resolution against election-year Supreme Court recess appointments. 48 Democrats voting “yea”, 33 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting “nay.” But today's Republicans are somehow bad people for wanting the same thing.

Don't get me wrong ... I completely see the hypocrisy of the Republicans in this whole thing.

[Baba Booey]

You can make a case if the Republicans want to win the White House they should vote and approve a nominee now. It will then motivate the republican base to get out and vote and get in someone like Trump or Cruz who will say you need me in the White House to fix our party. Now, a few senators will lose elections and fall on the sword and take the fall. But the best chance to win the White House is to probably approve someone to the Supreme Court now.

If the opposite happens and republicans are just obstructionists to the highest level it actually makes the Democrats look strong and say, hey we are playing by the rules the republicans are being unreasonable and playing games of running out the clock, and not taking a vote (if that happens).

And honestly, if Clinton or Sanders wins the election, and the Senate goes back to the Democrats after the next election (two very possible not far fetched scenarios by looking at current polling and the map) a year from now you might be talking about Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama.

I think this could really back-fire on the Republicans if they play their cards wrong. This is going to be really interesting to follow.

[Spider-Dan]

So it comes to light that Senate Democrats in 1960 passed a resolution against election-year Supreme Court recess appointments. 48 Democrats voting “yea”, 33 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting “nay.” But today's Republicans are somehow bad people for wanting the same thing.

I'm not sure why you continue to insist that "I definitely think we should [do thing]" and "I vote in favor of [doing thing]" are the same.

When typing the above, I had a strange feeling of deja vu, and suddenly I remembered why: under GOP Presidencies, Democrats have done their share of complaining about the debt limit.  But they haven't actually demanded political concessions in exchange for raising the debt limit; that particular strategy is a Tea Party invention.

So, here we are again.  GOP apologists take the empty threats of past Democrats, ignore their actual votes to the contrary, insist that said empty threats are the same as making good on them, and declare that saying otherwise is hypocrisy.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about, here: you are definitely not providing cover for the Republicans making empty threats about refusing to confirm a nominee in the final year... you are providing cover for the GOP actually doing so, which stands in stark contrast to what the Democrats did when the tables were turned.

So don't try to sell this fake bill of both-sides-do-it.  One side talking about doing it and the other side actually doing it is not "both sides do it."

P.S. "Recess appointments" are when Congress is in recess, and they bypass the confirmation process.  No one has proposed this, so I'm not sure why you even mentioned it in the first place.

[Rich]

I'm not sure why you continue to insist that "I definitely think we should [do thing]" and "I vote in favor of [doing thing]" are the same.

When typing the above, I had a strange feeling of deja vu, and suddenly I remembered why: under GOP Presidencies, Democrats have done their share of complaining about the debt limit.  But they haven't actually demanded political concessions in exchange for raising the debt limit; that particular strategy is a Tea Party invention.

So, here we are again.  GOP apologists take the empty threats of past Democrats, ignore their actual votes to the contrary, insist that said empty threats are the same as making good on them, and declare that saying otherwise is hypocrisy.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about, here: you are definitely not providing cover for the Republicans making empty threats about refusing to confirm a nominee in the final year... you are providing cover for the GOP actually doing so, which stands in stark contrast to what the Democrats did when the tables were turned.

So don't try to sell this fake bill of both-sides-do-it.  One side talking about doing it and the other side actually doing it is not "both sides do it."

P.S. "Recess appointments" are when Congress is in recess, and they bypass the confirmation process.  No one has proposed this, so I'm not sure why you even mentioned it in the first place.

It's very simple logic (unless you are a Dem apologist).

If you tell me that the next time I do something you are going to punch me in the face and then I punch you in the face the next time you do it, you shouldn't really be complaining that I just punched you in the face.

[CF DolFan]

It's very simple logic (unless you are a Dem apologist).

If you tell me that the next time I do something you are going to punch me in the face and then I punch you in the face the next time you do it, you shouldn't really be complaining that I just punched you in the face.

Well said.

[Dave Gray]

It doesn't really matter what someone said once upon a time.

It's the president's job to nominate people for the court.  It's the senate's job to confirm that they're qualified.  Just because it's politically inconvenient for one ideology, it doesn't matter.

It really sucks for the GOP, because the timing of this screwed them.  Of course they don't want to lose their most conservative judge for someone more liberal, but their blocking this will cost them the election and probably more than that.

That party really is in shambles.  They brought this on themselves.  They have run on obstruction for so long with this Tea Party business that they've shut down their own party.  Now their only reasonable candidates are getting trounced and they're running a bunch of clowns at the top.

[Rich]

It doesn't really matter what someone said once upon a time.

It's the president's job to nominate people for the court.  It's the senate's job to confirm that they're qualified.  Just because it's politically inconvenient for one ideology, it doesn't matter.

Actually, the whole design is another check and balance intended to be a long and messy process if not everyone is on board. It is the President's job to nominate, correct. It is the Senate's job to analyze the nominee. Correct. But they do not need to confirm that person and their criteria for being qualified may be different from the President's.

The conservative criteria tends to revolve around strict constitutionalism while the liberal criteria tends to revolve around open interpretation. So to a conservative, a judge who is going to use "loose" interpretation of the Constitution is not qualified.

There is nothing actually legally wrong with the Senate blocking a nominee. It is in their power to do so. It all comes down to how public perception passes judgment on the decision.

That party really is in shambles.  They brought this on themselves.  They have run on obstruction for so long with this Tea Party business that they've shut down their own party.  Now their only reasonable candidates are getting trounced and they're running a bunch of clowns at the top.

True. Luckily for them, the candidates on the other side are clowns as well. So the general election will most likely be a toss up until the very end and one or two events will decide it at the last minute.

[Dave Gray]

^ I disagree with your assessment.  Otherwise, you would see history of voting against judges where you ideologically disagree, where you don't.  Generally, you see people qualified and without excessive baggage voted in, in large numbers by both parties.

[Fau Teixeira]

I find Bernie to be completely authentic and not clown-ish at all .. you can disagree with what his policies are .. and i'm sure alot of people do .. but he doesn't mince words or play games with what he wants to do .. it's pretty up-front

[Rich]

I find Bernie to be completely authentic and not clown-ish at all .. you can disagree with what his policies are .. and i'm sure alot of people do .. but he doesn't mince words or play games with what he wants to do .. it's pretty up-front

Being authentic does not preclude you from being clownish. Ted Cruz seems pretty authentic and I consider the guy to be a monumental clown. Proposing trillions of dollars in new spending while countering that with tax increases that will do little to offset is pretty clownish when we are over $19 trillion in debt.

[Rich]

^ I disagree with your assessment.  Otherwise, you would see history of voting against judges where you ideologically disagree, where you don't.  Generally, you see people qualified and without excessive baggage voted in, in large numbers by both parties.

Recent history points to my assessment being fairly accurate. Democrats tried pretty hard to block Alito. Republicans have given quite a bit of push back against Obama's appointees.

[Spider-Dan]

If you tell me that the next time I do something you are going to punch me in the face and then I punch you in the face the next time you do it, you shouldn't really be complaining that I just punched you in the face.

Close.

If we both threaten to punch each other in the face and then you actually do it, you don't get to say, "Well, you said you would do it too!" and claim that both actions are equivalent.

Recent history points to my assessment being fairly accurate. Democrats tried pretty hard to block Alito.

So your cited evidence for the accuracy of your statement about stalwart ideological opposition is... a currently-serving Justice who was confirmed to the Supreme Court.