Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[Dave Gray]

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.

Dems didn't have the votes to block Alito.  They voted against him, but he was confirmed.  It was just a showing.  I understand the GOP blow-harding about the risks, as long as they ultimately go through with it, holding their nose.  If not, they do it at their own peril.  Whatever.  ...it will be interesting.

[Rich]

Dems didn't have the votes to block Alito.

Thank you for rebutting Spider's superfluous point. Can't wait for his next one.

[Rich]

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.

Awesome.

Tell that to the person making the point that they are.

[Spider-Dan]

You're defending (or, rebutting counterarguments to) CF Dolfan's claims of "hypocrisy," but cries of hypocrisy don't make sense if we are talking about two different things.

Contrary to all the Democrats' talk about how they would not confirm any late-term Republican nominees, when actually faced with the choice they confirmed Kennedy anyway.  So unless the point being made by the GOP apologists here is that the Republicans should say that they will not confirm Obama's nominee and then go ahead and confirm him/her, there is no "hypocrisy" because there is no equivalency.

[Rich]

You're defending (or, rebutting counterarguments to) CF Dolfan's claims of "hypocrisy," but cries of hypocrisy don't make sense if we are talking about two different things.

Contrary to all the Democrats' talk about how they would not confirm any late-term Republican nominees, when actually faced with the choice they confirmed Kennedy anyway.  So unless the point being made by the GOP apologists here is that the Republicans should say that they will not confirm Obama's nominee and then go ahead and confirm him/her, there is no "hypocrisy" because there is no equivalency.

It is clearly hypocrisy because some Republicans are threatening to deploy a tactic that Democrats basically invented and have threatened to use as recently as the last time a Republican president sat in office. But now that Republicans are threatening to use it, those same Democrats (Schumer) are crying wolf.

Criticizing others for threatening to do something you threatened to do is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Your ideological bias would have to be so extreme as to see it otherwise, that your only recourse would be to come up with ridiculous arguments to deny that this is hypocrisy.

Clearly, that is the case here.

[Spider-Dan]

Threatening to do it is fine.  Democrats have also threatened to do it... and then capitulated anyway.
Actually doing it is another matter entirely.

So, to clarify your position: are you saying that the Republicans should threaten not to confirm an Obama nominee in an election year, or that they should actually not confirm said nominee?

I'm perfectly fine with the GOP threatening not to confirm an Obama nominee in an election year and then confirming him (exactly as the Democrats have done), so no hypocrisy there.

[pondwater]

Threatening to do it is fine.  Democrats have also threatened to do it... and then capitulated anyway.
Actually doing it is another matter entirely.

So, to clarify your position: are you saying that the Republicans should threaten not to confirm an Obama nominee in an election year, or that they should actually not confirm said nominee?

I'm perfectly fine with the GOP threatening not to confirm an Obama nominee in an election year and then confirming him (exactly as the Democrats have done), so no hypocrisy there.

That's a mouth full of Greek salad. There was a point made about the Democrats hypocrisy about the Republican threats, when they themselves have done the same thing. Nothing else has happened, at this point the Republicans have done nothing more than the Democrats have done in the past. Now they're complaining about it. Yes that's hypocrisy at its finest. Other than those facts, what are you arguing about?

[Dave Gray]

I don't dispute that it's hypocrisy, like Dan does.  Dems shouldn't do this crap either and it's hypocritical to ask a president not to carry out his/her duty because it's politically inconvenient or you at the time.  I think that what he assumes (and I do as well), that it was kinda empty threats and posturing for votes since the Dems were in no real position to stop the nomination.  ...and when faced with actually having the choice, they've followed up by nominating the appropriate people that they've disagreed with ideologically.

I get why the GOP needs to come out with this stance, in order to gain sympathy and votes for their conservative cause...rile up their base, so to speak.  But if they actually stop a president who was elected twice from putting someone qualified on the court for a year, they will pay for it dearly.

[pondwater]

I don't dispute that it's hypocrisy, like Dan does.  Dems shouldn't do this crap either and it's hypocritical to ask a president not to carry out his/her duty because it's politically inconvenient or you at the time.  I think that what he assumes (and I do as well), that it was kinda empty threats and posturing for votes since the Dems were in no real position to stop the nomination.  ...and when faced with actually having the choice, they've followed up by nominating the appropriate people that they've disagreed with ideologically.

I get why the GOP needs to come out with this stance, in order to gain sympathy and votes for their conservative cause...rile up their base, so to speak.  But if they actually stop a president who was elected twice from putting someone qualified on the court for a year, they will pay for it dearly.

That's how the system is set up.  Justices will be appointed with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. It moderates the power of one branch of government by requiring the concurrence of the other branch. Which basically means that both branches have to agree. There is nothing wrong with not appointing a nominee. They are doing their job as it was designed, that's the whole point of how the system is set up. Don't think for one minute that if the role were reversed that it would play out any other way.

[Spider-Dan]

Don't think for one minute that if the role were reversed that it would play out any other way.

In 1988, the roles were reversed.
In the final year of his presidency (an election year), Republican President Ronald Reagan's nominee Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate.
Anthony Kennedy is still on the Supreme Court today.

That's the point.

[Spider-Dan]

I don't dispute that it's hypocrisy, like Dan does.

To be clear, if the Republicans do actually end up confirming an Obama nominee this year, then yes, all the (ultimately unfounded) criticism would be hypocritical.  The GOP's empty posturing (only to ultimately capitulate) will be no different than what Dems have done in the past.  In that scenario, I would agree with CF Dolfan that the complaining is hypocrisy.

But virtually everyone in the political sphere (including the GOP fans in this thread) believe that it's not just empty posturing, and that the Republicans fully intend to block Obama from filling the vacancy.  That's the difference between political rhetoric and action.

[pondwater]

In 1988, the roles were reversed.
In the final year of his presidency (an election year), Republican President Ronald Reagan's nominee Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate.
Anthony Kennedy is still on the Supreme Court today.

That's the point.

Yes, and it was their choice at the time to confirm. They had another choice available to them. It goes to Senate for a REASON, not a rubber stamp approval. That's how the system is set up, if you don't like it, petition your politicians and get it changed. It's called checks and balances, That's the point.

[bsmooth]

In 1988, the roles were reversed.
In the final year of his presidency (an election year), Republican President Ronald Reagan's nominee Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate.
Anthony Kennedy is still on the Supreme Court today.

That's the point.

Third nominee.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, and it was their choice at the time to confirm.

You said, "Don't think for one minute that if the role were reversed that it would play out any other way. "
When the roles were reversed, it did play out another way (compared to what you are suggesting Republicans should do now).
Therefore, your statement is false.

It is obvious that all politicians have a choice on whether to confirm nominations, whether to vote on anything at all, or even whether to show up for work each day.  Likewise, citizens have the choice to criticize obstructionist politicians who shout loudly about how much they love the Constitution, even as they refuse to perform their constitutionally-prescribed duty when it becomes politically inconvenient.

[pondwater]

You said, "Don't think for one minute that if the role were reversed that it would play out any other way. "
When the roles were reversed, it did play out another way (compared to what you are suggesting Republicans should do now).
Therefore, your statement is false.

Why are you bringing up something from almost 30 years ago? The political landscape was totally different back then. Right now, if the roles were exactly the same but reversed it would more than likely play out the same way.

It is obvious that all politicians have a choice on whether to confirm nominations, whether to vote on anything at all, or even whether to show up for work each day.  Likewise, citizens have the choice to criticize obstructionist politicians who shout loudly about how much they love the Constitution, even as they refuse to perform their constitutionally-prescribed duty when it becomes politically inconvenient.

If the constitution and government give them the power to confirm or deny the nominee, then how are they obstructionist? If their constitutionally-prescribed duty is to confirm or deny a nominee. And they choose to deny, how are they refusing to perform their duty? It's because liberals and people like you expect others to just conform to their point of view and beliefs. Rubber stamping a nominee just because the democrats criticize them would be the definition of not performing their duty.