To "my_two_cents_worth" ok, here you go:John Marshall Harlan
II who didn't even make it out of committee. Pierce Butler was never
even considered by the Senate. Thomas Stanley Matthews never was
considered by the Senate because it was too close to the end of Rutherford B.
Hayes' term. Edward A. Bradford, George Edmund Badger, and William C.
Micou were nominated by Millard Fillmore and the senate declined to give them
hearings.There you go 6 SOCTUS nominees that were denied hearings by
@RedShirt "In fact, there were many that were not given a
hearing for the same exact reasoning that the Senate gave Obama regarding
To "Frozen Fractals" not giving Garland a hearing, as I have pointed out
to others, was not a new event. There are multiple SCOTUS nominees that were
never given a hearing. In fact, there were many that were not given a hearing
for the same exact reasoning that the Senate gave Obama regarding Garland.The fact that Democrats swore revenge before anybody was even nominated
was a new thing.
@RedShirtHarvard"The Democrats had letters declaring that they would
stop whoever Trump nominated BEFORE a nomination was even announced."You seem to find this sort of behavior repugnant for some reason. And
yet you ask"how was the refusal to hear Garland bad?"when blocking Garland was a declaration by Republicans that they would
refuse to even hold a hearing for whoever the nominee would be. So I feel like
you know the answer to your own question.
@Susan Storm "I am not comfortable with a Supreme Court nominee that
doesn't think a President can't be indicted for crimes while in
office."Do you prefer indicting someone who has pardon power,
and is the head of the branch bringing the indictment? Why not follow the
Constitution? The constitutional remedy is impeachment. Once a president has
been impeached and removed from office, an indictment can be brought without all
the tricky circumstances.@Susan Storm "It feels like the
President is hand picking a person that will let him get away with
anything."He is picking a person who knows and follows the
Constitution, who has stated clearly, "No one is above the law."
Re: "The country is in a long, steady, but inevitable shift to the
left."Hmmm. Interesting assertion, that only the Left has a
"practical reason" to go nuclear. Seems like the Right has just as
practical a reason as did Reid. Harry wanted to aid, enable, and assist the
"inevitable" shift to the left. Conservatives want to avoid it.You'd think that if this shift were really as inevitable as the Left
asserts, it would be content to let it happen, rather than abandon all reason,
civility, and decency to push the shift.Maybe you know it's not
as inevitable as you'd like us to believe, hmmmm?
Re: "This will force the current president to nominate a more moderate
candidate capable of attaining 60-vote bipartisan support in the Senate."And, of course by "more moderate," what the Left actually means
is, "less dedicated to the Constitution and the Rule of Law."And, of course the next time Democrats get a chance, they'll certainly
exercise the "nuclear option." Why wouldn't they? Harry Reid
invented it.Suggesting that Democrats would somehow hew to a
different line than Republicans simply flies in the face of reason. Politics is
power. Republicans currently have it, so Democrats are reduced to using
disingenuous and bombastic homilies -- like this opinion piece -- on the dire
consequences of exercising political power unethically.Maybe we
ought to listen to them, though -- they've clearly demonstrated by the
antics of the Obama-era IRS, EPA/ACOE, FBI, Intelligence Sector -- and most
tellingly, the Obama-era [in]Justice Department -- that they know an awful lot
about the dire consequences of the unethical exercise of political power.
To "Kent C. DeForrest" how was the refusal to hear Garland bad? As I
pointed out already, there have been multiple nominees that the Senate refused
to even have hearing for or else never made it out of committee.But
tell us why it was ok for Reid to use the Nuclear option to stop the obstruction
but not McConnell? The Democrats had letters declaring that they would stop
whoever Trump nominated BEFORE a nomination was even announced.FYI,
Clinton lost by 77 votes, you see it is the Electoral College that counts, not
the popular vote.
Reid went nuclear for a practical reason. The obstructionist GOP was blocking
all sorts of ordinary appointments, just because they hated Obama and wanted to
undermine the government. Many significant government positions were standing
empty, and important work was being impeded. Reid left the Supreme Court
appointments at 60 percent because these are very different from most other
appointments, and the 60 threshold prevents extremists from getting the court
too far out of balance. McConnell went nuclear on the Supreme Court
for a simple reason. He could see the writing on the wall. The country is in a
long, steady, but inevitable shift to the left. He knew that before long his
party would be a minority party and would probably not have the opportunity to
load the Court for decades to come. His refusal to even grant
Garland a hearing was inexcusable. His excuse? The people should have a say.
Well, the people tried. They voted for Clinton by a margin of almost 3 million
votes. But did they get their say? No, because of McConnell's duplicity.
I am not comfortable with a Supreme Court nominee that doesn't think a
President can't be indicted for crimes while in office.It feels
like the President is hand picking a person that will let him get away with
Mr. Jacobs: Do you seriously believe that, if the situation was reversed with a
Democrat president and a Dem 51-49 majority in the Senate, the Dems would
change back to a 60 vote requirement to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court
(especially if that nominee was a liberal in his/her judicial views)? I think
the answer is very obvious.
Its not going to happen. Statemen dont exist any more. Its all about power and
attention. Party before country is the new normal. For many it
isnt even a philosophical difference, it is more like how they choose and cheer
for a sports team.
I hate to be the one to bring facts into the discussion, but the nuclear option
was first enacted by Democrat Harry Reid in 2013.To "unrepentant
progressive" you are wrong. according to history there were other judges
that were nominated but were never considered. There was John Marshall Harlan
II who didn't even make it out of committee. Pierce Butler was never even
considered by the Senate. Thomas Stanley Matthews never was considered by the
Senate because it was too close to the end of Rutherford B. Hayes' term.
Millard Fillmore nominated Edward A. Bradford, George Edmund Badger, and
William C. Micou and the senate declined to give them hearings. So, what
happened to Merrick Garland has happened before.To "Karen
R." is sounds more like you don't like Republicans doing what Democrats
have done before them.
Senator Reid explicitly left the filibuster rule in for Supreme Court nominees.
'Twas O'Connell that decided he wanted extremists on the Supreme Court
that would never get Democratic support for a vote to end a filibuster.Why do party of trump apologists need to "shade" truth? Are they
ashamed of their naked power grabs?
I've given up on what currently stands for the Republican party. IMO we
need to accept reality and stop hoping that they are going to do the right
thing; that they're going to start honoring the system. They haven't
shown this predilection for some time now. They have instead shown a
willingness to obstruct, change the rules, and rig the system to ensure that
their shrinking numbers nevertheless maintain governing power. We
need to vote OUT Republicans at every level, state and federal. They have shown
their true colors. They don't believe in government of/by/for the people.
They believe in government of/by/for people that look like them. Vote these
Unrepentant, Bork was a great nominee who was unnecessarily trashed. He was not
an extremist by any definition but your own. Stop trying to re-write
history.To the Author, no two Senators cannot change the rules. And
that rule change would only benefit the left who initiated the "Nuclear
option" in the first place. The 60 vote rule was a relatively
recent invention anyway and has resulted in much legislation (good and bad)
simply dying un-debated and unvoted on in the Senate. The Constitution does not
establish any vote margin except on amendments and impeachments, the house
doesn't use one so why should the Senate.The nomination process
has been trashed by the left. It should be used to identify real shortcomings
in a nominee. I.E. legal and ethical issues. Not political biases, This is
why Hatch would always ask tough questions but always voted to confirm. Because
legal and ethical issues were not found in the nominees, just as they have not
been found in Kavanaugh. That partisan politics can leave our courts
understaffed and allow for the Borking and attempted Borking of highly qualified
nominees is the real travesty, not the elimination of the 60 vote barrier.
Thank Senator Reid for the current state of affairs for confirming nominees in
the senate. We don’t need anyone on the court except those who are
willing to follow the constitution. Judge Kavanaugh seems to be that kind of
Bork got his hearing, No Names. Merrick Garland was not even asked to a
hearing. Bork did not have the votes to be elevated to the Supreme Court. And
with good reason, he was after all and extremist and a lackey for disgraced
President Nixon.The point of 60 votes is to have a candidate who is
more central than extreme. Until the man who occupies the Merrick Garland seat,
this was practice in modern times. It suited the party of trump to erase even
that fig leaf of respectability. To their never ending shame.We
don't need one more extremist on the Supreme Court. We have 4 already, and
probably will have a fifth soon as the party of trump changed the rules in a
naked display of power. After all, is it not a fact that power is
all that matters now with the party of trump? Ethics, morality, honor and
democratic traditions don't matter anymore to the trump party. Only
power.That is how we lose our democracy.
It is always so easy to demand the other side do the right thing. An honest man
would demand his own party do the right thing.Democrats invented the
practice of Borking nominees. They opposed Kavanaugh before he was even
named.Democrats, do the right thing by voting to confirm a well
qualified candidate who doesn't share your world view.