Do you agree with Republicans refusing to vote on an Obama Supreme Court Nominee?

Kersh · Feb 13, 2016

I am saddened to hear about Justice Scalia. I disagreed with him on a lot of rulings, but he was a staunch advocate for the 5th and 6th Amendments. I also think that the 4-4-1 split of the Court was a good check on the system, even if it left Justice Kennedy with altogether too much power.

The reality is, however, we will have a liberal Supreme Court, for good or for bad, for a while. Even if Congress were able to stall all the way until January, that would not help. The writing is on the wall, and unless something drastic happens between now and November, the next POTUS with be a Democrat, either one who is far more liberal than Obama, or one who is about the same as him. If the Republicans in Congress are honest with themselves, they should acknowledge that, as much as they may not like the next Obama nominee, a Sanders nominee would be far more left leaning, and a Clinton nominee would not be all that different. We will, at least for the time being, have a 5-3-1 split on the Court.

farout · Feb 13, 2016

Maren said:
Actually, if Cruz is the candidate the government shutdown will hurt him, since he was considered one of the prime instigators of the shut down, and how he has tried to shut it down since. He is rated poorly by most Independent voters, largely because it seems things need to be done his way or shut the government down.

But the big difference will be the immediacy. If the Republicans refuse to hold hearing on Obama's nominee, then this fall you will have a nominee for the Supreme Court who the Republican's still haven't held hearings for -- it will still be ongoing, complete with the vacancy on the Supreme Court, and not something that happened 8 months previously.

OTOH, if Obama nominates a staunch liberal, the Republicans might be able to "Bork" that candidate -- that Obama was trying to play politics with an election coming up; particularly in replacing a conservative justice. In that case, I can see the Republicans not being hurt.

But if Obama nominates someone like Sri Srinivasan, who I posted about above, and either rejects him or refuses to hold hearings -- especially after just having been confirmed without a dissenting vote -- I think it becomes a major issue the Republican candidate (and maybe some Republican Senators) has to overcome in November.

Cruz is a nightmare! He is a wild horse with no bit or bridal. If he was a boat he is missing a rudder, if he was a plane he is all engine, and no wings. But trump is a spoiled boy buying his big toy...The United States. He is buying his way to the white hours! Reubio seems like the only answer to work with both sides. Bush seems weak to me. We have already had tow and that is enough!

Maren · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
I doubt Republicans would suffer the criticism you allude to above. This is, after all, a Supreme Court nomination, not a court of appeals nomination in which much more is at stake with a Scotus nomination. Hence, is Scotus nomination hearings and votes have been highly politicized, acrimonious, and partisan votes.

I disagree, though depending on what Obama does. What we've seen about voters this year, both from the Trump doing so well and exit polls, the public is sick of the games being played in Washington. This will absolute be seen as more political games being played; the only question is who gets blamed for it. It also helps the Democrats push the idea that the Republicans are obstructionists, more interested in stopping the Democrats (particularly Pres. Obama) from doing anything than in governing the country.

So, if Obama nominates a moderate I think it hurts the Republicans -- they do look like they are more against Obama than interested in governing. OTOH, if Obama nominates an "extreme liberal", I think it hurts the Democrats as they then seem to be the ones playing games, trying to push their agenda at the expense of getting things done. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, particularly how voters react to it.

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

MerlinJ said:
Considering Obama's got about a year left in office, and the longest nomination process in history took less than half a year, republicans are going to have to let it go if they don't want to risk the presidency. The democrats would paint them as obstructionists all the way to election day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Doubtful. Refusing to appoint a Justice isn't going to result in a view of obstructionism. The public understands the Court issues decisions based on, in part, the ideological inclinations of the justices. The public, astute to this fact, has equally approved or repudiated appointments based on the perception of the candidate as liberal or conservative.

After all, it was Democrats who precluded Bork's appointment, for political reasons. Only one Democrat voted to appoint Alito. It would be an interesting criticism by Democrats to cry foul under these circumstances.

MerlinJ · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
Doubtful. Refusing to appoint a Justice isn't going to result in a view of obstructionism. The public understands the Court issues decisions based on, in part, the ideological inclinations of the justices. The public, astute to this fact, has equally approved or repudiated appointments based on the perception of the candidate as liberal or conservative.

After all, it was Democrats who precluded Bork's appointment, for political reasons. Only one Democrat voted to appoint Alito. It would be an interesting criticism by Democrats to cry foul under these circumstances.

Neither of your examples were nominated during presidential election years, so they're not examples of why a contentious SCOTUS appointment process won't affect that election, and there is no precedent for stalling this long either.

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

Maren said:
I disagree, though depending on what Obama does. What we've seen about voters this year, both from the Trump doing so well and exit polls, the public is sick of the games being played in Washington. This will absolute be seen as more political games being played; the only question is who gets blamed for it. It also helps the Democrats push the idea that the Republicans are obstructionists, more interested in stopping the Democrats (particularly Pres. Obama) from doing anything than in governing the country.

So, if Obama nominates a moderate I think it hurts the Republicans -- they do look like they are more against Obama than interested in governing. OTOH, if Obama nominates an "extreme liberal", I think it hurts the Democrats as they then seem to be the ones playing games, trying to push their agenda at the expense of getting things done. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, particularly how voters react to it.

I do not think the harm is as great as you think and part of the reason is the climate in the Senate regarding appointments to the Court the last several years. The public knows and understands this process and have essentially become active participants denouncing or approving of an appointment on the basis of the appointment's perceived ideology.

Furthermore, a Justice not readily or quickly appointed does not immediately impact their lives, so they aren't as likely to care as much compared to passage of essential and needed laws.

The public dislike of "games" is in regards to a lack of needed legislation passed and not appointments. The media, for awhile, tried to illuminate the number of vacancies on the federal bench, even quoting Roberts concern, and few people in the public cared. Why? Because a lack of such appointment does immediately impact their lives. They are more concerned with the economy, economic legislation, taxes, debt, foreign policy, and legislation in those areas, those areas that do immediately impact their lives.

Neither party would be hurt as much as you perceive.

Tiny Bible · Feb 13, 2016

Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals
By CHARLIE SAVAGE APRIL 22, 2012

Maren · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
Doubtful. Refusing to appoint a Justice isn't going to result in a view of obstructionism. The public understands the Court issues decisions based on, in part, the ideological inclinations of the justices. The public, astute to this fact, has equally approved or repudiated appointments based on the perception of the candidate as liberal or conservative.

After all, it was Democrats who precluded Bork's appointment, for political reasons. Only one Democrat voted to appoint Alito. It would be an interesting criticism by Democrats to cry foul under these circumstances.

I have to disagree. While you bring up Bork, I brought up the idea that the Republicans would likely be seen as justified in blocking the nomination of an "extreme liberal", just as Bork was rejected for being an "extreme conservative". It is worth noting that Reagan's second nominee was approved, despite still allegedly being conservative (even if he hasn't always voted that way on the Court), with no real issues.

In this case, we have a year before the new President takes office and the Republicans stating they won't even vote on anyone appointed by Obama. It doesn't take this long to nominate and confirm new justices, my recollection is that it is typically about 4 months. To use the Bork example, Justice Powell stepped down on June 26, 1987. Robert Bork was nominated on July 1, after less than a week -- short but not all that unusual. Bork's rejection by the full Senate was on Oct. 23, so 4 months.

Now, from what you are saying, the Democrats should have denied holding hearings on Kennedy (and possibly on Bork) since Reagan was a lame duck and elections were coming up in a year. Instead, Anthony Kennedy was nominated on November 30, and then he was confirmed on Feb. 3 of an election year. Basically, even in your worst case, it still only took 8 months from the retiring of the previous Justice and the search process for more than 1 nominee and two Senate confirmation hearings, which means the process would still have been finished about a month before the election this year.

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

MerlinJ said:
Neither of your examples were nominated during presidential election years, so they're not examples of why a contentious SCOTUS appointment process won't affect that election, and there is no precedent for stalling this long either.

No reason provided to think an election year changes the calculus.

Rather, an election year probably diminishes your point as people are more concerned with areas immediately impacting their lives in an election year.

Maren · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
I do not think the harm is as great as you think and part of the reason is the climate in the Senate regarding appointments to the Court the last several years. The public knows and understands this process and have essentially become active participants denouncing or approving of an appointment on the basis of the appointment's perceived ideology.

Furthermore, a Justice not readily or quickly appointed does not immediately impact their lives, so they aren't as likely to care as much compared to passage of essential and needed laws.

The public dislike of "games" is in regards to a lack of needed legislation passed and not appointments. The media, for awhile, tried to illuminate the number of vacancies on the federal bench, even quoting Roberts concern, and few people in the public cared. Why? Because a lack of such appointment does immediately impact their lives. They are more concerned with the economy, economic legislation, taxes, debt, foreign policy, and legislation in those areas, those areas that do immediately impact their lives.

Neither party would be hurt as much as you perceive.

I suppose we'll see. OTOH, there is a huge difference between lower federal court positions and a Supreme Court position -- it basically is like trying to compare local to national politics, particularly since all other judge appointments are essentially local -- even if for an appeals court the local area contains a few states.

BrianJK · Feb 13, 2016

The Republicans pledged to block anyone. They didn't disapprove of any particular nominee, but refused to work with the President on this at all. If that's not obstruction I don't invite what is.

MerlinJ · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
No reason provided to think an election year changes the calculus.

Rather, an election year probably diminishes your point as people are more concerned with areas immediately impacting their lives in an election year.

...What? You just said that people understand the ideological importance of the position because of its impact on policy, but now they're too busy with other stuff?

And the reason it "changes the calculus" is because presidential nominees will talk about it on the campaign trail. It will get enormous public attention.

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

Maren said:
I suppose we'll see. OTOH, there is a huge difference between lower federal court positions and a Supreme Court position -- it basically is like trying to compare local to national politics, particularly since all other judge appointments are essentially local -- even if for an appeals court the local area contains a few states.

Shrug...the Court can function with 8. The Court has functioned before with only 8. This fact, along with those other considerations I mentioned, weakens any notion of some serious detriment to either party.

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

MerlinJ said:
...What? You just said that people understand the ideological importance of the position because of its impact on policy, but now they're too busy with other stuff?

Strawman. I'll pass commenting on an argument I never made.

Maren · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
Shrug...the Court can function with 8. The Court has functioned before with only 8. This fact, along with those other considerations I mentioned, weakens any notion of some serious detriment to either party.

Except, as is pointed out, this will be a major campaign issue, particularly if no new Justice is appointed. It becomes a much bigger issue if there is an open seat where the winner is going to nominate the person to take that seat. That is also why it won't play well on the campaign trail; while the Republicans will be saying you need to vote for them to get the Supreme Court Justice that will uphold their principles, the Democrats will not just state the same but add that they'll only be nominating someone because the Republicans refused to even hold hearings on the current Supreme Court nominee.

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

Maren said:
Except, as is pointed out, this will be a major campaign issue, particularly if no new Justice is appointed. It becomes a much bigger issue if there is an open seat where the winner is going to nominate the person to take that seat. That is also why it won't play well on the campaign trail; while the Republicans will be saying you need to vote for them to get the Supreme Court Justice that will uphold their principles, the Democrats will not just state the same but add that they'll only be nominating someone because the Republicans refused to even hold hearings on the current Supreme Court nominee.

Yeah. But so? The public just isn't going to care as much about this as they are the economy, employment, debt, foreign policy, especially when the Court keeps functioning with 8. This isn't even tantamount to a government shutdown, an event the public took great interest in because the shutdown did affect their lives.

MerlinJ · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
Strawman. I'll pass commenting on an argument I never made.

Do you want to clarify what your point was then? Because that's what I understood.

NotreDame · Feb 13, 2016

MerlinJ said:
Do you want to clarify what your point was then? Because that's what I understood.

No, because my point was unequivocal. My point is so unambiguous that another poster accurately understood what I said and has been successful in engaging me in a dialogue about my position.

MerlinJ · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
No, because my point was unequivocal. My point is so unambiguous that another poster accurately understood what I said and has been successful in engaging me in a dialogue about my position.

I cower and tremble before your mighty intellect. :yawn:

Maren · Feb 13, 2016

NotreDame said:
Yeah. But so? The public just isn't going to care as much about this as they are the economy, employment, debt, foreign policy, especially when the Court keeps functioning with 8. This isn't even tantamount to a government shutdown, an event the public took great interest in because the shutdown did affect their lives.

Again, we haven't seen an election with an open Supreme Court seat for decades. I think that, combined with the current election "narrative" of political games and wanting an outsider makes it loom much larger than it would otherwise.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and see how things play out. Honestly, I somewhat suspect that Pres. Obama will nominate a moderate, such as the person I mentioned above, and the Republicans feel the pressure to confirm the person. Not saying it definitely will happen, but I can see it occurring. It will clearly be interesting to see how it plays out, no matter which of us is correct.

Do you agree with Republicans refusing to vote on an Obama Supreme Court Nominee?

Do you support the Republicans refusing to vote on an Obama Supreme Court Nominee

Yes

No

Depends on who Obama nominates

Well-Known Member

Standing firm for Christ

Veteran

Domer

Junior Member

Domer

All Lives Matter. Pray BLM Learn That.

Veteran

Domer

Veteran

Abdul Masih

Junior Member

Domer

Domer

Veteran

Domer

Junior Member

Domer

Junior Member

Veteran

Similar threads