US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

[Maithanet]

16 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Outstanding well researched very balanced and measuredarticle on corn ethanol.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/22/11075200/ethanol-carbon-footprint

 

That is a good article.  Most articles about ethanol leave out the issue of MTBE and how (now that it is banned for groundwater problems), we need ethanol to burn gasoline efficiently in vehicles. 

[Swordfish]

On 2/20/2016 at 2:47 PM, TerraPrime said:

Didn't some people, like Swordfish, argue that "generally considered to mean" represents exactly shit and nothing? That if something is not written in ink on paper then it's just a custom that can be abridged at one's convenience? If the Senate's declared duty to give advice and consent on SCOTUS appointment is just a suggestion, then I think this "generally considered to mean" weighs even less.

Well, technically, that would be what the democrats are arguing, would it not?

 

 

[alguien]

Unsurprising, considering who it is, but it looks like the GOP solidarity is beginning to crumble:

Republican Senator Breaks With His Party On Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee

Granted, Kirk is just saying they should consider the appointment, and largely doing so to save his own political skin. But I'll be curious to see if any more follow his example. 

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, alguien said:

Unsurprising, considering who it is, but it looks like the GOP solidarity is beginning to crumble:

Republican Senator Breaks With His Party On Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee

Granted, Kirk is just saying they should consider the appointment, and largely doing so to save his own political skin. But I'll be curious to see if any more follow his example. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see Pat Toomey follow suit. His approval rating in PA is quite low (I think around 30%), and he's got to be looking over his shoulder.

[Mudguard]

Apparently Joe Biden gave a speech in 1992 where he argued that the President should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year.  From the Washington Post:

Quote

C-SPAN on Monday posted a clip of a sprawling 90-minute address then-Senator Biden delivered on June 25, 1992, on the subject of reforming the Supreme Court confirmation process. Biden, in his fourth term and serving as Judiciary Committee chairman, spoke in anticipation of the end of court’s term that year — the traditional season for justices to announce their retirements.

And if such a retirement came to pass, he said, President George H. W. Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed” and, if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” Biden said. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

What's remarkable is that virtually all the Republican talking points on this issue appear to be cribbed from Biden's speech.  The Judiciary Committee Chairman, Chuck Grassley, is now saying that they are following the "Biden Rules" set forth in this speech.

Quote

Republicans wasted no time at all highlighting Biden’s long-forgotten remarks: Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) came to the Senate floor Monday afternoon to deliver fulsome praise to Biden and the newly-unearthed speech.

“It’s the principle that matters, not the person,” Grassley said, before setting out the “Biden Rules” the Senate ought to abide by: no presidential Supreme Court nominations in an election year, and if there is such a nomination, that the Senate ought to “seriously consider” not even holding a hearing on the nominee.

 

[Swordfish]

7 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Apparently Joe Biden gave a speech in 1992 where he argued that the President should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year.  From the Washington Post:

What's remarkable is that virtually all the Republican talking points on this issue appear to be cribbed from Biden's speech.  The Judiciary Committee Chairman, Chuck Grassley, is now saying that they are following the "Biden Rules" set forth in this speech.

 

 

Ha.  Delicious.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

 

Ha.  Delicious.

 

Joe Biden said something ridiculous? 

 "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept.

 This just makes the GOP look even worse, as it becomes apparent they don't have an original bone in their bodies. They have to crib off of Joe Biden. 

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Joe Biden said something ridiculous? 

 "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept.

 This just makes the GOP look even worse, as it becomes apparent they don't have an original bone in their bodies. They have to crib off of Joe Biden. 

Serious question, do you get dizzy from all that spinning?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Serious question, do you get dizzy from all that spinning?

Do you think Joe Biden having a fucked up opinion on whether or not a president should be able to nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court in an election year makes it okay for anyone else to hold that same fucked up opinion?

Joe Biden was passing gas. Ted Cruz is passing gas. Mitch McConnell shat his drawers. They are all full of shit.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Do you think Joe Biden having a fucked up opinion on whether or not a president should be able to nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court in an election year makes it okay for anyone else to hold that same fucked up opinion?

 

I'm simply saying it's amusing.  It's somewhat rare that you get such concrete examples of this kind of stuff.

And the subsequent spin cycle is equally amusing.

Quote

They are all full of shit.

Certainly.  No one holds the high ground on this issue.

 

[Tempra]

Democrats are raging hypocrites on judicial nominations (as are Republicans).  Only the board's uber partisan hacks are surprised by this...

 

Nice opinion piece by Miguel Estrada on the lack of rules on SCOTUS nominations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/there-no-longer-are-any-rules-in-the-supreme-court-nomination-process/2016/02/19/2a56198a-d740-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?tid=a_inl

 

Some of you might recognize the name Miguel Estrada.  He was the "dangerous" Latino that Democrats filibustered over a nearly 3 year period.  BTW, it took 4 years to fill that vacancy due to Democratic obstructionism.  Now, Democrats are whining about  a potential 11 months vacancy...

[Mudguard]

Yeah, you can only laugh at the absurdity of Biden rebutting Biden.  From an interview on the Rachel Maddow Show as reported in the Huffington Post in Feb. 2016:

Quote

A Supreme Court with only eight members would jeopardize many pending cases, Biden said, referring to landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education that raise “serious issues that require resolution.”

Biden described the court as "an organic organization."

“That's why it's an uneven number.  That's why there's nine,” he said. “And there are so many important decisions that have to be resolved that affect us internationally and nationally that I don't think it's responsible at all" to leave a vacancy

From his 1992 speech as reported in the Washington Post:

Quote

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result — the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four — are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.

I think it would be a good idea to sideline Biden on this matter; he lacks credibility on this issue.

[Kalbear]

Quote

 

Democrats are raging hypocrites on judicial nominations (as are Republicans).  Only the board's uber partisan hacks are surprised by this...

 

Nice opinion piece by Miguel Estrada on the lack of rules on SCOTUS nominations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/there-no-longer-are-any-rules-in-the-supreme-court-nomination-process/2016/02/19/2a56198a-d740-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?tid=a_inl

 

Some of you might recognize the name Miguel Estrada.  He was the scary Latino that Democrats filibustered over a nearly 3 year period.  BTW, it took nearly 4 years to fill that vacancy due to Democratic obstructionism.  Now, Democrats are whining about  a potential 11 months vacancy...

 

Estrada took a while. That's true. It's still nothing compared to what Obama has faced.

Here's one chart: average time for noncontroversial appointments. It's been growing over  time, but it's insanely worse for Obama than any other president.

This one, however, is my favorite. Please do tell me how the democrats are the same here? 

[Tempra]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Estrada took a while. That's true. It's still nothing compared to what Obama has faced.

Here's one chart: average time for noncontroversial appointments. It's been growing over  time, but it's insanely worse for Obama than any other president.

This one, however, is my favorite. Please do tell me how the democrats are the same here? 

Democrats reap what they sow.

[Kalbear]

Again, how precisely did the democrats reap anything, here? Because they blocked Estrada it means that it makes sense that the republicans would block 63% of Obama's noncontroversial appointments for more than 200 days? 

Really? Like this actually makes sense to you that these things are equivalent?

Heck, in 2005 a number of democrats made a deal with republicans to avoid having to change the filibuster rules and confirm a number of judges awaiting confirmation. This...did not happen in Obama's tenure, and as a result in 2013 the democrats employed the 'nuclear' option. So...basically the democrats compromised, dealing confirmation in exchange for not modifying the filibuster rules, and as a result the republicans...gave them nothing back at all. Yeah, those democrats definitely reaped what they sowed there. 

[Tempra]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, how precisely did the democrats reap anything, here? Because they blocked Estrada it means that it makes sense that the republicans would block 63% of Obama's noncontroversial appointments for more than 200 days? 

Really? Like this actually makes sense to you that these things are equivalent?

It's not just Estrada. It's Peter Keisler, Robert Conrad, Glen Conrad, etc.  Democratic obstructionism has helped shift the balance of power in many of thr Courts of Appeals.  Heck, John Roberts' formet seat on the DC circuit went vacant from 2005 until 2013 because of Democratic (then Republican) obstructionism.  

 

Democrats have zero credibility whining about obstructionism on judicial appointments, especially a few day delay on a lifetime appointment.

[Kalbear]

Quote

 

It's not just Estrada. It's Peter Keisler, Robert Conrad, Glen Conrad, etc.  Democratic obstructionism has helped shift the balance of power in many of thr Courts of Appeals.  Heck, John Roberts' formet seat on the DC circuit went vacant from 2005 until 2013 because of Democratic (then Republican) obstructionism.  

 

Democrats have zero credibility whining about obstructionism on judicial appointments, especially a few day delay on a lifetime appointment.

 

Yes, 7 justices were not allowed to do their hearings for about 2 years. That sucked. And in the end Democrats made a deal to make that not suck - in exchange for not changing filibuster rules. 

And then the Republicans did that and worse - they blocked at various points 82 appointments, including 3 for DC (where typically the President has full control). Last I checked 7 is a lot less than 82. And instead of compromising like the Democrats did, the Republicans sat on it for 5 years - and so the Democrats invoked the nuclear option. Basically the democrats got nothing for their compromise. 

The democrats did not block a single candidate after the Gang of 14, at least not via filibuster rules. Some were confirmed and some were not. The DC opening wasn't blocked; as far as I can tell Bush simply didn't nominate anyone. Neither did Obama for quite a long time; his first successful nomination came 5 years into his presidency and his first overall nom came 3 years in (Caitlin Hannigan). 

ETA: I was wrong - Bush nominated Peter Keisler to the Roberts seat, and they basically refused to vote for him. That appears to be less about blocking any nominee (other Bush noms went through for the DC Court just fine) and more to do with the fact that Keisler appears to be something of an asshat. 

 

[lokisnow]

Oh Joe biden. That is hilarious. And very sad and frustrating for democrats. We're still not getting a confirmation.

[Minsc]

To be fair, on the other side one has a Young Mitch writing that politics should play no role in Senate confirmations of Supreme Court appointments and that the Senate should defer to the president.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell/2016/02/17/young-mcconnell-high-court-presidents-role/80495928/#

 

 

[Tempra]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, 7 justices were not allowed to do their hearings for about 2 years. That sucked. And in the end Democrats made a deal to make that not suck - in exchange for not changing filibuster rules. 

And then the Republicans did that and worse - they blocked at various points 82 appointments, including 3 for DC (where typically the President has full control). Last I checked 7 is a lot less than 82. And instead of compromising like the Democrats did, the Republicans sat on it for 5 years - and so the Democrats invoked the nuclear option. Basically the democrats got nothing for their compromise. 

The democrats did not block a single candidate after the Gang of 14, at least not via filibuster rules. Some were confirmed and some were not. The DC opening wasn't blocked; as far as I can tell Bush simply didn't nominate anyone. Neither did Obama for quite a long time; his first successful nomination came 5 years into his presidency and his first overall nom came 3 years in (Caitlin Hannigan). 

ETA: I was wrong - Bush nominated Peter Keisler to the Roberts seat, and they basically refused to vote for him. That appears to be less about blocking any nominee (other Bush noms went through for the DC Court just fine) and more to do with the fact that Keisler appears to be something of an asshat. 

 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2013/12/30-staffing-federal-judiciary-2013-no-breakthrough-year

 

I've posted this link before comparing Clinton vs Bush vs Obama on how each fared during their first 5 years.   I missed earlier how you selectively focus on the wait time for "noncontroversial" nominees.  Uhh, why not compare all nominees? Is that because Bush's court of appeals nominees faced a 403 day wait from nomination to confirmation compared to 253 for Obama's nominees? Bush's nominees fared better at the district court level 161 vs. 223.

I have no idea where you get your 7 vs 82 blocked nominee numbers. Per wikipedia, there were 10 filibusters during the 108th congress alone.

I'm not sure how you figure democrats got "nothing" out of the gang of 14.  They got the status quo regarding filibuster rule, which prevented Bush from ramming through nominees in the 109th Congress like Obama did after the change of filibuster rules in the 113th Congress.  Thus, people like William Myers, Terrence Boyle, William Haynes and Michael Wallace did not get confirmed.  

Additionally, Democrats blocked plenty of Bush nominees after the gang of 14, notwithstanding your attempts to limit it to nominees blocked by "filibuster rules." Peter Keisler, Glen Conrad, Steve Matthews, and Robert Conrad were all blocked in committee.

Finally, Bush's DC nominations didn't go through "fine."  Estrada was filibustered. Janice Brown was stalled for 2 years and only confirmed as part of the Gang of 14. Thomas Griffith ditto. Brett Kavanaugh stalled for 3 years before confirmation.  Peter Keisler blocked.  That's not "fine", that's horrific.

 

Edit: Bush didn't even bother nominating a judge to Randolph's seat in 2008 on the DC circuit given the futility of nominating a judge to that circuit, especially as an outgoing president in a presidential election year.