[ColoradoTree]

The precedent was set long ago.

By whom?  I'm unaware of a prior example in our country's history where the Senate preemptively told the President that it would not consider any of his nominees for the Supreme Court. 

[ColoradoTree]

The precedent was set long ago.

By whom?  I'm unaware of a prior example in our country's history where the Senate preemptively told the President that it would not consider any of his nominees for the Supreme Court. 

[Rally]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=14611.msg156651#msg156651 date=1455658272]
The precedent was set long ago.

By whom?  I'm unaware of a prior example in our country's history where the Senate preemptively told the President that it would not consider any of his nominees for the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

Now you are.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY

[Rally]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=14611.msg156651#msg156651 date=1455658272]
The precedent was set long ago.

By whom?  I'm unaware of a prior example in our country's history where the Senate preemptively told the President that it would not consider any of his nominees for the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

Now you are.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY

[yvonne]

There are important differences here:

1. Shumer was not talking at a time when an actual vacancy existed.
2. Shumer left open the possibility for "extraordinary circumstances."
3. Shumer says he would have at least heard
3. Shumer was not Senate Majority Leader, and therefore did not have control over the calendar.

[yvonne]

There are important differences here:

1. Shumer was not talking at a time when an actual vacancy existed.
2. Shumer left open the possibility for "extraordinary circumstances."
3. Shumer says he would have at least heard
3. Shumer was not Senate Majority Leader, and therefore did not have control over the calendar.

[ColoradoTree]

To echo Yvonne, context is important here.  There is a real difference between (1) one Senator stating that he would urge his colleagues to vote no on a hypothetical nomination for a hypothetical vacancy if that nominee is an outspoken conservative "outside the mainstream" and (2) the leader of the Senate promising no action whatsoever on any nominee the President would select. 

Importantly, Schumer said that the Senate should not confirm a Bush nominee to a future vacancy unless that person proved they were in the mainstream.  He did not say that the nominee shouldn't be entitled to hearings (where the nominee would be able to demonstrate moderate credentials) or a vote.  He's saying that they shouldn't confirm another outspoken conservative.

Basically, Schumer is arguing that if there had been a future vacancy under President Bush and President Bush nominated someone deemed out of the mainstream, that he would urge his colleagues to vote no.  Seems to me that he's basically calling for what was done with Bork and Kennedy, i.e., using leverage to reject nominees deemed extreme until the President nominates a moderate.  Again, what should happen in divided government.  If you can't see a distinction between what Schumer said then and what McConnell et al. are saying now, then I can't help you. 

So, again, can anyone point me to an example where the Senate--not just one Senator, but someone with authority to speak for either the body itself (the Majority Leader) or Judiciary Committee (the Chairman)--said that it would refuse to consider any nominee? 

[ColoradoTree]

To echo Yvonne, context is important here.  There is a real difference between (1) one Senator stating that he would urge his colleagues to vote no on a hypothetical nomination for a hypothetical vacancy if that nominee is an outspoken conservative "outside the mainstream" and (2) the leader of the Senate promising no action whatsoever on any nominee the President would select. 

Importantly, Schumer said that the Senate should not confirm a Bush nominee to a future vacancy unless that person proved they were in the mainstream.  He did not say that the nominee shouldn't be entitled to hearings (where the nominee would be able to demonstrate moderate credentials) or a vote.  He's saying that they shouldn't confirm another outspoken conservative.

Basically, Schumer is arguing that if there had been a future vacancy under President Bush and President Bush nominated someone deemed out of the mainstream, that he would urge his colleagues to vote no.  Seems to me that he's basically calling for what was done with Bork and Kennedy, i.e., using leverage to reject nominees deemed extreme until the President nominates a moderate.  Again, what should happen in divided government.  If you can't see a distinction between what Schumer said then and what McConnell et al. are saying now, then I can't help you. 

So, again, can anyone point me to an example where the Senate--not just one Senator, but someone with authority to speak for either the body itself (the Majority Leader) or Judiciary Committee (the Chairman)--said that it would refuse to consider any nominee? 

[ColoradoTree]

There are important differences here:

1. Shumer was not talking at a time when an actual vacancy existed.
2. Shumer left open the possibility for "extraordinary circumstances."
3. Shumer says he would have at least heard
3. Shumer was not Senate Majority Leader, and therefore did not have control over the calendar.

Ha! Sorry to effectively double-post your comments.  I'll edit my post down accordingly.

[ColoradoTree]

There are important differences here:

1. Shumer was not talking at a time when an actual vacancy existed.
2. Shumer left open the possibility for "extraordinary circumstances."
3. Shumer says he would have at least heard
3. Shumer was not Senate Majority Leader, and therefore did not have control over the calendar.

Ha! Sorry to effectively double-post your comments.  I'll edit my post down accordingly.

[FrankO]

Obama himself,  in US Senate,  voted to STALL by his voting against motion of cloture on the nominations of BOTH Roberts and Alito whose nominations came up duringGeorge W Bush's lame duckery...

These days, starting with Bork,  Supreme Court nominations have ALL been about politics and posturing... even for Obama who  speaks out of both sides of his mouth

it all depends on whose ox is getting gored...

the whole process is P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-l... like it or not

so please,  spare us the 'principled' rhetoric...

PS love how the idiot software on this Board plugged in 'Low APR U' into this non Bear related post

isn't past time this juvenile software was let go???

[FrankO]

Obama himself,  in US Senate,  voted to STALL by his voting against motion of cloture on the nominations of BOTH Roberts and Alito whose nominations came up duringGeorge W Bush's lame duckery...

These days, starting with Bork,  Supreme Court nominations have ALL been about politics and posturing... even for Obama who  speaks out of both sides of his mouth

it all depends on whose ox is getting gored...

the whole process is P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-l... like it or not

so please,  spare us the 'principled' rhetoric...

PS love how the idiot software on this Board plugged in 'Low APR U' into this non Bear related post

isn't past time this juvenile software was let go???

[yvonne]

Seriously, FrankO, do you not see a difference between stalling on known nominees based on information about them (something with a long precedent), and refusing to even consider any nominee, no matter what his or her qualifications are?

[yvonne]

Seriously, FrankO, do you not see a difference between stalling on known nominees based on information about them (something with a long precedent), and refusing to even consider any nominee, no matter what his or her qualifications are?

[yvonne]

Please see my earlier post.

[yvonne]

Please see my earlier post.

[ColoradoTree]

As far as I'm aware, this is not a right-wing message board;

Clearly it is not. The entire tenor of this discussion is left of center. Those who say anything outside that ideological framework are having their sincerity and intellect questioned, and are being threatened with freeze-outs. It's ugly, unpleasant, and certainly contravenes (even as it demonstrates the wisdom of) what I thought was a recently confirmed rule against political discussions.

And of course the absurdity of claiming "leftist" is a "loaded term" in the same sentence in which the label "right-wing" is blithely invoked as defining somebody as outside the ranks of "bright, well-meaning people" is manifest. Not to mention wholly offensive.

Garvin, I think you misunderstand me.  My use of "bright, well-meaning people" was meant to include people on the left and the right who all come to this board because they love Stanford and its sports teams.  I don't think that concluding that I meant to omit conservatives from the universe of bright, well-meaning people is a fair reading of my post, since I would think conservatives would be included in "people of all political stripes."  By saying I didn't think this was a right-wing message board, my point was that I hoped this would be a discussion open to all--using neutral terminology, and focusing on the merits of the issue at hand. 

I have been trying to approach this debate in a civil manner based on what I know about Supreme Court nomination history and modern politics.  If you think I've been intemperate, then I apologize.  But I don't believe I've called anyone's intellect into question, or threatened anyone with a freeze-out.  I'm trying to engage on the merits of the question of whether what Sen. McConnell has called for is consistent with the Constitution and past practice, and beyond that, whether it's a smart strategic move or a risky gamble.  Where I have seen an argument I disagree with, I have pushed back on it or tried to distinguish it.  But I feel like I've kept any punches above the belt and confined to the merits.  I'll double-check my future posts for inflammatory or insulting rhetoric before hitting "post"; I invite you and everyone else to do the same. 

[ColoradoTree]

As far as I'm aware, this is not a right-wing message board;

Clearly it is not. The entire tenor of this discussion is left of center. Those who say anything outside that ideological framework are having their sincerity and intellect questioned, and are being threatened with freeze-outs. It's ugly, unpleasant, and certainly contravenes (even as it demonstrates the wisdom of) what I thought was a recently confirmed rule against political discussions.

And of course the absurdity of claiming "leftist" is a "loaded term" in the same sentence in which the label "right-wing" is blithely invoked as defining somebody as outside the ranks of "bright, well-meaning people" is manifest. Not to mention wholly offensive.

Garvin, I think you misunderstand me.  My use of "bright, well-meaning people" was meant to include people on the left and the right who all come to this board because they love Stanford and its sports teams.  I don't think that concluding that I meant to omit conservatives from the universe of bright, well-meaning people is a fair reading of my post, since I would think conservatives would be included in "people of all political stripes."  By saying I didn't think this was a right-wing message board, my point was that I hoped this would be a discussion open to all--using neutral terminology, and focusing on the merits of the issue at hand. 

I have been trying to approach this debate in a civil manner based on what I know about Supreme Court nomination history and modern politics.  If you think I've been intemperate, then I apologize.  But I don't believe I've called anyone's intellect into question, or threatened anyone with a freeze-out.  I'm trying to engage on the merits of the question of whether what Sen. McConnell has called for is consistent with the Constitution and past practice, and beyond that, whether it's a smart strategic move or a risky gamble.  Where I have seen an argument I disagree with, I have pushed back on it or tried to distinguish it.  But I feel like I've kept any punches above the belt and confined to the merits.  I'll double-check my future posts for inflammatory or insulting rhetoric before hitting "post"; I invite you and everyone else to do the same. 

[Mick]

I think the problem is that for one of the two major parties, a functioning and efficient federal government isn't nearly as important as it is to the other.  This is why Democrats will be at a disadvantage in any government shutdown fight, because a shutdown is catastrophic to a Democratic view of government (as a potential force for good in people's lives, as shutdowns mean that various programs Democrats find important stop helping people) but somewhat in service of a Republican view of government (as a restriction on individual liberty through onerous regulations and omnipresence in American lives), particularly since the military remains functioning during shutdowns. 

Thus, a neutered federal government isn't a bug to many Republicans--it's a feature.

I don't think that's true.  I think Democrats welcome the prospect of a government shutdown to show what mean, bad people the Republicans are.  Didn't get your SS check?  Republican fault.  Long lines/shut down at the fill-in-the-blank government supported organization?  Republican fault. 

It's so, so, so easy to blame the Republicans during shut down time.

[Mick]

I think the problem is that for one of the two major parties, a functioning and efficient federal government isn't nearly as important as it is to the other.  This is why Democrats will be at a disadvantage in any government shutdown fight, because a shutdown is catastrophic to a Democratic view of government (as a potential force for good in people's lives, as shutdowns mean that various programs Democrats find important stop helping people) but somewhat in service of a Republican view of government (as a restriction on individual liberty through onerous regulations and omnipresence in American lives), particularly since the military remains functioning during shutdowns. 

Thus, a neutered federal government isn't a bug to many Republicans--it's a feature.

I don't think that's true.  I think Democrats welcome the prospect of a government shutdown to show what mean, bad people the Republicans are.  Didn't get your SS check?  Republican fault.  Long lines/shut down at the fill-in-the-blank government supported organization?  Republican fault. 

It's so, so, so easy to blame the Republicans during shut down time.

[TreesAndBirds]

If we cant have a civil discussion on this Stanford board among people with different views, then I dont know how we as a country are going to have a civil discussion on these topics. I recognize that the anonymity of the internet can bring out some of our less desireable traits, but I think people have with few exceptions controlled that in this discussion, and I feel I have learned from this debate, from people on both sides. I think we can show that people can disagree without being disagreeable, and who knows, maybe even modify their views.

And it's not like we're addressing something really important in this discussion, like a Stanford coaching vacancy ☺️

[TreesAndBirds]

If we cant have a civil discussion on this Stanford board among people with different views, then I dont know how we as a country are going to have a civil discussion on these topics. I recognize that the anonymity of the internet can bring out some of our less desireable traits, but I think people have with few exceptions controlled that in this discussion, and I feel I have learned from this debate, from people on both sides. I think we can show that people can disagree without being disagreeable, and who knows, maybe even modify their views.

And it's not like we're addressing something really important in this discussion, like a Stanford coaching vacancy ☺️

[washingtonismoney]

I don't think that's true.  I think Democrats welcome the prospect of a government shutdown to show what mean, bad people the Republicans are.  Didn't get your SS check?  Republican fault.  Long lines/shut down at the fill-in-the-blank government supported organization?  Republican fault. 

It's so, so, so easy to blame the Republicans during shut down time.

You may be right about the political tack Democrats take, but I don't think they relish government shutdowns at all. Consider the price Obama and the Democrats were willing to pay the first time around (which most people agree favored the Republicans) for the sequester. Revealed preference, of course, is that the Democrats value government functioning quite highly.

My reasoning for why this is the case: short-term, Democrats might win by pointing out particular programs that are shut down. But long term, it reinforces a lack of confidence in government, which probably blunts the political prospects for additional government programs (e.g. universal Pre-K, more high speed rail, etc.)

[washingtonismoney]

I don't think that's true.  I think Democrats welcome the prospect of a government shutdown to show what mean, bad people the Republicans are.  Didn't get your SS check?  Republican fault.  Long lines/shut down at the fill-in-the-blank government supported organization?  Republican fault. 

It's so, so, so easy to blame the Republicans during shut down time.

You may be right about the political tack Democrats take, but I don't think they relish government shutdowns at all. Consider the price Obama and the Democrats were willing to pay the first time around (which most people agree favored the Republicans) for the sequester. Revealed preference, of course, is that the Democrats value government functioning quite highly.

My reasoning for why this is the case: short-term, Democrats might win by pointing out particular programs that are shut down. But long term, it reinforces a lack of confidence in government, which probably blunts the political prospects for additional government programs (e.g. universal Pre-K, more high speed rail, etc.)

[CornFed]

"What I think is true is that the Senate should feel bound by 200+ years of precedent to at least consider the nominee, hold hearings, and give the nominee a vote."


Wasn't Miguel Estrada an example contrary to that principle?  Was Harry Reid Minority Leader or did that happen after 2006?  I think Estrada was in the nomination process for two years before he requested to be removed from consideration.

[CornFed]

"What I think is true is that the Senate should feel bound by 200+ years of precedent to at least consider the nominee, hold hearings, and give the nominee a vote."


Wasn't Miguel Estrada an example contrary to that principle?  Was Harry Reid Minority Leader or did that happen after 2006?  I think Estrada was in the nomination process for two years before he requested to be removed from consideration.

[Cardinal96]

This thread is Exhibit A why I only talk sports on this message board.  So much to lose, so little to gain from political discussions.

This discussion in particular seems to bring out the worst in both sides of the debate.  I am so sick of hearing people getting on their high horse when, if the situation were reversed, they would be making the same argument the other side is making now.

[Cardinal96]

This thread is Exhibit A why I only talk sports on this message board.  So much to lose, so little to gain from political discussions.

This discussion in particular seems to bring out the worst in both sides of the debate.  I am so sick of hearing people getting on their high horse when, if the situation were reversed, they would be making the same argument the other side is making now.

[ColoradoTree]

"What I think is true is that the Senate should feel bound by 200+ years of precedent to at least consider the nominee, hold hearings, and give the nominee a vote."


Wasn't Miguel Estrada an example contrary to that principle?  Was Harry Reid Minority Leader or did that happen after 2006?  I think Estrada was in the nomination process for two years before he requested to be removed from consideration.

Indeed, Estrada was delayed for quite some time before withdrawing, and I believe it was when Democrats were in the minority (though Daschle was minority leader then, if memory serves). Estrada wasn't a SCOTUS nominee, of course, but a DC Circuit nominee. And I believe that seat was ultimately filled by another Bush nominee as part of that "Gang of 14" deal to prevent future judicial filibusters of lower-court nominees.

You're right to point out Estrada as an example of Democratic obstruction, though I would say that GWB seemed to be pushing the envelope with that wave of appellate court nominees (most of whom were eventually confirmed under the deal), and I think the Senate has generally treated SCOTUS nominations differently than lower court nominees (for example, you don't usually see hold slips or other procedural means used to delay SCOTUS nominees, but that's fairly common with lower court nominees). And I'd also note that many Bush nominees were confirmed in the usual course during this time, with the filibusters being reserved for specific nominees seeing as excessively ideological (rather than the blanket, "it doesn't matter who you nominate" position taken with this vacancy).

[ColoradoTree]

"What I think is true is that the Senate should feel bound by 200+ years of precedent to at least consider the nominee, hold hearings, and give the nominee a vote."


Wasn't Miguel Estrada an example contrary to that principle?  Was Harry Reid Minority Leader or did that happen after 2006?  I think Estrada was in the nomination process for two years before he requested to be removed from consideration.

Indeed, Estrada was delayed for quite some time before withdrawing, and I believe it was when Democrats were in the minority (though Daschle was minority leader then, if memory serves). Estrada wasn't a SCOTUS nominee, of course, but a DC Circuit nominee. And I believe that seat was ultimately filled by another Bush nominee as part of that "Gang of 14" deal to prevent future judicial filibusters of lower-court nominees.

You're right to point out Estrada as an example of Democratic obstruction, though I would say that GWB seemed to be pushing the envelope with that wave of appellate court nominees (most of whom were eventually confirmed under the deal), and I think the Senate has generally treated SCOTUS nominations differently than lower court nominees (for example, you don't usually see hold slips or other procedural means used to delay SCOTUS nominees, but that's fairly common with lower court nominees). And I'd also note that many Bush nominees were confirmed in the usual course during this time, with the filibusters being reserved for specific nominees seeing as excessively ideological (rather than the blanket, "it doesn't matter who you nominate" position taken with this vacancy).

[stupac2]

Now there's a good argument for the second Ammendment if I ever heard one.i hope you're not advocating this.

If this isn't advocating political murder then I have absolutely no idea what the intent was.

Besides, your true colors have been revealed many, many times in the past. I don't have an issue with people who express right-wing views, I have a problem with people who express stupid, bigoted views.

[stupac2]

Now there's a good argument for the second Ammendment if I ever heard one.i hope you're not advocating this.

If this isn't advocating political murder then I have absolutely no idea what the intent was.

Besides, your true colors have been revealed many, many times in the past. I don't have an issue with people who express right-wing views, I have a problem with people who express stupid, bigoted views.

[TrumpCard]

Besides, your true colors have been revealed many, many times in the past.

Speaking of true colors, is anyone else concerned that Paul Watford's true colors are blue and dirty yellow?  Can we start a PAC to oppose any nomination of a kal alumnus and to support the nomination of a Stanford alumnus?

[TrumpCard]

Besides, your true colors have been revealed many, many times in the past.

Speaking of true colors, is anyone else concerned that Paul Watford's true colors are blue and dirty yellow?  Can we start a PAC to oppose any nomination of a kal alumnus and to support the nomination of a Stanford alumnus?

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14611.msg156684#msg156684 date=1455674658]
Besides, your true colors have been revealed many, many times in the past.

Speaking of true colors, is anyone else concerned that Paul Watford's true colors are blue and dirty yellow?  Can we start a PAC to oppose any nomination of a kal alumnus and to support the nomination of a Stanford alumnus?
[/quote]

Well played, well played. Surely we can all agree that anyone who attended C.al lacks the good judgment required of a Supreme Court Justice.

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14611.msg156684#msg156684 date=1455674658]
Besides, your true colors have been revealed many, many times in the past.

Speaking of true colors, is anyone else concerned that Paul Watford's true colors are blue and dirty yellow?  Can we start a PAC to oppose any nomination of a kal alumnus and to support the nomination of a Stanford alumnus?
[/quote]

Well played, well played. Surely we can all agree that anyone who attended C.al lacks the good judgment required of a Supreme Court Justice.

[TreesAndBirds]

I think if a UCB alum is chosen Malia's admission should be revoked.

[TreesAndBirds]

I think if a UCB alum is chosen Malia's admission should be revoked.

[ColoradoTree]

Ah, but what if a C.al alum is chosen as the sacrificial lamb, rejected by the Senate (Watford's confirmation vote was fairly close last time around), and Stanford alum Srinivasan (97-0 to the DC Circuit) sweeps in as the less objectionable backup? Some tasty C.al schadenfreude there, to be sure.

It would be Hoffpauir-ing the Supreme Court, which is something to which we all should aspire.

[ColoradoTree]

Ah, but what if a C.al alum is chosen as the sacrificial lamb, rejected by the Senate (Watford's confirmation vote was fairly close last time around), and Stanford alum Srinivasan (97-0 to the DC Circuit) sweeps in as the less objectionable backup? Some tasty C.al schadenfreude there, to be sure.

It would be Hoffpauir-ing the Supreme Court, which is something to which we all should aspire.