Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance —remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago … ” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

 

February 23, 2016:
Very first McConnell press availability following the death of Justice Scalia:

SEN. McCONNELL: “You did have to go back to 1888, when Grover Cleveland was president, to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidentially elected year was approved by a Senate of a different party. I think you all understand where we are.” (Sen. McConnell, Press Conference, 2/23/2016)

• Republican Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: “It is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — to find an election-year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.”(Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Members, Letter to Sen. McConnell, 2/23/2016)

 

March 1, 2016:

SEN. McCONNELL: “[Y]ou’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential year was confirmed by the party opposite the occupant of the White House.” (Sen. McConnell, Press Conference, 3/01/2016)

 

March 20, 2016:

SEN. McCONNELL: “You have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time when a vacancy was created in a presidential year, a Senate controlled [by the] party opposite the president confirmed.” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 3/20/2016)

 

SEN. McCONNELL: “You have to go back to Grover Cleveland in 1888 to find the last time a presidential appointment was confirmed by a Senate of the opposite party when the vacancy occurred in a presidential year.” (NBC’s “Meet the Press,” 3/20/2016)

 

March 22, 2016:

SEN. McCONNELL: “You’d have to go back to 1888, you do remember Grover Cleveland, right, to find the last time a vacancy created in the Supreme Court in a presidential year was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president.” ([Louisville] Courier Journal, 3/22/2016)

 

April 5, 2016:

SEN. McCONNELL: “You’d have to go all the way back to 1888 with Grover Cleveland, a Democrat in the White House, to find the last time a Senate of the opposite party confirmed a nominee to a vacancy on the Supreme Court occurring in a presidential year.” (The Hugh Hewitt Show, 4/05/2016)

https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/research/get-the-facts-what-leader-mcconnell-actually-said-in-2016

[homersapien 11,370]

16 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance —remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago … ” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

 

February 23, 2016:
Very first McConnell press availability following the death of Justice Scalia:

SEN. McCONNELL: “You did have to go back to 1888, when Grover Cleveland was president, to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidentially elected year was approved by a Senate of a different party. I think you all understand where we are.” (Sen. McConnell, Press Conference, 2/23/2016)

• Republican Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: “It is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — to find an election-year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.”(Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Members, Letter to Sen. McConnell, 2/23/2016)

 

March 1, 2016:

SEN. McCONNELL: “[Y]ou’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential year was confirmed by the party opposite the occupant of the White House.” (Sen. McConnell, Press Conference, 3/01/2016)

 

March 20, 2016:

SEN. McCONNELL: “You have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time when a vacancy was created in a presidential year, a Senate controlled [by the] party opposite the president confirmed.” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 3/20/2016)

 

SEN. McCONNELL: “You have to go back to Grover Cleveland in 1888 to find the last time a presidential appointment was confirmed by a Senate of the opposite party when the vacancy occurred in a presidential year.” (NBC’s “Meet the Press,” 3/20/2016)

 

March 22, 2016:

SEN. McCONNELL: “You’d have to go back to 1888, you do remember Grover Cleveland, right, to find the last time a vacancy created in the Supreme Court in a presidential year was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president.” ([Louisville] Courier Journal, 3/22/2016)

 

April 5, 2016:

SEN. McCONNELL: “You’d have to go all the way back to 1888 with Grover Cleveland, a Democrat in the White House, to find the last time a Senate of the opposite party confirmed a nominee to a vacancy on the Supreme Court occurring in a presidential year.” (The Hugh Hewitt Show, 4/05/2016)

https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/research/get-the-facts-what-leader-mcconnell-actually-said-in-2016

What?  Nothing about letting the people decide???

That looks like quote "cherry picking". 

[SocialCircle 570]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

And that is a newly invented rationale McConnell put forth this year to try and explain the issue away.  It is not the rationale offered at the time.

 

How is it even possible for you to be this bad at following basic logic?  You don't get to accuse someone of hypocrisy when they react to you changing the norms of how something is done, and then when you renege on the new norm you set, they react to this obvious flip-flop and point that out.

You are not required to flip flop as you can stick with the principles you stated so clearly in 2016 as the rationale for having those same principles still exists.  Or you can choose to be hypocritical because your foe is being hypocritical.  The choice is there and the Dems have elected to also be hypocritical.  

[SocialCircle 570]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Case closed" using quotes totally irrelevant to the argument?  

They are completely relevant to this argument as it absolutely shows the Dems have clearly flip flopped on their belief.....just like the Republicans. 

[SocialCircle 570]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

And that is a newly invented rationale McConnell put forth this year to try and explain the issue away.  It is not the rationale offered at the time.

 

How is it even possible for you to be this bad at following basic logic?  You don't get to accuse someone of hypocrisy when they react to you changing the norms of how something is done, and then when you renege on the new norm you set, they react to this obvious flip-flop and point that out.

You absolutely can point out they are also flip flopping on the same issue. 

[SocialCircle 570]

On 9/22/2020 at 3:18 PM, TitanTiger said:

Wrong.  Something like this had never been done before.  We broke new ground in 2016 by refusing to vote for a nominee simply because an election was coming later in the year.  The Democrats weren't wrong to object.

Now, the same thing occurs but the ones who put forth the rationale in 2016 that "voters should have a say" are now reneging on that.  Apparently, the voters should NOT have a say.  The Democrats are right to point out that the Republicans aren't even abiding by their OWN precedent and rationale.

Look, we get that the party in power is legally allowed to use it.  But if that was the real reasoning in 2016, then that's what they should have said then instead of the other bull**** excuse about the voters.  Then they wouldn't be charged with hypocrisy today by ramming this one through.  They could just say "the party in power gets to use it" and be done.

You need a history lesson as your first statement is factually incorrect. There have been several times when the president was a lame duck and the Senate was controlled by another party. The vast majority of those nominations were not confirmed (none since 1880). There have also been numerous times in our history when the president and the Senate were controlled by the same party during the last year of a presidency and the vast majority of those nominations were confirmed. 

[TitanTiger 20,479]

26 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

You need a history lesson as your first statement is factually incorrect. There have been several times when the president was a lame duck and the Senate was controlled by another party. The vast majority of those nominations were not confirmed (none since 1880).  There have also been numerous times in our history when the president and the Senate were controlled by the same party during the last year of a presidency and the vast majority of those nominations were confirmed. 

I think when you have go back to the 19th century to find an example, that hardly qualifies as "precedent."  But I concede your other points.

 

[TitanTiger 20,479]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

You absolutely can point out they are also flip flopping on the same issue. 

You're hopeless.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

What?  Nothing about letting the people decide???

That looks like quote "cherry picking". 

Actually it's the opposite. That's what others are doing with 'people decide' argument. McConnell spent a lot more time invoking Biden than he did about letting the people decide.

McConnell speech breakdown paraphrasing -

McConnell for 30 seconds: The people should have a vote because of a lame duck president who's can't be re-elected".

McConnell for 5 minutes: Joe Biden said this..... Joe Biden said that....  I agree with Joe Biden that when the Senate and Presidency are controlled by different parties in an election year that the Senate gets to decide whether to confirm the President's nomination.

Dems and NeverTrumpers: See McConell's main point is that the 'people should decide'. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I think when you have go back to the 19th century to find an example, that hardly qualifies as "precedent."  But I concede your other points.

 

All of the quotes then and now.  Pretty jarring.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/then-and-now-republican-senators-flipflop-on-appointing-supreme-court-nominee-in-an-election-year-193114068.html

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 9/19/2020 at 7:03 PM, homersapien said:

No, I didn't "vet" the material, it simply caught my eye.  The author covers courts and law for Slate but I know little about him.  And I certainly have not read any of the subject rulings (even though the links for each of the claims are provided).

Since you apparently know the history of this judge better than me  - which I don't doubt - can you please explain - briefly - which of those characterizations of her record is "hogwash" and why?  It shouldn't be too time consuming as - like I said - the references are provided in the article.

Otherwise, I can only assume your response is an unsupported "appeal to authority" which is an argument fallacy.

Thanks.

 

Read the opinions. They are not so complex as to evade your comprehension - one of which is just four pages (and another is duplicative). 

You will be informed.

Otherwise, maintain your assumption.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 9/19/2020 at 5:22 PM, aubiefifty said:

curious. what is your win loss record in protecting folks in court?

Lol. I’m not batting 0-for.

[SocialCircle 570]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

All of the quotes then and now.  Pretty jarring.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/then-and-now-republican-senators-flipflop-on-appointing-supreme-court-nominee-in-an-election-year-193114068.html

As I’ve demonstrated you can do the same with many Dems. Both have flip flopped and both are very hypocritical on this issue. Anyone who tries to deny this is being clearly dishonest as evidenced by the quotes then and now from both sides of the aisle. 

[Leftfield 2,596]

15 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Anyone who tries to deny this is being clearly dishonest...

Or they just, you know, disagree with you. But thanks for calling me dishonest. 

Sure sign someone's got nothing when they make a statement like that. But please, by all means, type the exact same argument about the Dems being hypocritical as opposed to pointing out a Republican double-standard, since you have in every other reply. I'm sure you'll be right at some point.

[SocialCircle 570]

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Or they just, you know, disagree with you. But thanks for calling me dishonest. 

Sure sign someone's got nothing when they make a statement like that. But please, by all means, type the exact same argument about the Dems being hypocritical as opposed to pointing out a Republican double-standard, since you have in every other reply. I'm sure you'll be right at some point.

I have consistently said the Republicans are hypocritical on this issue. I even said it in the post you are responding too. 

[Leftfield 2,596]

Just now, SocialCircle said:

I have consistently said the Republicans are hypocritical on this issue. I even said it in the post you are responding too. 

Didn't deny that. To clarify, you've been saying the Dems are being hypocritical, when what they are doing is pointing out that the Republicans are enforcing a double-standard.

[SocialCircle 570]

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Didn't deny that. To clarify, you've been saying the Dems are being hypocritical, when what they are doing is pointing out that the Republicans are enforcing a double-standard.

The Dems have also flip flopped. For example Schumer in 2016 said every day we don’t have a 9th justice on the court is another day the business of the American people isn’t getting done. He has flip flopped now and says exactly the opposite. It is clearly hypocritical. 

[bigbird 60,520]

Can I get a brief recap, please?

 

Is the issue people are debating that, in one circumstance, the Senate and Presidency were held by opposite parties vs the Senate and Presidency being held by the same party?

Is that the point of contention and where people are considering it to be hypocritical?

 

To me, there is a difference, albeit slight in appearance and in verbage. However, IMO, the midterm election in 2018 was, in sense, the opportunity for voters to have their voice heard on the direction of the nation until 2020. To be clear, I would feel the same if Dems held the two bodies as opposed to the current make up. 

I don't necessarily disagree with the nomination by Trump itself. However, I do disagree that one should be confirmed before the election. If he wants to nominate someone, great, go ahead. Use the judge's nomination as part of your campaign and see where that leads. If Trump wins, then the people spoke and the nomination should be confirmed. If Trump loses, then, IMO, the nomination should expire and Biden should then select his nominee.

 

To me, the dem leadership would look strong and it would send a good message to the electorate if they proposed this sort of compromise. We will support your nomination, the Senate judiciary committee will proceed with hearings, but we will hold off on a confirmation vote until after the election.  JMO

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

6 hours ago, bigbird said:

Can I get a brief recap, please?

 

Is the issue people are debating that, in one circumstance, the Senate and Presidency were held by opposite parties vs the Senate and Presidency being held by the same party?

Is that the point of contention and where people are considering it to be hypocritical?

 

To me, there is a difference, albeit slight in appearance and in verbage. However, IMO, the midterm election in 2018 was, in sense, the opportunity for voters to have their voice heard on the direction of the nation until 2020. To be clear, I would feel the same if Dems held the two bodies as opposed to the current make up. 

I don't necessarily disagree with the nomination by Trump itself. However, I do disagree that one should be confirmed before the election. If he wants to nominate someone, great, go ahead. Use the judge's nomination as part of your campaign and see where that leads. If Trump wins, then the people spoke and the nomination should be confirmed. If Trump loses, then, IMO, the nomination should expire and Biden should then select his nominee.

 

To me, the dem leadership would look strong and it would send a good message to the electorate if they proposed this sort of compromise. We will support your nomination, the Senate judiciary committee will proceed with hearings, but we will hold off on a confirmation vote until after the election.  JMO

 

The main point of contention seems to be the hypocrisy. Republicans should have just said in 2016 they are using their power to block Garland. So that way they can just say the same now to push One through. But they said in 2016 they are doing it because the people deserve a voice, but not now. 

[Leftfield 2,596]

6 hours ago, bigbird said:

Can I get a brief recap, please?

 

Is the issue people are debating that, in one circumstance, the Senate and Presidency were held by opposite parties vs the Senate and Presidency being held by the same party?

Is that the point of contention and where people are considering it to be hypocritical?

 

To me, there is a difference, albeit slight in appearance and in verbage. However, IMO, the midterm election in 2018 was, in sense, the opportunity for voters to have their voice heard on the direction of the nation until 2020. To be clear, I would feel the same if Dems held the two bodies as opposed to the current make up. 

I don't necessarily disagree with the nomination by Trump itself. However, I do disagree that one should be confirmed before the election. If he wants to nominate someone, great, go ahead. Use the judge's nomination as part of your campaign and see where that leads. If Trump wins, then the people spoke and the nomination should be confirmed. If Trump loses, then, IMO, the nomination should expire and Biden should then select his nominee.

 

To me, the dem leadership would look strong and it would send a good message to the electorate if they proposed this sort of compromise. We will support your nomination, the Senate judiciary committee will proceed with hearings, but we will hold off on a confirmation vote until after the election.  JMO

 

The point of contention is that every justification that Republicans gave four years ago for blocking Garland had to do with Obama being in his final year and that the next  President should have the ability to make their own pick. No one would come out and say "We have the power and we're going to use it."

Nobody disputes what the Republicans did was legal, but now they have done a 180 and are arguing the complete opposite on all the points they made four years ago, with the new justification that they hold both the White House and the Senate (no one gave that as a possible caveat at the time).

I would have no problem with the Republicans doing this if they had simply said back in 2016 that they did not want Obama's nominee on the Supreme Court and they were going to block it, but they didn't want to have to pay a political price. Now they are twisting in the wind trying to find new reasons that they shouldn't follow their own words from 2016.

Same as Titan mentioned in another thread, I have become fed up with the modern Republican Party. At one time they could rightly claim some moral high ground, but they have become what they despise. I'm not so naive that I don't recognize politics is inherently a dirty game sometimes, but with Trump they have taken a scorched-Earth approach and no matter how this next election goes we're all going to be worse off because of it.

Should also mention, I am in complete agreement with your suggestion that Trump can nominate but the vote should wait until after the election. Unfortunately, I think we know that if Trump loses the vote will still go forward before he leaves office.

[Grumps 3,704]

The republicans are hypocrites who are going to use their power to push their agenda 100% of the time. But the democrats are also hypocrites who are going to use their power to push their agenda 100% of the time. Right now the republicans in the senate have the power so they are going to use it. When the democrats have the power (like the power to impeach the POTUS knowing that it was going to be for nothing, or the power to push through the ACA) they use their power.

There is no good side, only a side in power.

[Leftfield 2,596]

6 minutes ago, Grumps said:

There is no good side, only a side in power.

Agreed. I just want them to be honest about it. They shouldn't make up reasons and then try to claim the moral high ground.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

The historical precedent is clear, as set out by National Review’s Dan McLaughlin. When a vacancy occurs in a presidential year and the opposition party has a majority in the Senate, the president can nominate, but the nominee is almost never confirmed. There have been 10 such vacancies in the history of the republic. Presidents made pre-Election Day nominations in six cases, but only one nominee was confirmed before the election. That was in 1888.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/whos-violating-norms-these-days

[homersapien 11,370]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Read the opinions. They are not so complex as to evade your comprehension - one of which is just four pages (and another is duplicative). 

You will be informed.

Otherwise, maintain your assumption.

Hogwash!  

[RunInRed 16,407]