Hypocritical politicians

[SillyAmerican]

Per an article by George Will in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-wont-give-the-nominee-a-hearing-explained/2016/03/18/25df8ab2-ec8a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Has anyone in either of the major political parties indicated a principled policy regarding judicial appointments made in an election year? I mean, a consistent and coherent policy that does not depend on who is in control of the U.S. Senate? Is this yet another indication of why voters are finding difficult to believe "establishment" candidates -- I mean, the hypocrisy that's embedded within the system?

Discuss...

[Virginiá]

Each party seems to lay out exactly how things should function just fine when it's their party's president trying to make a nomination. McConnell himself spoke good words on this in 2005. He knows exactly how things should go, but he won't do it now for strictly partisan purposes.

The difference now is that while in the past, a Senator here or there would ramble on about why they shouldn't take up confirmation hearings (Biden/McConnell), at the end of the day, it's only Republicans now who won't confirm almost any judicial nominations, let alone a USSC justice.

[SillyAmerican]

Each party seems to lay out exactly how things should function just fine when it's their party's president trying to make a nomination. McConnell himself spoke good words on this in 2005. He knows exactly how things should go, but he won't do it now for strictly partisan purposes.

The difference now is that while in the past, a Senator here or there would ramble on about why they shouldn't take up confirmation hearings (Biden/McConnell), at the end of the day, it's only Republicans now who won't confirm almost any judicial nominations, let alone a USSC justice.

Well, this is because Republicans now control the Senate, and there's a Democrat in the White House. Back when things were reversed (in 1992, when Biden's now famous "Biden Rule" came into being), George H. W. Bush was doing the nominating and the Senate was controlled by Democrats. Surprising as this may be to some, the positions of the D and R folks were 180^o flipped. I realize that Democrats would like to claim that this is Republican obstructionism, but isn't it just politics as usual? Or can you site proof to the contrary?

[Virginiá]

Well, this is because Republicans now control the Senate, and there's a Democrat in the White House. Back when things were reversed (in 1992, when Biden's now famous "Biden Rule" came into being), George H. W. Bush was doing the nominating and the Senate was controlled by Democrats. Surprising as this may be to some, the positions of the D and R folks were 180^o flipped. I realize that Democrats would like to claim that this is Republican obstructionism, but isn't it just politics as usual? Or can you site proof to the contrary?

Well first, Clarence Thomas, a nominee of GWHB was confirmed in 1991 by Mitchell's Democratic Senate Majority. Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, an election year, by a Democratic Senate majority. Now yes, this did come after Bork, but Democrats had objections to that man (fair or not) and this time Obama nominated someone moderate, almost a decade older than average, and someone Republicans had already respected and also confirmed before. There is no reason not to confirm this guy. In the past, both parties have denied certain nominees or delayed, but they always ended up confirming someone. They didn't usually try and punt it to the next election just to see if they could make the pick instead. Or, that is, they didn't punt it to the next election almost a year away from the election.

I also did say, or implied, that both sides do similar things, except that so far both sides have always made good on their duties, more or less. It has been under McConnell that Senate Republicans tried to significantly impede nominees while in the minority and are now almost completely shutting down confirmations for judges in general. It's common knowledge that Senate Pubs' in the past 7 years have employed unprecedented amounts of obstruction, so what McConnell is doing isn't really even out of the ordinary given his past behavior. He is a "must-win-at-all-costs" guy. All he cares about is winning elections.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with all Republicans, but McConnell is scum. I'd like to think that if McConnell and a handful of other more Senate right-wing obstructionists (Cruz!) were defeated/lost their seats, that business would flow a little better. But then again, they also have to deal with a very uncompromising and vocal base they've created as well.

[Kingpoleon]

Well, this is because Republicans now control the Senate, and there's a Democrat in the White House. Back when things were reversed (in 1992, when Biden's now famous "Biden Rule" came into being), George H. W. Bush was doing the nominating and the Senate was controlled by Democrats. Surprising as this may be to some, the positions of the D and R folks were 180^o flipped. I realize that Democrats would like to claim that this is Republican obstructionism, but isn't it just politics as usual? Or can you site proof to the contrary?

Well first, Clarence Thomas, a nominee of GWHB was confirmed in 1991 by Mitchell's Democratic Senate Majority. Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, an election year, by a Democratic Senate majority. Now yes, this did come after Bork, but Democrats had objections to that man (fair or not) and this time Obama nominated someone moderate, almost a decade older than average, and someone Republicans had already respected and also confirmed before. There is no reason not to confirm this guy. In the past, both parties have denied certain nominees or delayed, but they always ended up confirming someone. They didn't usually try and punt it to the next election just to see if they could make the pick instead. Or, that is, they didn't punt it to the next election almost a year away from the election.

I also did say, or implied, that both sides do similar things, except that so far both sides have always made good on their duties, more or less. It has been under McConnell that Senate Republicans tried to significantly impede nominees while in the minority and are now almost completely shutting down confirmations for judges in general. It's common knowledge that Senate Pubs' in the past 7 years have employed unprecedented amounts of obstruction, so what McConnell is doing isn't really even out of the ordinary given his past behavior. He is a "must-win-at-all-costs" guy. All he cares about is winning elections.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with all Republicans, but McConnell is scum. I'd like to think that if McConnell and a handful of other more Senate right-wing obstructionists (Cruz!) were defeated/lost their seats, that business would flow a little better. But then again, they also have to deal with a very uncompromising and vocal base they've created as well.

Schumer and Reid and Pelosi did the same thing July 27, 2007.

[Virginiá]

Schumer and Reid and Pelosi did the same thing July 27, 2007.

What was in this regards to? Just Schumer talking about not confirming any more Bush SCOTUS nominees? As I recall, there were no justices to nominate in 2007 anyway. My posts were about the fact that it doesn't really matter what the Senators say, as long as they do their job and end up confirming someone. That was the whole point. I don't care if McConnell wants to beat his chest to act like a big man for his party's base, as long as he confirms Obama's pick before he leaves office. So as I said, so far, the only people to do what the GOP is doing, is, well, the GOP.

[Kingpoleon]

Schumer and Reid and Pelosi did the same thing July 27, 2007.

What was in this regards to? Just Schumer talking about not confirming any more Bush SCOTUS nominees? As I recall, there were no justices to nominate in 2007 anyway. My posts were about the fact that it doesn't really matter what the Senators say, as long as they do their job and end up confirming someone. That was the whole point. I don't care if McConnell wants to beat his chest to act like a big man for his party's base, as long as he confirms Obama's pick before he leaves office. So as I said, so far, the only people to do what the GOP is doing, is, well, the GOP.

Yes. Schumer promised that they would not nominate any more Bush SCOTUS members, and like it or not he could single handedly crush the Senators who go againdt him.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Schumer and Reid and Pelosi did the same thing July 27, 2007.

What was in this regards to? Just Schumer talking about not confirming any more Bush SCOTUS nominees? As I recall, there were no justices to nominate in 2007 anyway.

In hindsight, that was a really stupid thing for him to do.  Why publicize your hypothetical obstructionism?  The costs of doing so far outweigh any potential benefit.

[Virginiá]

Yes. Schumer promised that they would not nominate any more Bush SCOTUS members, and like it or not he could single handedly crush the Senators who go againdt him.

This was what my entire posts were about. Senators talking trash like this. I don't understand why you responded to me if you didn't read them...

Are you saying one or more Senators talking about blocking nominees in the last year is justification for Republicans to actually block the president's nomination for almost an entire year? Senators over the years have always said stupid things, but when push came to shove, Democrats always confirmed the president's picks, even if after an initial fight over an unsatisfactory nominee.

Republicans also used to be honorable, and now this new generation of Republicans isn't at all. What they are doing is unprecedented and you can't just scroll back to some dumb Senator's comments on blocking nominees because when push came to shove, Democrats did confirm SCOTUS picks.