White House: Democrats would be justified to block a SCOTUS pick for 4 years

[Blue3]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dems-justified-blocking-supreme-court-nominee-gop-president/story?id=38406202

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

McConnell has been very clear that he'd let Hillary appoint a SCOTUS justice. No 4 year block is being discussed, and Earnest should be ashamed of himself for suggesting a "four eyes for an eye" revenge tactic.

[Virginiá]

Republicans definitely deserve it, but it would look bad for Democrats to do the same. I hope they are cautious about following Republicans into the world of cesspool-level politics.

I would rather they get back at Republicans some other way. Dunno how though.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

LBJ's pick to replace Earl Warren as Chief Justice in 1968 was blocked by the Conservative Coalition on the grounds that a lame-duck President should not nominate any new justices during last half of a year in office (it was called "Thurmond rule"). This certainly does not apply here and Republican actions are petty politicizing.

You can call me old-fashioned, but I strongly believe any nominee should get a proper hearing. The Senate can confirm or reject, but should not just block the proceedings. Republicans are creating a very dangerous precedent now and if this comes back to bite them, jolly good.

[President Johnson]

It's just playing games. I think the sitting president should be able to appoint someone, no matter how much time remains in his/her term. Arnie nominated California's chief justice in his last day as governor. Confirmation vote is another story. But everyone agrees that Garland is qualified for the job.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

In the long run, do we end up with a norm that you have to control the senate to make judicial appointments?  I understand this is already effectively the case in some states that have legislative approval of the Governor's picks.  It seems to be what both parties' bases would want?

Only if the opposite party controls the Oval.

[Orser67]

I think this would be an extremely irresponsible thing for either party to due, but I also think Republicans have strongly escalated the judicial wars and I could see this happening at some point.

[Bojack Horseman]

If that's what it comes to, I'd support doing it. I say don't take this sh**t lying down.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There's very little chance that a Republican President will have to deal with a Dem Senate, given the current numbers. Regardless, this is deeply irresponsible and would essentially render the Supreme Court impotent. Just goes further to show how Obama and Earnest are perfectly willing to escalate every political conflict to irresponsible levels.

[Santander]

So the Supreme Court will have its members die off one-by-one without replacement until Elena Kagan is the only remaining justice and goes from Supreme Court to Supreme Being, to use Mike Huckabee's terminology. Okay.

[SWE]

There's very little chance that a Republican President will have to deal with a Dem Senate, given the current numbers. Regardless, this is deeply irresponsible and would essentially render the Supreme Court impotent. Just goes further to show how Obama and Earnest are perfectly willing to escalate every political conflict to irresponsible levels.

The implication of this post seems to be that this conflict hasn't already been escalated to an irresponsible level (lol).

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There's very little chance that a Republican President will have to deal with a Dem Senate, given the current numbers. Regardless, this is deeply irresponsible and would essentially render the Supreme Court impotent. Just goes further to show how Obama and Earnest are perfectly willing to escalate every political conflict to irresponsible levels.

The implication of this post seems to be that this conflict hasn't already been escalated to an irresponsible level (lol).

Oh, that's been done. That was done when the President unilaterally declared the Senate in recess in violation of the body's rules. In a better world, that would have kick-started an impeachment trial but the 9-0 smackdown he received was good enough, I suppose.

[Virginiá]

Oh, that's been done. That was done when the President unilaterally declared the Senate in recess in violation of the body's rules. In a better world, that would have kick-started an impeachment trial but the 9-0 smackdown he received was good enough, I suppose.

Oh please.

[Ebsy]

McConnell has been very clear that he'd let Hillary appoint a SCOTUS justice. No 4 year block is being discussed, and Earnest should be ashamed of himself for suggesting a "four eyes for an eye" revenge tactic.

Because we all know Mitch McConnell's integrity is unparalleled.

[Ogre Mage]

There's very little chance that a Republican President will have to deal with a Dem Senate, given the current numbers. Regardless, this is deeply irresponsible and would essentially render the Supreme Court impotent. Just goes further to show how Obama and Earnest are perfectly willing to escalate every political conflict to irresponsible levels.

The implication of this post seems to be that this conflict hasn't already been escalated to an irresponsible level (lol).

Oh, that's been done. That was done when the President unilaterally declared the Senate in recess in violation of the body's rules. In a better world, that would have kick-started an impeachment trial but the 9-0 smackdown he received was good enough, I suppose.

Well then why don't Republicans start another impeachment trial just like you did against Bill.  Funny how it was the adulterer Newt Gingrich who wound up losing his position instead.  It's not like the radical GOP majority in Congress is doing anything worthwhile with its time anyway.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

So what happens if Ginsburg, Kennedy etc. also die? Will the Supreme Court just dwindle away?

[SWE]

So what happens if Ginsburg, Kennedy etc. also die? Will the Supreme Court just dwindle away?

We can only hope.

[SillyAmerican]

It's just playing games. I think the sitting president should be able to appoint someone, no matter how much time remains in his/her term. Arnie nominated California's chief justice in his last day as governor. Confirmation vote is another story. But everyone agrees that Garland is qualified for the job.

Agreed. Citizens should make it clear that whichever party controls the Senate, that they MUST consider a Supreme Court nomination of a sitting president. They can reject the nominee, sure, but the idea that because it's an election year and the President and Senate are under the control of different parties, that that somehow means that no nominee will be considered? That's just lunacy, and is in no way supported by the Constitution. And let's be clear, the party arguments are now 180^o from what they were in 1992, when Biden made his silly comments.

[Badger]

It's just playing games. I think the sitting president should be able to appoint someone, no matter how much time remains in his/her term. Arnie nominated California's chief justice in his last day as governor. Confirmation vote is another story. But everyone agrees that Garland is qualified for the job.

Agreed. Citizens should make it clear that whichever party controls the Senate, that they MUST consider a Supreme Court nomination of a sitting president. They can reject the nominee, sure, but the idea that because it's an election year and the President and Senate are under the control of different parties, that that somehow means that no nominee will be considered? That's just lunacy, and is in no way supported by the Constitution. And let's be clear, the party arguments are now 180^o from what they were in 1992, when Biden made his silly comments.

Slightly different when he said this barely 4 months before the election, vs. Scalia dying about a year before the end of his term. also, Biden said Bush should otherwise compromise with the senate over a nominee if he named one.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Judicial filibusters will be nuked with Hilary or Trump

[Torie]

There's very little chance that a Republican President will have to deal with a Dem Senate, given the current numbers. Regardless, this is deeply irresponsible and would essentially render the Supreme Court impotent. Just goes further to show how Obama and Earnest are perfectly willing to escalate every political conflict to irresponsible levels.

True, but Republicans are highly unlikely to have 60, so they could still try to filibuster any SCOTUS appointments for 4 years.  Only a Chief Justice is required in the Constitution, and he's the 2nd youngest.  McConnell could nuke it of course, but I think nuking the SCOTUS filibuster will be met with a pledge by the opposition party to add a seat for every time the nuclear option was used, and I expect the 2020 Dem would run on doing just that.

So unless things de-escalate quickly, I think the endgame is de facto parliamentary supremacy at the federal level by 2040 at the latest, because whenever a party wins a federal trifecta, it will just give itself a large SCOTUS majority, House of Lords style.  As a fan of the rule of law, I hope things do de-escalate and the worst that comes of this is that Justice Garland or some other compromise pick is delayed until December.

I don't get the add a seat bit. You mean the way FDR tried to pack the court and failed?

[Classic Conservative]

Only during an election year they would.