Right and Wrong in 2020

Democrats complain about disrespecting the senate decorum that was in place for several years. they need to look at themselves. they started attacking judges in the 1990s when a number of judges were "borked" ruthlessly.

if there were any decorum in place in the senate, it got tossed in the trash can.

as for postponing judicial nominations, democrats did it to President Bush 41.

as the saying goes, what goes around, comes around to bite their asses.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/02/...cial-nominees/

Flashback to 1992: When Democrats Halted a Republican President’s Judicial Nominees

Philip Wegmann / @PhilipWegmann / February 17, 2016 / 0 Comments

President George H.W. Bush and his challenger, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, square off in the first presidential debate of 1992. Democrats stopped the judicial nomination process to leave seats open in hopes of a Clinton victory. (Photo: Dennis Brack/Newscom]

If Senate Democrats get their way, Republicans won’t follow their example. That is, Senate Republicans in 2016 won’t act as Democrats did when they blocked court confirmations in 1992.

Twenty-four years ago looked a lot like the inverse of today. On the eve of a presidential election, there was a Republican in the White House and a Democrat majority in the Senate.

Now those roles are reversed—and so is the Democrat perspective on judicial nominees.

Rather than confirming President George H.W. Bush’s picks for federal judgeships, The New York Times from Sept. 1, 1992, reports, Senate Democrats delayed nominees “to preserve the vacancies for [Arkansas] Gov. Bill Clinton to fill if he is elected president.”

In an era before widespread use of the Internet, “none of the senators urging a shutdown” for Bush nominees would go on the record or register his opinion publicly with The New York Times.

But Neil Lewis reported that Senate Democrats wanted to leave approximately 50 judgeships open for “presumably more liberal nominees.”

According to Senate roll call votes from 1992, only one Bush judicial nominee received a vote after The New York Times published that story.

Edward Carnes, nominated by Bush in January 1992 and later filibustered by Democrats, won confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on a vote of 62-36 on Sept. 9, 1992. He was the final nominee confirmed under Bush.

Another Bush nominee at the time was John G. Roberts, now chief justice of the Supreme Court. In 1992, the Senate opted not to vote on Roberts’ nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Without Senate action, his nomination was left to expire.

The New York Times reports that in the House, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., led a congressional congregation to complain to then-Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, D-Maine.

“We told him it was very unsettling, even incredible, that the Senate should continue to consider these people as if it were business as usual,” Conyers told the newspaper.

In the minority today, Senate Democrats have shifted their opinion at news that Republicans intend to leave vacant the seat of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who died Saturday.

Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have accused Republicans of dereliction of their constitutional duty to advise and consent on judicial nominees.

In an op-ed Monday in The Washington Post, Reid criticized Senate Republicans for engaging in “partisan sabotage” after Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced he wouldn’t move an Obama nominee to the court.

Reid predicted that Republicans would be “remembered as the most nakedly partisan, obstructionist, and irresponsible majority in history.”

Edward Whelan, president of the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, told The Daily Signal that Democrats have done “the same thing Republicans are doing now.”

A Supreme Court clerk for Scalia in the 1990s, Whelan said he sees this back-and-forth as par for the course.

“The confirmation process is inherently political,” he said. “Especially when you’re talking about transformational seats, it’s all the more intense.”

democrats... you started this.

telling republicans that they can't do this but the democratic party can?

you have loads of hypocrisy up your eyeballs. so cry me a river!!!

DF - Amen!

I have to say this.

how often does this happen when 2 supreme court justices dying in a election year, 2016 and and 2020 and the nominations get postponed and the other filled in an election year? this is just hard ball politics.

Biden just lied AGAIN. Biden said that Trump should "follow the Constitution" and not nominate someone to fill the vacancy. Is Biden saying something he knows isn't true like how he as President would mandate a federal mask wearing law with his "follow the Constitution" remark? Or does he seriously not understand that there is nothing in the Constitution that says Trump can't or shouldn't name a nominee? Biden AGAIN says that if Trump nominates someone, it will be a "Constitutional abuse of power".


No, it won't be Joe. The question is, do you know this or do you not know this?

Biden just lied AGAIN. Biden said that Trump should "follow the Constitution" and not nominate someone to fill the vacancy. Is Biden saying something he knows isn't true like how he as President would mandate a federal mask wearing law with his "follow the Constitution" remark? Or does he seriously not understand that there is nothing in the Constitution that says Trump can't or shouldn't name a nominee? Biden AGAIN says that if Trump nominates someone, it will be a "Constitutional abuse of power".


No, it won't be Joe. The question is, do you know this or do you not know this? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

how amusing. typical democrat nonsense. the Constitution specifically gives the current president the right to nominate a justice. doesn't say shit about "except during a presidential election year" or "because the Democrats don't like it".


never mind Harry Reid, this is really Bushy's fault. that dummy never should have caved in as a lame duck prez and deferred to whoever won in 2008 which was Obama. quite possibly the single worst mistake Bushy made in terms of US politics in his 8 years in office.


i find some items in this article interesting


Biden hits back on calls for his list of Supreme Court nominees, gives 3 reasons candidates shouldn't do it

https://www.yahoo.com/news/conscienc...202555177.html


Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is pushing back against the Trump campaign's criticism of him not releasing a list of potential Supreme Court nominees to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, saying it showed his opponent looks at the issue as a "game" and that there are good reasons candidates don't normally release such lists.


candidates who happen to be the sitting president do


Speaking at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia Sunday, Biden praised Ginsburg for achieving a level of standing in American culture that had been held by few Supreme Court justices and said she "did as much to advance the constitutional rights, opportunities and justice for women, as Justice Marshall did for African Americans." And he implored Senate Republicans to let the winner of the Nov. 3 election decide who will fill Ginsburg's vacant Supreme Court seat, telling them that to do otherwise risked "irreversible damage" to American democracy.


He also addressed calls for him to release a list of people he's considering to replace Ginsburg on the bench. President Donald Trump released a list of his potential nominees on Sept. 9 and said he is expected to pick one of the women on that list to replace Ginsburg.


Biden said the Trump campaign's focus on lists is an indication that the matter is "a game for them" which they want to use to "gin up emotions and anger."


Trump SCOTUS pick: Front-runner for Supreme Court nomination to replace Ginsburg is a favorite of religious conservatives


"There's a reason why no presidential candidate, other than Donald Trump has ever done such a thing. First, putting a judge's name on lists like that could influence that person's decision making as a judge. And that would be wrong," Biden said.


see note about sitting president above


"Second, anyone put in a list like that under these circumstances will be subject to unrelenting political attacks, because any nominee I would select would not get hearing until 2021 at the earliest."


all potential candidates for the court are subjected to intense scrutiny regardless of the pending election. just ask Brett Kavanaugh


Finally, he said he didn't want his decision to be "based on a partisan election campaign."


Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh accused Biden of "hiding his list of potential nominees."


"Biden knows that he is an empty vessel for the radical left and that’s why he’s refusing to be honest with the American people about who he would want on the court," Murtaugh said.


Earlier Sunday, Marc Short, chief staff to Vice President Mike Pence, told CNN Trump's list was an example of the president's transparency.


"We still haven't seen a list from Joe Biden. We would welcome a list from Joe Biden that would show the American people, if he's elected, here's who I would appoint to the Supreme Court," Short said on "State of the Union."


In an email to supporters, the Trump campaign said Biden had "pledged" to release a list on June 30. At that time, Biden said he planned to pick a Black woman to fill any potential Supreme Court vacancy and was vetting a list of possible nominees. In response to a reporter who asked if Biden would release the list like Trump, Biden said, "One thing I hesitate to do is follow anything the president does at all, because he usually does it all wrong."


So! Joey does have a list after all! didn't recall him saying that from June. of course he doesn't want to release it now because like his VP pick of Harris he boxed himself in to nominating a female and in this case he specifically said black female.


"I am not going to release that until we go further down the line in vetting them," Biden continued. But he did not specify that "further down the line" meant before the election.


Judge Barbara Lagoa: Trump eyes Cuban American judge from Florida for Supreme Court


In his speech Sunday, Biden repeated his pledge that he would nominate an African-American woman to the court. He said he would consult with senators from both parties about his pick, as well as "legal and civic leaders."


two words Stacy Abrams. bahhaaa no, Biden's handlers know what a mistake that would be, even if he doesn't.


"It will be the product of a process that extends our finest traditions, not the extension of what has torn the country apart for the last years," he vowed. He pointed to the challenges and division facing the country and warned against adding " a constitutional crisis that plunges us deeper into the abyss and deeper into the darkness."


"If we go down this path, I predict it will cause irreversible damage," he warned.


Biden cited Ginsburg's reported dying wish that her replacement not be selected until there is a new president in office.


"As a nation, we should heed her final call to us, not as a personal service to her, but as a service to the country, our country, at a crossroads," Biden said.


Biden pointed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's decision not to bring Merrick Garland's nomination to a vote in 2016. "Having made this their standard," he said, "they cannot just four years later, change course when it doesn't serve their ends."


He said he was not "being naive" and addressing his comments to Trump or McConnell, but rather to Senate Republicans who "know deep down what is right for the country and consistent with the Constitution."


"Please follow your conscience. Don't vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances President Trump and Sen. McConnell have created," he said. "Don't go there."


Two Republican senators – Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine – have said they will not support a vote on a nominee before the election. But two more would be needed to join with the Democrats to reach the 51 votes required to block a nominee.


November election: Trump, Democrats thrust Supreme Court fight forward as a central issue


Murtaugh said Ginsburg's successor was Trump's prerogative, regardless of the timing.


"When there’s a Supreme Court vacancy, the President selects a nominee and the Senate provides advice and consent. That’s what the Constitution says and those are the only rules," Murtaugh said in a statement. "Make no mistake about this: The President has been clear that he will nominate a woman to fill that seat and the Senate should vote to confirm her."


does anyone think that if this had happened in 2012 there would be any uproar about "candidate" Obama releasing any list or more importantly moving to fill the vacancy before the election?

DF and TWK - than you for fine, reasoned posts firmly grounded in the exact wording of the Constitution.!!!!
Expect outrage and name-calling, and scatology - as a response from DPST's who never read, and/or fail to comprehend the Constitution.

Thank the Teachers Unions educational system for that.

RBG's ='dying wish' to hold off the process - is NOWHERE in the Constitution - and The DPST's are going off about the Constitution supporting their cockamamie Lies with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Oh to be a DPST - and whatever feels good must be TRUE!!!


Not to mention - RBG 'dying wish' - to hold off the process - I find No Documentation !!!
Is that 'quote' just another DPST wet dream and fabrication - until confirmed and verified - I believe so.


If any DPST out there has proof of the 'quote" - let's see it.

Waiting
Waiting
Waiting!!!

But in 2016 Ruthie said get it done , just more ridiculous hypocrisy

Oh by the way 3 judges one in 19 day s ( I cant recall his name) 33 day sandy oconner, 42 days Ruthie herself