General Discussion

YewNork

(461 posts) Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:55 PM Feb 2016

SCOTUS Posting: What people would be saying if the tables were reversed....

Let's look at a scenario where everything were reversed. By that I mean:

1) A left leaning Justice recently passed away;
2) A Republican president was in the last year of his second term;
3) The Senate was controlled by the Democrats;

Which of the following positions would be held by the various parties (choose as many as you like):

A) The Republicans would feel that it was perfectly acceptable for a Republican President to nominate a new justice.

B) The Democrats would feel that was perfectly acceptable for a Republican President to nominate a new justice.

C) The Republicans would feel that a Republican President should NOT nominate a new justice, since he has less than a year left in office.

D) The Democrats would feel that a Republican President should NOT nominate a new justice, since he has less than a year left in office.

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

SCOTUS Posting: What people would be saying if the tables were reversed.... (Original Post) YewNork Feb 2016 OP

Too easy SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #1

True Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #4

It can be difficult to admit to sentiment few hold LanternWaste Feb 2016 #10

As always, you're free to disagree SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #12

A & B Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2016 #2

+1 daleanime Feb 2016 #3

A) with a few Dems going for D) before they are punished by the MSM, after which all go for B). eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #5

The question is ill-posed jberryhill Feb 2016 #6

+1! BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #8

Who really cares about BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #7

That a Republican president would nominate a terrible Justice. Orsino Feb 2016 #9

When we realize that 82 presidential nominees have been blocked under President Barack Obama LanternWaste Feb 2016 #11

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)

1. Too easy

Reply to YewNork (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:57 PM

Feb 2016

A) & D)

Few will probably admit that though.

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)

4. True

Reply to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:00 PM

Feb 2016

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)

10. It can be difficult to admit to sentiment few hold

Reply to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:17 PM

Feb 2016

"Few will probably admit that though..."

It can be difficult to admit to sentiment few hold to and merely alleged.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)

12. As always, you're free to disagree

Reply to LanternWaste (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:24 PM

Feb 2016

As always, you're free to disagree

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,437 posts)

2. A & B

Reply to YewNork (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:57 PM

Feb 2016

No doubt whatsoever. And the MSM would grind any Democrat who suggested holding off into dust.

daleanime

(17,796 posts)

3. +1

Reply to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:59 PM

Feb 2016

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)

5. A) with a few Dems going for D) before they are punished by the MSM, after which all go for B). eom

Reply to YewNork (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:02 PM

Feb 2016

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

6. The question is ill-posed

Reply to YewNork (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:03 PM

Feb 2016

There is no question that the President has an affirmative duty to nominate candidates for vacancies - the relevant text is "shall nominate".

Whether the Senate confirms the nominee is up to the Senate.

I would expect that ANY president would nominate a candidate to fill a Supreme Court justice under any circumstances.

BlueMTexpat

(15,373 posts)

8. +1!

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:09 PM

Feb 2016

Kindred spirits in this at least!

BlueMTexpat

(15,373 posts)

7. Who really cares about

Reply to YewNork (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:08 PM

Feb 2016

a hypothetical when we have an actual situation, with actual rules that govern it?

The President (of whatever party) has an affirmative duty to nominate and the Senate (no matter which party is in control) has an affirmative duty either to confirm or reject the nomination.

Both should simply do their jobs. In the circumstances, it may take a few go-rounds or even lead to stalemate, but things must happen.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)

9. That a Republican president would nominate a terrible Justice.

Reply to YewNork (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:15 PM

Feb 2016

And we'd be right--but would our Dem senators have the guts to block/filibuster for clear and valid reasons?

Every nominee ought to be voted on.

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)

11. When we realize that 82 presidential nominees have been blocked under President Barack Obama

Reply to YewNork (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 03:22 PM

Feb 2016

When we realize that 82 presidential nominees have been blocked under President Barack Obama, yet only 86 blocked under all other presidents combined (as of Nov, 2013), I'm compelled to conclude that the GOP will block anything for any reason if a Dem nominates him/her, but that same evidence is sorely lacking in any consistent way to allow that same indictment towards the Democrats.

Reply to this discussion