Hey SPEED This is your missguided worship of your ever loving gumment.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I could find little to support your claim that there were other instances in which the Senate simply refused to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. Garland's nomination lasted 293 days until the end of the 114th Congrss.

According to Wikipedia, the last inaction taken by Congress on a SCOTUS nominee occurred in 1853 when the nomination of William Micou was not acted upon due to being late in the Congessional session and Franklin Pierce had already been elected to replace Fillmore as POTUS. Hardly surprising.

Edward Bradford was also nominated in 1852 and the same reason was given for not moving ahead with the nomination.

Finally, in 1845 John Read was nominated for the Supreme Court by John Tyler but his name was withdrawn due to his support of slavery.

Maybe you have other instances that I could not find but from what I found nothing comes close, or recent, to the inaction taken against Garland.

Yes, my comment was supposition but that should not keep one from rendering an opinion. I did. You can, even if it one of disagreement with mine.

Ok, so thanks for re-doing at least the minimal research.

So yes, Garland was not the first to have had his nomination end with no-action. And the 293 days is certainly not any sort of record for a SCOTUS nominee not being confirmed.

So like your belief in 2018 being some sort of major "win" and mandate for the Dems(when it was largely run of the mill numbers when it came to actual seat turnover), Garland was simply a victim of politics that had in both action and timeframe applied to other previous nominees.

Kavanaugh on the other hand was savaged with false accusations and largely thrown as hail Mary's at the last minute when they couldn't come up with anything else.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again, you are TOTALLY missing my point, which is the level of hypocrisy shown in the 2 cases. My original point was aimed at Ellen, who in my opinion held Trump and Kavanaugh innocent and Biden guilty of similar charges. And I would say she is hardly the only one on this forum having that opinion.

And in my opinion, the level of hypocrisy shown by the Senate in not upholding their duty to act quickly on SCOTUS nominees was much greater than the level of hypocrisy shown by people like Feinstein and others who did not support Kavanaugh but support Biden for alleged sexual misconduct.

If you want to continue to discuss an irrelevant point as to which event was more detrimental to whose life, fine. That is not what I was referring to at any time.

And I've noticed recently you have been very narrow minded and focused in your questions without discussing the issue as a whole.

Just like your focus on tariffs and unwillingness to discuss the whole scope of them and narrowing in only on one particular statement.

If you step back and take the wider view, I think you will find yourself agreeing(as you did with a final admission of the left being more "sordid" in their SCOTUS nominee scrutiny and actions than Republicans) more and more with us Conservatives taking that wider view.

I already agreed that both sides use and have their hypocrisy's but the Kavanaugh to Garland comparison remains in my eyes a ridiculous comparison, especially if you are still taking the position that Garland's treatment was somehow worse than Kavanaugh's

[oeb11]

A picture can be worth more than 1,000 words.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Ok, so thanks for re-doing at least the minimal research.

So yes, Garland was not the first to have had his nomination end with no-action. And the 293 days is certainly not any sort of record for a SCOTUS nominee not being confirmed.

So like your belief in 2018 being some sort of major "win" and mandate for the Dems(when it was largely run of the mill numbers when it came to actual seat turnover), Garland was simply a victim of politics that had in both action and timeframe applied to other previous nominees.

Kavanaugh on the other hand was savaged with false accusations and largely thrown as hail Mary's at the last minute when they couldn't come up with anything else.

I believe the 293 days was far and away a record for delaying a vote on a SCOTUS nominee. And it was about 160 years since the last occurrence. The delay in voting on the Garland nomination was Repulicans not doing their job for strictly political reasons.

"Over the past three decades, the Judiciary Committee has held a hearing an average of 45 days after a Supreme Court nomination and a final confirmation vote occurred an average of 26 days after that."


"Supreme Court picks have often been controversial. There have been contentious hearings and floor debates and contested votes. But to ignore the nominee entirely, as if no vacancy existed?

There was no precedent for such an action since the period around the Civil War and Reconstruction. No Democratic president had made an appointment while Republicans held the Senate since 1895.

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy."

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62446...it-matters-now

Again, the treatment shown towards Kavanaugh is irrelevant in a discussion on the hypocrisy shown by the different parties.

I don't look at 2018 as any kind of "win". I look at the inaction taken by McConnell and Republicans in 2016 as a "loss".

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

And I've noticed recently you have been very narrow minded and focused in your questions without discussing the issue as a whole.

Just like your focus on tariffs and unwillingness to discuss the whole scope of them and narrowing in only on one particular statement.

If you step back and take the wider view, I think you will find yourself agreeing(as you did with a final admission of the left being more "sordid" in their SCOTUS nominee scrutiny and actions than Republicans) more and more with us Conservatives taking that wider view.

I already agreed that both sides use and have their hypocrisy's but the Kavanaugh to Garland comparison remains in my eyes a ridiculous comparison, especially if you are still taking the position that Garland's treatment was somehow worse than Kavanaugh's

Once AGAIN you have missed the point. At no time have I compared the treatment of Kavanaugh vs. the treatment of Garland. I have compared the level of hypocrisy shown towards the Trump, Kavanaugh, and Biden sexual misconduct charges vs. the hypocrisy of Republicans in the Garland nomination.

I pointed out a lie spoken by Trump regarding tariffs. That is all I said. It is a lie stated several times by Trump and not one person on this forum has defended Trump. My desire was to keep it on a single topic at that time. I asked a question about Trump's claim on China paying the U.S. billions of dollars and I was hoping, in vain, that someone would defend Trump. Did not happen but instead you tried to move the discussion in other directions.

If you would like to discuss other issues surrounding Trump's tariffs start a thread and I may or may not contribute.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I believe the 293 days was far and away a record for delaying a vote on a SCOTUS nominee. And it was about 160 years since the last occurrence. The delay in voting on the Garland nomination was Repulicans not doing their job for strictly political reasons.

"Over the past three decades, the Judiciary Committee has held a hearing an average of 45 days after a Supreme Court nomination and a final confirmation vote occurred an average of 26 days after that."


"Supreme Court picks have often been controversial. There have been contentious hearings and floor debates and contested votes. But to ignore the nominee entirely, as if no vacancy existed?

There was no precedent for such an action since the period around the Civil War and Reconstruction. No Democratic president had made an appointment while Republicans held the Senate since 1895.

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy."

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62446...it-matters-now

Again, the treatment shown towards Kavanaugh is irrelevant in a discussion on the hypocrisy shown by the different parties.

I don't look at 2018 as any kind of "win". I look at the inaction taken by McConnell and Republicans in 2016 as a "loss".

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Once AGAIN you have missed the point. At no time have I compared the treatment of Kavanaugh vs. the treatment of Garland. I have compared the level of hypocrisy shown towards the Trump, Kavanaugh, and Biden sexual misconduct charges vs. the hypocrisy of Republicans in the Garland nomination.

I pointed out a lie spoken by Trump regarding tariffs. That is all I said. It is a lie stated several times by Trump and not one person on this forum has defended Trump. My desire was to keep it on a single topic at that time. I asked a question about Trump's claim on China paying the U.S. billions of dollars and I was hoping, in vain, that someone would defend Trump. Did not happen but instead you tried to move the discussion in other directions.

If you would like to discuss other issues surrounding Trump's tariffs start a thread and I may or may not contribute.

So you continue to ignore the bigger picture in the entire discussion and focus solely on your "belief" of what you want to discuss regarding hypocrisy.

So Kavanaugh is irrelevant to the discussion, yet you still hold up his appointment vs that of Garland as some sort of "proof" that Garland's was more hypocritical in action.

Yet, in the scope of the conversation you try to side step the fact that Garland was neither the first to have no action taken nor the longest period in confirmation. Garland was the victim of circumstances and the fact elections have consequences. It's perfectly within the purview of the Senate to have done what they did. I don't see any overwhelming hypocrisy in following the rules given the Senate.

In the end the hypocrisy of the left is showing far more than the right lately, even though both sides certainly have their share of it.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

So you continue to ignore the bigger picture in the entire discussion and focus solely on your "belief" of what you want to discuss regarding hypocrisy.

So Kavanaugh is irrelevant to the discussion, yet you still hold up his appointment vs that of Garland as some sort of "proof" that Garland's was more hypocritical in action.

Yet, in the scope of the conversation you try to side step the fact that Garland was neither the first to have no action taken nor the longest period in confirmation. Garland was the victim of circumstances and the fact elections have consequences. It's perfectly within the purview of the Senate to have done what they did. I don't see any overwhelming hypocrisy in following the rules given the Senate.

In the end the hypocrisy of the left is showing far more than the right lately, even though both sides certainly have their share of it.

Most of your statements are incorrect and I've explained why several times but you either ignore my comments or do not try to understand them.

What the Senate did in 2016 was wrong, no matter how much you try to rationalize their lack of action. Had never been done before to that extent in the history of the country. Garland being the "victim of circumstances" is irrelevant. The job of the Senate is to QUICKLY discuss the nominee's qualifications and QUICKLY bring it to a vote.

Feel free to continue the discussion with yourself. I've made my feelings known, backed them up, and will stand by them.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Most of your statements are incorrect and I've explained why several times but you either ignore my comments or do not try to understand them.

What the Senate did in 2016 was wrong, no matter how much you try to rationalize their lack of action. Had never been done before to that extent in the history of the country. Garland being the "victim of circumstances" is irrelevant. The job of the Senate is to QUICKLY discuss the nominee's qualifications and QUICKLY bring it to a vote.

Feel free to continue the discussion with yourself. I've made my feelings known, backed them up, and will stand by them.

Ok, so now you determine something about "QUICKLY".

Please show me where in the Constitution is defined that they act "QUICKLY" or what that even means.

I'm pretty sure the Constitution defines the rule as to just being "with the advise and consent". I'm missing the timeframe or definition of "QUICKLY".

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Ok, so now you determine something about "QUICKLY".

Please show me where in the Constitution is defined that they act "QUICKLY" or what that even means.

I'm pretty sure the Constitution defines the rule as to just being "with the advise and consent". I'm missing the timeframe or definition of "QUICKLY".

Really??? You're going to criticize my use of the word "quickly"? Let's review recent history.

Days from nomination to confirmation for Kavanaugh -- less than 4 months.

Days from nomination to confirmation for Gorsuch -- 2 months.

Days from nomination of Garland by Obama to nomination of Gorsuch by Trump -- 10 1/2 months.

Days with only 8 justices -- almost 13 months.

Other justices nominated by Obama were confirmed within 3 months. 4 justices nominated by Bush were confiremed within 2 months, 2 within 1 month.

2-4 months from nomination to confirmation, in my estimation,
meets the criterion of "quickly". Waiting 13 months to fill an open Supreme Court justice seat is reprehensible, no matter whether or not the word "quickly" is used in the Constitution.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Really??? You're going to criticize my use of the word "quickly"? Let's review recent history.

Days from nomination to confirmation for Kavanaugh -- less than 4 months.

Days from nomination to confirmation for Gorsuch -- 2 months.

Days from nomination of Garland by Obama to nomination of Gorsuch by Trump -- 10 1/2 months.

Days with only 8 justices -- almost 13 months.

Other justices nominated by Obama were confirmed within 3 months. 4 justices nominated by Bush were confiremed within 2 months, 2 within 1 month.

2-4 months from nomination to confirmation, in my estimation,
meets the criterion of "quickly". Waiting 13 months to fill an open Supreme Court justice seat is reprehensible, no matter whether or not the word "quickly" is used in the Constitution.

what about confirmation of judges during an election year? should that not be suspended.


McConnell is right, its up to the senate to set the pace of the confirmation. and its also up to the party that controls the senate to decide on the confirmation.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Really??? You're going to criticize my use of the word "quickly"? Let's review recent history.

Days from nomination to confirmation for Kavanaugh -- less than 4 months.

Days from nomination to confirmation for Gorsuch -- 2 months.

Days from nomination of Garland by Obama to nomination of Gorsuch by Trump -- 10 1/2 months.

Days with only 8 justices -- almost 13 months.

Other justices nominated by Obama were confirmed within 3 months. 4 justices nominated by Bush were confiremed within 2 months, 2 within 1 month.

2-4 months from nomination to confirmation, in my estimation,
meets the criterion of "quickly". Waiting 13 months to fill an open Supreme Court justice seat is reprehensible, no matter whether or not the word "quickly" is used in the Constitution.

Absolutely, I'll criticize your use of the word "Quickly".

The job of the Senate is to advise and consent at their rules of that session.

You cite a few recent SCOTUS appointments to set precedent.

I cite them all as precedent so 293 days is certainly not the longest period where a Scotus judge was not nominated. It's about 2 1/2 times that.

And there was very little hypocrisy in it.

McConnell "advised" Obama from basically day one of the vacancy that the Senate would not "consent" to his nomination, using at least partially Biden's reasoning of a SCOTUS nomination during an election cycle.

If the Dems have the opportunity in the future to do the same and I bitch about it, call me hypocritical then.

As it is, Garland is but a blip in political history.

While the savaging of Kavanaugh is going to be remembered for decades while he serves. We still hear about Clarence Thomas's savaging at the hands of Dems as well as Bork.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

what about confirmation of judges during an election year? should that not be suspended.


McConnell is right, its up to the senate to set the pace of the confirmation. and its also up to the party that controls the senate to decide on the confirmation.

And yes DF, the decision is entirely up to the Senate at the time.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

what about confirmation of judges during an election year? should that not be suspended.

McConnell is right, its up to the senate to set the pace of the confirmation. and its also up to the party that controls the senate to decide on the confirmation.

No. Even the "Biden Rule" did not imply that. McConnell set the pace for sure. He did not allow it to move forward at all. The Supreme Court went 1 year with 8 justices for the first time in history. There is no justification for that.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Absolutely, I'll criticize your use of the word "Quickly".

The job of the Senate is to advise and consent at their rules of that session.

You cite a few recent SCOTUS appointments to set precedent.

I cite them all as precedent so 293 days is certainly not the longest period where a Scotus judge was not nominated. It's about 2 1/2 times that.

And there was very little hypocrisy in it.

McConnell "advised" Obama from basically day one of the vacancy that the Senate would not "consent" to his nomination, using at least partially Biden's reasoning of a SCOTUS nomination during an election cycle.

If the Dems have the opportunity in the future to do the same and I bitch about it, call me hypocritical then.

As it is, Garland is but a blip in political history.

While the savaging of Kavanaugh is going to be remembered for decades while he serves. We still hear about Clarence Thomas's savaging at the hands of Dems as well as Bork.

And yes DF, the decision is entirely up to the Senate at the time.

You keep stating that 293 days in holding up a Supreme Court nomination is not the longest in history. Proof? At what time in this nation's history has a nominated Supreme Court justice been alllowed to be in limbo?

McConnell and the other Republicans sat on their asses and did not do their job. It was totally out of spite against Obama.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No. Even the "Biden Rule" did not imply that. McConnell set the pace for sure. He did not allow it to move forward at all. The Supreme Court went 1 year with 8 justices for the first time in history. There is no justification for that.

As is/was the case when you argued the "supposed" election mandate in 2018(in which you had to specify it as a first term mid-term election to try and make your point. ) you couch your words in order to make it sound "historical" when in reality it's nowhere near that.

Sure it's the first time in history of a 9 member SCOTUS. But historically the SCOTUS wasn't always 9 members and that timeframe doesn't even crack the top 5 longest periods taken in order to replace a SCOTUS member.

So play whatever cutsey gotcha games, but hardly "historic".

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You keep stating that 293 days in holding up a Supreme Court nomination is not the longest in history. Proof? At what time in this nation's history has a nominated Supreme Court justice been alllowed to be in limbo?

McConnell and the other Republicans sat on their asses and did not do their job. It was totally out of spite against Obama.

And again, there are from your own research several nominees whose nominations expired at the end of a Senate term.

But just so you have the actual historical perspective of the longest.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-more-common/

By far the longest gap – 841 days, or more than two years – came in the mid-1840s. Justice Henry Baldwin died in April 1844, but the mutual antipathy between President John Tyler and the Whig-controlled Senate (the Whigs actually expelled Tyler from their party) made filling the vacancy all but impossible. The Senate declined to act on any of Tyler’s nominations to fill Baldwin’s seat, and it was still open when James Polk took office in May 1845. The Senate rejected Polk’s first nominee, and his second choice declined to accept. Finally, Robert Cooper Grier was confirmed in August 1846.

Based on that, that would be a historical high of inaction of around 12/13 months by the Senate. That would be longer than the 293 days, just FYI.

EDIT: I also want to clarify my statement in post 41 regarding the time to nomination. I misspoke and meant to say confirmed. Scalia's seat from his death to his replacement being confirmed was well less than the longest period in history by almost 2 1/2 times and Garland happened to be stuck in the middle.

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No. Even the "Biden Rule" did not imply that. McConnell set the pace for sure. He did not allow it to move forward at all. The Supreme Court went 1 year with 8 justices for the first time in history. There is no justification for that.

Glad You wrote that - SR - If RBG goes suddenly - I agree that Trump should nominate and send to Senate the replacement SC Justice.

I do not want an AOC "My Wants Outweigh the Constitution" SC justice.