US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2652

On September 21 2020 02:41 Danglars wrote:

How many of those were confirmed by a split party situation in the election year of the opposite party’s president? I’m actually not going to help you with the answer, since posting the same chart twice means you should perform the exercise of looking it up. Post it a third time with a wittier condescending comment for all I care.

On September 21 2020 02:44 Nouar wrote:

Your post had absolutely no mention of "the election year", only of split-party as if it was evident that nominations were usually blanket stonewalled. This is not the case, since previous presidents have a 20%+ confirmed amount of judges in the last 2 years of their 8 total years, while facing an opposition senate. You can clearly see a pattern. You're really amazing you know that ?

However I'll look it up later when I have a few minutes.

On September 21 2020 02:38 Danglars wrote:

That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01.

The most potent filibustering of Obama's nominees occurred in the Republican controlled 114th Congress. Obama nominated 69 people for 104 different federal appellate judgeships during this Congress, and although some nominees were processed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, many of them stalled on the floor of the Senate. With the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016, in the thick of a presidential election year, the Republican majority in the Senate made it their stated policy to refuse to consider any nominee to the Supreme Court put forward by Obama, arguing that the next president should be the one to appoint Scalia's replacement. Scalia's death was only the second death of a serving justice in a span of sixty years.[3]

Even while Democrats still controlled the Senate (2009-2015), Republicans filibustered many nominees, and Senator Chuck Grassley commented that more nominees could have been confirmed had Obama respected recess appointment precedent by not making recess appointments while the Senate was in session.[4] Although Obama never used a recess appointment to appoint a nominee to the federal bench, he had appointed some executive agency officials in January 2012.

As a response to the continuing blocking of several of Obama's nominees, Senator Harry Reid on November 21, 2013, invoked the so-called nuclear option and changed the Senate rules, meaning that a simple majority vote would suffice for all nominees except for the Supreme Court. This significantly sped up the pace of confirmations during 2014, especially to the district courts.[5]

110th Congress
At the beginning of the 110th Congress in January 2007, President Bush did not renominate Boyle, Myers, Haynes and Wallace in an attempt at reconciliation with the Democrats.[18] However, that did not stop many Bush judicial nominees from being blocked in committee by the new Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy. Among those stalled in committee until their nominations lapsed were appellate nominees Peter Keisler, Robert J. Conrad, Steve A. Matthews and Glen E. Conrad. The later three seats would later be filled by Obama nominees James A. Wynn Jr., Albert Diaz, and Barbara Milano Keenan.

Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader, and Chairman Leahy cited the previous controversy over President Clinton's court of appeals nominees in justifying why only ten Bush appellate nominees were confirmed during the 110th Congress.[19][20][21] A total of eleven appellate seats with Bush nominees were left open at the end of the 110th Congress. Of those seats, two (i.e. the North Carolina and Maryland seats of the Fourth Circuit) had originally become available to fill during the administration of President Bill Clinton.

On September 21 2020 02:38 Danglars wrote:

That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01.

On September 21 2020 04:05 micronesia wrote:

With all due respect, you did not answer my question.

For perspective, I did read up on Miguel Estrada at your suggestion which does help provide some additional background on the general topic.

Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy.

On September 21 2020 04:19 Danglars wrote:

The method of the Senate withholding its consent for Presidential nominees is decided upon by the rules of the Senate. If the Senate Majority Leader wishes to do that via filibuster, withholding a vote, or holding a vote that decides on no, it matters very little to me. The Senate has withheld consent for the nominee. The constitutional process is Presidential nominations with advice and consent.

I don't really see much difference about an actual vote being called versus not considering past Democratic filibusters of nominees. It's advice and consent and the Senate sets its own rules. If the filibuster is removed for legislation, legislation will pass on 50+1 votes in the Senate. Until then, legislation must gain 60 votes for cloture should a Senator filibuster. Either way, it's the rules of the Senate. The Senate could decide on a mechanism for forcing a vote on something that the Senate Majority Leader decides to not hold a vote on. That's the decision of Senators. Regardless, the Senate withholds consent by the rules of the Senate. If it's denying the Republicans a Latino appeals court judge, for political considerations of painting Republicans to be against minorities, it's denied consent. If it's McConnell trying to shield vulnerable Senators from a tough vote, or political optics of a filibuster, it's denied consent. The mechanism of the withdrawing of consent is in the Senate rules, and isn't detailed otherwise. I refer you to the text of the constitution, should you have questions regarding the different wording for treaties and appointments.

That's the mechanism, which is part of the Why (The Constitutional Process IS the why in some aspects). The other why is Democratic governance. In a split government, the argument goes that the voters should have a vote on the nominating person should it happen in the same year of nomination, since the voters have split their decision several years ago in who rules the Senate and who rules the Executive Branch. In the "Why Then and not Now," it's because the voters have given the Republicans both the presidency and the Senate, so there is no ambiguity between the two branches involved in nominating justices.

Perhaps I need more explanation as to your mindset if you still have lingering questions after this post. I'm happy to hear it.

On September 21 2020 04:26 micronesia wrote:

Thank you, this is much more detailed and on point. Regarding the bolded text above, from where/when does that argument originate? More specifically, where/when does "same year" (presumably after January 1st of the election year) come from as opposed to 6 month period prior, or 18 month period prior?

On September 21 2020 04:24 Nouar wrote:
Fuck are you serious ? The discussion was about the history of the filibuster, and the nuclear option used by Harry Reid due to unprecedented obstruction by the republican minority (where I posted the table in response to Wegandi). Then it switched to overall split-party judicial appointments post with your flat assertion that



Your post is about judicial nominees. The previous pages did NOT talk about the supreme court only, but overall. I'll assume you know how you to speak english and convey a message better than me in your native language.
Then you move the goalpost to election year only, THEN you both say that all along it was only about supreme court appointments. You should apply as senators, seriously.

You were not part of that discussion in the last 3/4 pages on that topic, suddenly intervene talking about "judicial nominees are refused by opposite party" and I should assume that you strayed enough from the conversation to only talk about supreme court in the last year ? Man I'm not Nostradamus.

And I still see no comment from either of you about all the grandstanding comments from republican senators between 2016-now. (Which was the other topic of discussion)

On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:

I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.

Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties.

On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:


To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English.

On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did?

Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true.

But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out.

On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:


To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English.

On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did?

Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true.

But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out.

On September 21 2020 04:40 Gorsameth wrote:
I have no doubt that McConnell would not hesitate to kill the filibuster if it still existed in order to push through a SCJ, so the argument that the Democrats removed it holds basically no weight to me.

On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:


I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ?

In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened.


The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election.

So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ?





The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court.

It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people)

About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ?



Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ?
Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ?
Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ?

Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both.

This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it.




edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game.

What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016.
The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016.

There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win.

On September 21 2020 05:20 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm just noticing an extremely convenient ignorance of all of the posturing and grandstanding made by Republican senators made just 4 years ago on this exact issue. That the conversation so quickly veered away from everything they were saying about the principal of late nominations, to suddenly talking about all the extenuating circumstances that nobody cares about, that, in the minds of Republicans, suddenly makes this ok. It gives me whiplash.

What happened to the basic principle of waiting until the voters have made their voices heard when you're this close to the election? It was your boys in Congress making all the fuss. All of it. Now you don't give a shit. This is the raping of good faith I'm talking about. Everything is an abuse of other's good faith, and making convenient temporary claims to virtues that nobody has, all to get whatever power grab you're after in the moment. Makes me sick.

On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:


You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here.


and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane.

btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done.