http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has set off a partisan battle over whether the Senate will confirm a successor nominated by President Obama, whose term expires in 342 days. The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days. But few presidents have successfully filled vacancies announced in their final full year. FEB. 13, 2016
it's a shame they didn't include dates to support the last claim.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has set off a partisan battle over whether the Senate will confirm a successor nominated by President Obama, whose term expires in 342 days. The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days. But few presidents have successfully filled vacancies announced in their final full year. FEB. 13, 2016
it's a shame they didn't include dates to support the last claim.
Maybe Obama could fill the vacancy by executive order.
;)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has set off a partisan battle over whether the Senate will confirm a successor nominated by President Obama, whose term expires in 342 days. The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days. But few presidents have successfully filled vacancies announced in their final full year. FEB. 13, 2016
it's a shame they didn't include dates to support the last claim.
Maybe Obama could fill the vacancy by executive order.
;)
I think he could technically do something like that if the Senate takes a recess. But it would be a politically questionable tactic.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has set off a partisan battle over whether the Senate will confirm a successor nominated by President Obama, whose term expires in 342 days. The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days. But few presidents have successfully filled vacancies announced in their final full year. FEB. 13, 2016
it's a shame they didn't include dates to support the last claim.
That claim is deceptive weasel wording of the first degree.
Few presidents have HAD THE OPPORTUNITY to fill vacancies announced in their final full year. BUT ALL WHO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- HAVE filled vacancies announced in their final full year, SINCE THE CIVIL WAR.
(That is my contention. If it is not true, I trust that Cap't Jack will correct me.)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has set off a partisan battle over whether the Senate will confirm a successor nominated by President Obama, whose term expires in 342 days. The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days. But few presidents have successfully filled vacancies announced in their final full year. FEB. 13, 2016
it's a shame they didn't include dates to support the last claim.
But doesn't this situation give the senate the opportunity to stall?
At the very least Obama should make a really good nomination to give Republicans the opportunity to make fools of themselves. That by itself might be worth something politically.
psik
At the very least Obama should make a really good nomination to give Republicans the opportunity to make fools of themselves.
There are many opportunities for the Democrats here. For example:
1) Nominate a Woman to encourage women to vote Democratic to get "their representative" on to the court
2) Nominate a Hispanic to encourage Hispanics to vote Democratic to get "their representative" on to the court
3) Nominate a Black to encourage Blacks to vote Democratic to get "their representative" on to the court
4) Nominate a Black/Hispanic Woman .....
The only good result from stalling will be if stalling doesn't piss anyone off, none of the above work AND a Republican becomes President.
It wasn’t that long ago that a Presidential Election came down to being decided by the Supreme Court. If the next election comes down to a single state with a contested election result, the current SCOTUS would most likely be split 4-4. Then what? A District Court chooses our next President?
We need a functioning Supreme Court. So what about Sandra Day O’Connor? I imagine that she will live long enough so that the next President will be available to replace her when she “retires” again. And I don’t see how the Repubs could reject her.
I got this from the prez today. Seemed worth passing along
FACT: Six Justices have been confirmed in a presidential election year since 1900.
For more than two centuries, it has been standard practice for Congress to confirm a president’s Supreme Court nominee, whether in a presidential election year or not. Of the six justices confirmed since 1900, three have been Republicans. The most recent Justice to be confirmed in an election year was Justice Kennedy -- appointed by President Reagan -- who was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Congress in February of 1988.
FACT: Every nominee has received a vote within 125 days of nomination.
Since 1975, the average time from nomination to confirmation is 67 days. In fact, since 1875, every nominee has received a hearing or a vote. The longest time before confirmation in the past three decades was 99 days, for Justice Thomas, and the last four Justices, spanning two Administrations, were confirmed in an average of 75 days.
The Senate has almost a full year -- more than 300 days -- to consider and confirm a nominee.
FACT: It will be harmful and create unsustainable uncertainty if Congress fails to act on the President's nominee.
The Supreme Court could go the better part of two Terms with a vacancy if the Senate rejects its Constitutional responsibility. It'd be unprecedented for the Court to go that long with an empty seat. Here's why it's harmful:
The Court’s 4-4 decisions have no value in establishing precedent on which future decisions can rely. They also cannot establish uniform nationwide rules. That means if multiple courts ruled differently on an issue before it arose at the Supreme Court, a 4-4 ruling would leave those different rules in place in different states. The result is an unsustainable uncertainty -- for the law, for individual liberties, and for our economy.
But than what does the neo-Republican care about uncertainty in gov'mnt.
I got this from the prez today. Seemed worth passing along
FACT: Six Justices have been confirmed in a presidential election year since 1900.
For more than two centuries, it has been standard practice for Congress to confirm a president’s Supreme Court nominee, whether in a presidential election year or not. Of the six justices confirmed since 1900, three have been Republicans. The most recent Justice to be confirmed in an election year was Justice Kennedy -- appointed by President Reagan -- who was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Congress in February of 1988.
FACT: Every nominee has received a vote within 125 days of nomination.
Since 1975, the average time from nomination to confirmation is 67 days. In fact, since 1875, every nominee has received a hearing or a vote. The longest time before confirmation in the past three decades was 99 days, for Justice Thomas, and the last four Justices, spanning two Administrations, were confirmed in an average of 75 days.
The Senate has almost a full year -- more than 300 days -- to consider and confirm a nominee.
FACT: It will be harmful and create unsustainable uncertainty if Congress fails to act on the President's nominee.
The Supreme Court could go the better part of two Terms with a vacancy if the Senate rejects its Constitutional responsibility. It'd be unprecedented for the Court to go that long with an empty seat. Here's why it's harmful:
The Court’s 4-4 decisions have no value in establishing precedent on which future decisions can rely. They also cannot establish uniform nationwide rules. That means if multiple courts ruled differently on an issue before it arose at the Supreme Court, a 4-4 ruling would leave those different rules in place in different states. The result is an unsustainable uncertainty -- for the law, for individual liberties, and for our economy.
But than what does the neo-Republican care about uncertainty in gov'mnt.
The neo-con Repubs are to government, as the psychopathic boyfriend is to his wavering girlfriend, when he says "If I can't have (meaning own) her, nobody can."
THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR LEAVING A SUPREME COURT SEAT UNFILLED IN AN ELECTION YEAR SINCE THE CIVIL WAR!
Please, someone specifically correct this declaration if it is not true.
The neo-con Repubs are to government, as the psychopathic boyfriend is to his wavering girlfriend, when he says "If I can't have (meaning own) her, nobody can."
At the very least Obama should make a really good nomination to give Republicans the opportunity to make fools of themselves. That by itself might be worth something politically.
psik
It could be....but only in the sense that some fence sitters don't like the idea of Government stalling out...shutdowns, dysfunction etc...
Other than that...if people care enough about who is the next judge they are going to take sides.
The ones who don't care about the judge probably don't care about stalling either. Or dysfunction. It's all dysfunction to them.
It's just another day.
At the very least Obama should make a really good nomination to give Republicans the opportunity to make fools of themselves. That by itself might be worth something politically.
psik
It could be....but only in the sense that some fence sitters don't like the idea of Government stalling out...shutdowns, dysfunction etc...
Other than that...if people care enough about who is the next judge they are going to take sides.
The ones who don't care about the judge probably don't care about stalling either. Or dysfunction. It's all dysfunction to them.
It's just another day.
Re: those who think that our government is "all dysfunction". I suggest they are, in most cases, being extraordinarily hyperbolic. If our government were truly "all dysfunction" we would have a failed state, probably civil war, blood and destruction in every street, massive starvation, massive numbers of deaths from toxified water, massive numbers of deaths from spreading diseases, that sort of thing.
Maybe some of those who believe that our government is "all dysfunction" have some sort of desire for that to become true, i.e., a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or maybe they are not that insane. Maybe they think that spreading the hyperbolic narrative that our government is "all dysfunction" is the best way to promote it's becoming more functional.
I prefer the more honest narrative, that our government IS dysfunctional in a lot of ways, but is not "all dysfunction" (at least not for most people).
I prefer the more honest narrative, that our government IS dysfunctional in a lot of ways, but is not "all dysfunction" (at least not for most people).
Oh yeah your correct. They are disenchanted. Disenfranchised. You can't blame people for thinking that.
After all....if somebody thinks a thing is broken, sometimes it makes no sense to debate how broken a thing is, if it can't be used.
Certainly millions of American who receive some sort of safety-net entitlements wouldn't have a good argument saying everything's dysfunctional.
After all, their support arrives on time. They get a check. They get housing etc...
So you're definitely right Tim...not everything's dysfunctional.
I prefer the more honest narrative, that our government IS dysfunctional in a lot of ways, but is not "all dysfunction" (at least not for most people).
Oh yeah your correct. They are disenchanted. Disenfranchised. You can't blame people for thinking that.
After all....if somebody thinks a thing is broken, sometimes it makes no sense to debate how broken a thing is, if it can't be used.
Certainly millions of American who receive some sort of safety-net entitlements wouldn't have a good argument saying everything's dysfunctional.
After all, their support arrives on time. They get a check. They get housing etc...
So you're definitely right Tim...not everything's dysfunctional.
I don't blame those who are truly disenfranchised, at all. I don't blame people for feeling disenfranchised or for feeling disenchanted. But a part of me, blames those who are not truly, completely, disenfranchised, but only feeling disenfranchised and disenchanted, for giving up, if they do give up, or if they do something crazy (destructive), instead of trying in some way to do something (even if it is nothing more than figuring out who to vote for), to make things better.