Kennedy retires


I’m really curious how members of this forum feel about holding a vote for a nomination for Kennedy’s replacement.

The justification given for blocking Obama’s nomination (and creating a new precedent) was that it was an election year and the American people should be able to weigh in via thier choice of President and by extention thier choice of nominee.

This is an election year, should the people via thier vote be able to weigh in via thier vote on who is voted into the Senate and by extention vote in the Senators who will ultimately confirm the next SCJ?

Is this situation any different?



America already spoke on that.


Ok, but you didn’t answer my question. Should America be allowed to speak again? Or just that once? Because the President doesn’t simply appoint the nominee, that nominee has to be confirmed by people that are voted for.

Given that we are just 4 months from an election, should the people have the opportunity to “speak” via their votes?


Changing the makeup of Congress no more than is likely to happen does NOT negate the President’s power to name SCOTUS Justices. Changing PRESIDENTS can make a difference and for that reason, no new justice should be nominated during a PRESIDENTIAL election year…a long-standing policy of the Senate, even DEMANDED by Democrats when THEY had the majority.

Do you HONESTLY think that the Senate will be materially different after this coming November–at least to the extent that it can block a nominee??? If you do, you’re obviously not paying attention to what’s going on in the country.


You people on the left are deliberately changing the goalpost.

McConnell clearly referred to A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

McConnell said:

“I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president.

The GOP argument was about who gets to nominate the justice — not who gets to confirm the justice. It was clearly about presidential election years, NOT midterms.

You guys are twisting this to mean what it DOESN’T mean.

McConnell repeatedly cited the presidential election year, not midterms.

Even the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, Chuck Grassley, said he would advocate that any Supreme Court vacancies in 2020 (IOW during the next presidential election) be filled AFTER the election.

Had Hillary won, things would have been different.

Fortunately, Hillary lost.

You guys are in a panic because you know Trump is going to take away your SCOTUS tool. That’s why your leadership is lying about what McConnell said.

To your argument about " . . . the nominee has to be confirmed by people that are voted for" . . . what’s your threshold? Four months out from a midterm, five months out . . . what?

When your people get the majority vote, you can try and change this to “midterms” . . . which is what you’re trying to do now WITHOUT the vote of the people elected.


The GOP sitting on the nomination was politics, although I believe they had the numbers to stop any Obama nominee without doing so.


Kennedy down, Ginsburg next hopefully!

We need a solid Scalia-esque replacement for Kennedy. I’m hoping for the best.


First off, “blocking Obama’s nomination” did NOT “create a new precedent.” Given the truth of that premise, your question is meaningless.


No, I think Obama should have had his nominee out before the Senate and all of this foolishness wouldn’t be necessary.

I’m just curious what the justification would be in this case.

As far as what McConnell said, last time I checked he was a member of one of the two parties changing rules to suit his parties interests so his definition really doesn’t mean all that much to me.

Underneath it all was the idea that the president was on his way out and that the people, by choosing their president would be indirectly choosing their SC nominee.

Seems the same applies here to me…But like I said, I wish they hadn’t tampered with the rules in the first place.

If you’re going to change the rules, then you should do it when there isn’t a nominee on the table and then do so in a bi-partisan way so when the next situation comes up, both parties will have a stake in it.

I realize that in the history of dem/ Repub politics, it’s not just the Pubs making rule changes when it suits them, but I think that when either party does it, it’s incredibly dangerous.


When was the last time an SC nominee was refused for over a year?

Where is the agreed upon rule that sets the guidelines for refusing to vote a nominee. Exactly how many days before an election qualifies?


Obama’s nominee to replace a deceased SCOTUS Justice did NOT languish for “over a year.” It was roughly 9 months between Scalia’s death and the Presidential election.


Yes, 237 days to be exact. I meant to say that the seat was vacant for over a year.


So what? There was no possible way that President Trump was going to appoint a leftist, activist judge to replace Scalia as Obama WANTED to do. Thank GOD the Senate had the good sense to ignore Obama’s nominee.


Garland was not a “leftist activist judge”.

Second, you ignored my question.

Where is the rule that says that a President cannot appoint a SC judge when the seat is vacant for over a year?


There IS no such rule. Why do you ask? We’re MUCH better off as a government with a full complement of originalist judges instead of a bunch who think we should “consider” the rulings of foreign courts when deciding in ours as Ginsberg wants to do or who think our Constitution is a “living document” that confers rights that don’t exist, even on people who are not U.S. citizens.

BTW, Garland was very MUCH a liberal activist judge. Have you ever READ any of his writings?


Elaine Kagan was nominated by Obama in may 2010 and confirmed in August 2010. In case your long term memory isn’t working this morning, 2010 WAS AN ELECTION YEAR; a very pivotal and contentious election year with historical results.


Ginsberg is looking rather deathly these days. She looks like a corpse dressed up for a Bohemian funeral.


What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?


No Republican insisted that confirmation wait until after the mid-term election of 2010…unlike what the Dim-wits are doing today.


No, they just did it during Obama’s last term so they could steal that pick.