I don't think there should be an intentional delay by either party.

The vacancy was over a year. That was my point of correction.

I think you're being a little pessimistic, DF. And he's right: politicians in this country don't think long-term. However, if the parties were reversed, the Democrats would just be saying the same thing to prevent a right-wing nominee.

But since the President has intended to appoint someone as soon as he wishes, I think it was stupid for the republicans to come out and oppose the idea of filling the vacancy. The court has too much shit to do.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Refusing to agree to a nomination without even knowing who it is, seemingly based on enmity toward the President and/or "revenge" for earlier acts by the previous Senate majority may play well to the base, but it seems unprecedented and also politically dangerous. It escalates the partisan divide, and just imagine what might result if, say, a President Cruz has vacancies to fill in 2019 and enough annoyed Democrat Senators to block them.

Sorry, but that's about as one-sided as you could possibly be.

It's not "revenge." It's actually playing by the rules.

I know it is within the rules. The question is whether it is the right thing to do (as it is also within the rules to accept a nomination, or to wait until we know who it is before publicly declaring they should be blocked.

And yes, to me it looks like revenge for previous actions by Democrats.

And, if Democrats try to block "President Cruz," the Republicans might go for the "Reid option." It's not the "nuclear option" because Reid already put it in place for lower nominations.

That only works if the Republicans keep a Senate majority. It is possible they could lose it in November. And who can tell what 2018 would bring.

danivon wrote:And yes, to me it looks like revenge for previous actions by Democrats.

You are welcome to your perception. Were you as disturbed when the Democrats began this war?

And, if Democrats try to block "President Cruz," the Republicans might go for the "Reid option." It's not the "nuclear option" because Reid already put it in place for lower nominations.

That only works if the Republicans keep a Senate majority. It is possible they could lose it in November. And who can tell what 2018 would bring.

Yes, that is possible. In large measure, the Presidential election will determine that. If the Democratic nominee swamps the Republican, Democrats are almost sure to take the Senate. If the opposite happens, then Republicans will hold it. If it's a nail-biter for President, it's hard to say.

However, to filibuster a candidate for the Court in a President's first year . . . you better have a good reason or . . . else.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And yes, to me it looks like revenge for previous actions by Democrats.

You are welcome to your perception. Were you as disturbed when the Democrats began this war?

The sclerosis in your political system is disturbing, whoever started it. And saying "they started it" is, as I have pointed out to you already elsewhere, just childish and does not actually move anyone forward.

If the Democrats "started it", then that does not excuse the Republicans escalating it. Which is exactly what a pre-emptive promise to block nominees does.

However, to filibuster a candidate for the Court in a President's first year . . . you better have a good reason or . . . else.

Just remove the words after "Court" and you are more on point.

It would be ironic, would it not, if this debate led to a Democrat President who had also got a majority in the Senate.

sclerosis

Clarify? In the context of our system?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And yes, to me it looks like revenge for previous actions by Democrats.

You are welcome to your perception. Were you as disturbed when the Democrats began this war?

The sclerosis in your political system is disturbing, whoever started it. And saying "they started it" is, as I have pointed out to you already elsewhere, just childish and does not actually move anyone forward.

Right. Because in politics, laying down arms in the midst of an ideological battle is usually the best approach.

If the Democrats "started it", then that does not excuse the Republicans escalating it. Which is exactly what a pre-emptive promise to block nominees does.

I would not have announced it. However, I would not approve anyone Obama is likely to nominate. The Senate is under no obligation to yield.

However, to filibuster a candidate for the Court in a President's first year . . . you better have a good reason or . . . else.

Just remove the words after "Court" and you are more on point.

It would be ironic, would it not, if this debate led to a Democrat President who had also got a majority in the Senate.

It won't be determinative. If it is, it would redound to the benefit of the GOP.

JimHackerMP wrote:

sclerosis

Clarify? In the context of our system?

Sclerosis means "hardening" in medicine, and when organs or vessels harden they tend to work slower and cause problems. In your system, the partisans are hardening their positions and blocking each other, slowing things down and sometimes setting things to a standstill.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And yes, to me it looks like revenge for previous actions by Democrats.

You are welcome to your perception. Were you as disturbed when the Democrats began this war?

The sclerosis in your political system is disturbing, whoever started it. And saying "they started it" is, as I have pointed out to you already elsewhere, just childish and does not actually move anyone forward.

Right. Because in politics, laying down arms in the midst of an ideological battle is usually the best approach.

Treating it like a battle, as a zero-sum game with no prospect of compromise is part of the problem.

You seem not to be able to tell the difference between "not escalating" things and "surrender". There is a difference, and a range of alternatives in between.

If the Democrats "started it", then that does not excuse the Republicans escalating it. Which is exactly what a pre-emptive promise to block nominees does.

I would not have announced it. However, I would not approve anyone Obama is likely to nominate. The Senate is under no obligation to yield.

No, but Senators are supposed to consider a nomination before they block it.

However, to filibuster a candidate for the Court in a President's first year . . . you better have a good reason or . . . else.

Just remove the words after "Court" and you are more on point.

It would be ironic, would it not, if this debate led to a Democrat President who had also got a majority in the Senate.

It won't be determinative. If it is, it would redound to the benefit of the GOP.[/quote]Really? Losing elections is normally considered a reverse. And as you say, rejecting a nominee in the first year would be serious without good reason. If it has been a factor in electoral victory, then the Democrats would claim a mandate to nominate who they want - especially if Scalia is still not replaced.

danivon wrote:Treating it like a battle, as a zero-sum game with no prospect of compromise is part of the problem.

I've said there is a compromise available. You apparently glossed over that. It's simple really: the President can nominate whomever Cruz suggests. Compromise!

You seem not to be able to tell the difference between "not escalating" things and "surrender". There is a difference, and a range of alternatives in between.

You're wrong. I said I would not have announced my opposition a priori. That is "not escalating."

No, but Senators are supposed to consider a nomination before they block it.

That is not written anywhere and immaterial--I didn't suggest it.

Really? Losing elections is normally considered a reverse. And as you say, rejecting a nominee in the first year would be serious without good reason. If it has been a factor in electoral victory, then the Democrats would claim a mandate to nominate who they want - especially if Scalia is still not replaced.

Scalia's seat will not add one vote to the Democratic side. They've already got all the pixie dust and fairy tale vote--those who believe everything should and can be free because Bernie says so. Blocking an appointment will not motivate them half as much as the illusion of a non-worker's paradise.

I'm genuinely unsure about who is in the right here, probably nobody. One thing that does occur to me though is that America is dangerously close to a constitutional crisis as regards the SC and has been for a long time. Probably the only reason it hasn't really blown up yet is that the court has been more or less evenly split between liberals and conservatives for the last few decades. Scalia's untimely death threatens to blow up that uneasy consensus. You've allowed the selection of SC justices to become a highly politicised event, probably the most important thing that any President can do, and this is a major threat to your political stability. Having become so politicised you now run the risk that one side or the other (or both) will begin to openly challenge the legitimacy of the court, and that's a development that would be fraught with danger.

There's probably something to be said for letting the Republicans have their way on this. Whether or not they're in the right on the merits of this particular argument, can you afford to run the risk of the Supreme Court turning into a permanent political football ?

That ship may have sailed.

What would you recommend; an amendment altering the process somehow?

If the Republicans do this I would demand similar treatment for their nominees. This is not a continuation of something started by Democrats. The advice and consent power allows the Senate to limit the power of a president to select whoever they want . So, there is nothing wrong with Republicans saying that candidate is too far left or Democrats saying a candidate is too far right. The party that controls the Senate can demand that a president of the opposition nominate someone closer to the center or he or she will not be approved. How far that can go depends somewhat on the feedback given from the media and public as to what the Senate is doing.

What the Republicans are doing is contemptuous of the Constitution. Our system of government demands that each branch play its constitutional role in a reasonable fashion. The president needs to work with Congress to get necessary work done--he can't just veto everything because the opposition controls the House . There has to be some sort of compromise based on the respective powers of each. Without this ability to compromise, reasonable recognition of the political power of the opposition party and, most importantly, the willingness of each branch to fulfill its constitutional role our system of government would break down.

What the Republicans are saying they do cannot be acceded to, as Sass suggests. That would destabilize our system of government. What if the Republicans do this and Rubio gets elected and the Democrats get sufficient control of the Senate to block any Supreme Court nominee and the Democrats say we will vote against any nominee of Rubio. Period. What happens then?

Refusing to approve a president's nominees before they are even known certainly violates the spirit of the role assigned to the Senate by the Constitution. The Democrats cannot accede to it.

freeman3 wrote:What the Republicans are doing is contemptuous of the Constitution. Our system of government demands that each branch play its constitutional role in a reasonable fashion. The president needs to work with Congress to get necessary work done--he can't just veto everything because the opposition controls the House . There has to be some sort of compromise based on the respective powers of each. Without this ability to compromise, reasonable recognition of the political power of the opposition party and, most importantly, the willingness of each branch to fulfill its constitutional role our system of government would break down.

Um, have you been without a newspaper and cut off from the outside world for 7 years?

Your President has done more to void the Constitution than anyone save maybe Lincoln.

I am sure he's not ignorant of that, DF; just because he didn't come out and bash President Obama doesn't mean that he's unaware that the president has the capability to do that.