The 9th Justice: Can the country get a SCOTUS nominee through the senate?

The way I see it, the Republicans will need to approve someone if they want to keep majority control of Congress. Congress' approval rating is already in the toilet. Throughout Obama's terms they have been referred to as the Congress of No. Do the Republicans really want to drive these points home as the last thing they do right before the election is to say no again?

originally posted by: schuyler
My take on it is this: For now the GOP Congress will prevent any Obama nominee from being confirmed, but if the Dems win the election, that opposition will be lessened and even if the GOP still controls Congress, they'll allow a nominee through the process. The longer the GOP can hold out, the easier it will be to KEEP holding out until after the election. If Obama decides to appoint a moderate, they may even allow him the "victory" of appointment before he leaves office next January.

He may want to appoint another open liberal sort.....just to make a martyr out of them, rally the troops ect. Its about stupid for him to go "moderate" and show some concession to the other side at this point. Nothing says politics more these days like a moderate.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
The way I see it, the Republicans will need to approve someone if they want to keep majority control of Congress. Congress' approval rating is already in the toilet. Throughout Obama's terms they have been referred to as the Congress of No. Do the Republicans really want to drive these points home as the last thing they do right before the election is to say no again?

I have an old book out in the garage titled "The Rhetoric of NO" written by a few hard libs ect. They pull this term out when they are getting their real ends handed to them and cant get their way. Its old.

Anyway the republican controlled congress could use this issue to shore itself up to its base. Thats all they need to worry about here politically speaking.

a reply to: Logarock

Considering Congress' approval rating I'd say it's more than just some Democrats complaining about not getting their way. Face it. The current Congress is seen as being wholly ineffectual and this current situation will just serve to drive that point home to anyone on the fence. Assuming the Republicans actually deliver on their threats to not approve any appointees.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Maybe, maybe not. One thing that has long unified the American people, politically, is a universal hatred of Congress. The current approval ratings of Congress, for example, are roughly the same as they were during the Pelosi/Reid era not so long ago. Unfortunately, the other side of the coin here is that everyone, on both sides, generally thinks their own Congresscritter is a great guy.

The point being, I don't know that I'd count on the approval ratings of Congress to mean anything. Further, while people don't like an ineffective Congress (or Senate, in this case), they also want it to do the 'right thing', rather than just 'doing something.' Now, I'm not going to presume to know whether the American people will side with the GOP or the Dems on this, but I don't think its a foregone conclusion at all that they'll side with Obama.

originally posted by: Willtell
First of all, no way is Obama getting his nominee through a GOP senate. He can’t even do a recess appointment easily since they just recently tightened the rules in favor of the senate.

What people aren’t thinking about is the fact that even if a democrat wins the presidency the GOP senate still will not approve a liberal justice whom Hillary or Bernie would appoint.

Remember you need 60 votes to get the nominee through.

The GOP will NEVER give a liberal justice 60 votes during Obama’s last year; or even in the event Hillary or Bernie wins. The stakes are just too high.

Also, consider that the democrats may want payback if the GOP succeeds in stopping Obama from getting his nominee through. After the election, if a GOP guy wins, THEY CAN GET PAYBACK and stop any nomination from going through as the GOP did to Obama!

So as of now it looks like there won’t even be a 9th justice again.

Oh really? So sure are we? When is the last time a Democratic POTUS Supreme Court nominee was rejected by a Senate vote? Go ahead and Google it. Then also for your own education look up when the last time (or 4 times) a Republican POTUS Supreme Court nominee was rejected by the Senate. Sometimes it's hard gazing into the mirror.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

So? Obama can try to nominate and his nominees can be found lacking. Then he cannot use his usual recess appointment trick ... well, he can try and if the Democrats back it, they are violating their own prior resolution.

It goes back Obama not preserving the balance of the court with his nominee. He won't even try to. If he did, then maybe he'd get a new nominee. But he's more interested in stacking the court. Too many important cases to side in his favor.

Like Reagan preserved "the balance" of the Court?

Like Bush I preserved the balance?

Like GW preserved the balance of the Court?

Please. Why do you think we've had a Conservative-stacked 5/4 split for the most part of the last 3 decades?

Also, no apology to the forum that you posted blatantly false information in? No correction to your "mistake" on the Johnson appointment for Chief Justice?

I'm not surprised.

a reply to: Khaleesi

Chuck Schumer's opinion doesn't negate the Constitution any more than Mitch McConnell's does.

Next?

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Willtell
First of all, no way is Obama getting his nominee through a GOP senate. He can’t even do a recess appointment easily since they just recently tightened the rules in favor of the senate.

What people aren’t thinking about is the fact that even if a democrat wins the presidency the GOP senate still will not approve a liberal justice whom Hillary or Bernie would appoint.

Remember you need 60 votes to get the nominee through.

The GOP will NEVER give a liberal justice 60 votes during Obama’s last year; or even in the event Hillary or Bernie wins. The stakes are just too high.

Also, consider that the democrats may want payback if the GOP succeeds in stopping Obama from getting his nominee through. After the election, if a GOP guy wins, THEY CAN GET PAYBACK and stop any nomination from going through as the GOP did to Obama!

So as of now it looks like there won’t even be a 9th justice again.

Oh really? So sure are we? When is the last time a Democratic POTUS Supreme Court nominee was rejected by a Senate vote? Go ahead and Google it. Then also for your own education look up when the last time (or 4 times) a Republican POTUS Supreme Court nominee was rejected by the Senate. Sometimes it's hard gazing into the mirror.

So wait, are you arguing that the Senate does have the right of "advise and consent" or not?

I won't go into the multiple logical problems with your assertion about Democratic nominees being confirmed (hint, how many years during the period you're considering have the Democrats controlled the Senate?).

No one is saying that the Senate doesn't have the secondary power under Article II to "advise and consent" ...

What IS BEING SAID is that the Republican majority does not have the right to rewrite the Constitution to deprive President Obama of the Constitutional Power to nominate and appoint to the Supreme Court. They can declare that they simply won't accept any nominee regardless of their qualifications, but that does not reflect either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution in this regard.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Khaleesi

Chuck Schumer's opinion doesn't negate the Constitution any more than Mitch McConnell's does.

Next?

Whether its Constitutional or not (and I think it is), it does make it awfully difficult to sell the argument to the public and get any traction on the issue when one of the most powerful Democrat Senators was advocating the same behavior when the shoe was on the other foot a few years ago.

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Khaleesi

Chuck Schumer's opinion doesn't negate the Constitution any more than Mitch McConnell's does.

Next?

Whether its Constitutional or not (and I think it is), it does make it awfully difficult to sell the argument to the public and get any traction on the issue when one of the most powerful Democrat Senators was advocating the same behavior when the shoe was on the other foot a few years ago.

I guess we'll see. The American public seems to think already that Congress is not doing their job. And our collective memory is short.

Besides that ... not exactly the same thing as "we will not approve nominees" from Mitch.

Schumer:

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Daily Caller

In fact, Schumer's comment very clearly outlines that there is, to some degree a "presumption" of confirmation when the sitting President makes such a nomination UNLESS the Senate's inquiry establishes significant problems with the nominee.

He is reacting to the idea that the President HAS the power to nominate and expect action on their nominees.

Not the same thing as "we should wait until the next President is elected."

/shrug

Solution to the Supreme Court conundrum


The Republican senators and the Democratic senators should have each 4 choices of a Supreme Court justice.

And either the 9th and head Justice should be elected by the people and in a case of emergency chosen by the president.

Or the 9th should be reserved for the president's choice

That way no one can stack the Supreme Court with an overly left wing or right wing.

That will settle all this bs.

case closed


WillTell

a reply to: Gryphon66

The public is indeed sick of Congress, but its been that way since before the GOP took over. People are sick of the antics from BOTH sides. Sure, there are going to be moderates who look at this from the GOP and think that its self-serving, but you know what? Those same people likely believe the Dems would act the same way if the roles were reversed, and having a leading Dem on tape making a similar argument is going to reinforce that.

In terms of public opinion, I suspect that the net effect won't be much. The partisans will bicker, bitch and fight over it, while the middle ground sits back and rolls their eyes at Republicans and Democrats alike, understanding that both sides are self-serving and would act in a similar way if placed in the same situation.

a reply to: Willtell

I could agree with that, but I'd eliminate the 9th one. You'd be better off making it a 4-4 partisan split, each side choosing their own and with a recall provision. If they wanted to be relevant, they'd have to come to a consensus and reach across partisan lines.

a reply to: vor78

I'm not sure the people see the issues with Congress per se as a matter of "sides."

Only 42% voted in 2014, the lowest percentage since 1978.

Independents are the greatest growing "voting bloc" in the country at around 42% of registered voters.

I would wager that the average American sits bemused and disgusted by the whole partisan crap-show.

But in this case the face of "Congress" will be the Republicans who are stopping the Constitutional process from proceeding.

Their Presidential ticket is already about to blow up in their faces. They are threading a needle with Congressional approval.

As I said, we'll see.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Khaleesi

Chuck Schumer's opinion doesn't negate the Constitution any more than Mitch McConnell's does.

Next?

I never said it negated the Constitution. I said it's either right or wrong no matter which party is proposing it. You can't say it's wrong when a Republican proposes something like this and ignore the fact that a Democrat has proposed the exact same thing in the past. If it's wrong now, it was wrong then.

originally posted by: Khaleesi

I never said it negated the Constitution. I said it's either right or wrong no matter which party is proposing it. You can't say it's wrong when a Republican proposes something like this and ignore the fact that a Democrat has proposed the exact same thing in the past. If it's wrong now, it was wrong then.

Indeed. Star for your excellent post.

Demorats in Senate Passed a Resolution [334] 1960 Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments

This vote was to kill a nonbinding resolution proposed by the Democrats who hoped to prevent President Eisenhower from using recess appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court. (This vote failed, and the resolution was subsequently passed.)

Although the vote occurred in an election year, there is no indication that this vote was about election year appointments specifically. Eisenhower had used the recess appointment power to make previous appointments to the Supreme Court, and Democrats objected to further use of the recess appointment power. No President has used the recess appointment power to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court since then.

A recess appointment is made while the Senate is in recess, and while such appointments do not require Senate approval they instead expire at the end of the subsequent legislative session

originally posted by: thehoopsmith512
Well if the next president, or even Obama keeps trying to appoint a super liberal Justice, they will not be voted in. The American people (THE COUNTRY) voted in those Senators in a huge swing to the right. The political landscape is deigned this way to prevent power from being abused and ran away with. In situations like this, it is working as designed. This isn't a flaw in the system, its the way its supposed to work.

It has more to do with the 6 year term cycle of Senators. Republicans saw big wins in 2014 because Democrats had big wins in 2008, enough for a super majority actually. That voting cycle evening out doesn't imply there's a mandate from the voters, it means people didn't want a super majority in Congress again. You're going to see something similar in 2016 when the Democrats are almost 100% certain to win the Senate, and are in very good position to have 60+ seats.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

Yep, the source I used even said as much.

Find me something in politics that isn't hypocritical these days.

I would say it is very much in the RNC's interest to stall it as it makes SCOTUS nominees an election issue. They can ask their voter base about it. Like it or not, Republicans are more plugged in to the Supreme Court thanks to the Obama legacy than Democrats might be.

And if they make it an election issue and their nominee is Cruz or Trump? Then they end up with someone they don't want, and if they stop opposing it at that point they make their base mad enough to not vote.

originally posted by: Willtell
Or the 9th should be reserved for the president's choice

That way no one can stack the Supreme Court with an overly left wing or right wing.

That will settle all this bs.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be stacked. Just as it was stacked towards the right for decades, largely due to the resurgence of conservatism under Reagan. That ideology is dying out now though and people are moving further left, when that type of push is sustained in government over time the Court make up eventually changes too.

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Khaleesi

Chuck Schumer's opinion doesn't negate the Constitution any more than Mitch McConnell's does.

Next?

I never said it negated the Constitution. I said it's either right or wrong no matter which party is proposing it. You can't say it's wrong when a Republican proposes something like this and ignore the fact that a Democrat has proposed the exact same thing in the past. If it's wrong now, it was wrong then.

Did Schumer say "you need to wait until the next President is elected, Mr. Bush"? He did not.

Of course I can say it's wrong. I didn't happen to ... what I have said, in general, is for the Majority Leader to claim authority that he does not have and tell the President of the United States who DOES have the Constitutional authority to nominate SC replacements that he cannot do so or that he shouldn't do so and imply that rather than performing their Constitutional duty of "advise and consent" they are going to "deny, deny, deny" ... at least the SPIRIT of the Constitution is being ignored if not the letter (which I would argue is being ignored).