Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

No, there was no precedent set in 1852 since the 22nd Amendment was not in place at that time and that happened at the end of Filmore's FIRST term in office. And there is a big difference because Bradford was nominated in mid-August - less than three months before the election. Garland was nominated in mid-March - nearly 8 months before the election. Big difference.

If you do think 1852 is a precedent, then you have to accept all my other examples as precedents as well because they all happened in presidential election years. Not "the last year of a president's last term in office". Because 1852 was the end of Filmore's first term.

I agree with much of what you say in your last paragraph. I currently don't see anyone who is a shining star in the batch of D candidates, but almost any of them would be an improvement on Trump. Biden (like Trump) is too old, but I think you are right he would be less divisive. Best thing he could do would be to pick a younger, centrist running mate.

 

Reid only used the nuclear option in response to McConnell's obstructionism.

They were both wrong. Don't forget that. Don't try to blame Reid alone.

 

....and the independents would oppose.

 

The Democrats cheated first and the Republicans already returned the favor.

 

I think not only would most Independents oppose it, and probably every Republican, but I think a lot of the more moderate Democrats might oppose it as well.

This type of extremism really only appeals to the left's base. They'd risk alienating the party's saner more moderate members with a political power grab stunt like this.

 

That is BS....there was no real change in the amount of judges picked and approved prior to the nuclear option, and after the nuclear option: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

Reid and the left simply played politics and refused to compromise on anything, the opposite of what the GOP did when the left blocked and filibustered Bush's appointments (they filibustered 10 in one year)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

 

You are correct that it was not in Fillmore's last term...and he did run against Pierce and lost. However, Fillmore's chances of winning the Presidential election was about as good as the chances that Trump will close his twitter account or the chance that Hillary would join a nunnery.

You mentioned that every "lapsed" nomination was nominated again after the election. However, it only pertains to one nominee....Stanley Matthews. Matthews was nominated by Hayes and that nomination lapsed because of a lack of hearing by the Senate (tradition?). He was re-nominated by Garfield (the same party as Hayes). I wonder if he would have been re-nominated if Garfield lost. The other nominations that lapsed were not because of "election year" issues.

Hornblower was first nominated in September of 1853, in Cleveland's first year of his first term.
Butler was first nominated in November of 1922, in Harding's second year of his first term.
Harlan was first nominated in November of 1954, in Eisenhower's second year of his first term.

 

Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been "cheating" for so long that it is really hard to say which party "cheated' first.

 

Here's the thing about Reid and McConnell. They're two peas in a pod, each putting party ahead of everything else. You wouldn't have seen Lott and Daschle or Mitchell and Dole or even Byrd and Baker when they were the party leaders in the senate ever resort to the nuclear option. They respected each other and could work with each other. One also has to remember that Reid table well over 300 GOP House passed bills with no votes on them while he was the Senate Democratic Majority Leader.

Remembering this might be one of the reasons McConnell in search of payback refused to allow a vote on Garland. We don't have adult leaders in the senate anymore. We have political party hacks. A majority of Americans want the two parties to work together as in the past. To compromise and work things out. Play the game of give and take. You're not going to get that with a Schumer and McConnell as party leaders.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265/americans-favor-compromise-things-done-washington.aspx

 

Hard to say, but the DNC did exist first....

They both suck which is why I will not belong to either party.

 

And then the GOP would get in and what's the first thing they would do? Pack the court right back, and so on.

In effect it would make the Supreme Court mirror whoever holds both the Senate and WH.

Blame one of the top 3 worst Presidents, FDR, for setting the precedent.

 

republicans benifited from the lower courts change dems made as they coudl use it too

now dems will benefit from the changes the repubs make to SC picks and they will one up that with increased # of judges

 

"
Fifty-two Senate Democrats and independents voted to weaken the power of the filibuster. The change reduces the threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees against unanimous GOP opposition. "

yep, I agree

and then republicans made a similar change to SC picks

each is responsible for the changes they made

 

You think the Dems are going to go nuclear on legislation too? wow....that would be something...I wouldn't put it past them though

 

The Democrats cheated first and the Republicans already returned the favor.

 

why would they not, republicans are, rules mean nothing if they can be so easily changed

 

The gop hasn’t gonna nuclear legislation.

 

Ah the old "two wrongs make a right" defense.

Honestly, I would have been ok with it, except The republicans wouldn't even allow a vote. THAT's the height of bullshit and they will forever own that stain on democracy.

 

Where does it say they have to allow a vote? Are you aware of Dems doing this many times?

 

Really? The Dems wouldn't allow a nomination for a SC Justice to move forward in the senate when a vacancy occurred in an election year?

 

And they call Trump a dictator? Hehehehe.

 

Ask your self a simple question and try to be honest and objective. I know you can do that from time to time.

Do you really think the previous administration or for that matter ANY democrats with majority control of the Senate would have acted any different than what republicans did? Hell, democrat renegades are sending threating briefs to the Supreme Court right now because they want to pack SC bench for their own purposes.
Reid did what he did changing the rule to pack lower courts with activist judges. There can be no doubt he would have gone nuke with a SC nominee had one come up while he was still speaker. He even said he would.

 

Does it matter? Or are ethics and morality only set by the other team?

The reason Reid did that was because the level of obstructionism by the republicans was insane. They set records for the number of cloture motions, and the judiciary was starting to cave under the weight of the lack of Judges to do the necessary work.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...nate-republicans-filibuster-obama-court-nomi/

(this is prior to the 2013 nuclear option)

It was bad enough that Trump even "thanked" Obama for leaving such an open field of vacancies
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-obama-for-leaving-so-many-judicial-vacancies


Also 'activist judges' is such a bullshit term. Administrations have always selected judges that tend to think in their direction, but it was always a given that each side was given the benefit of the win. Also, interestingly enough, Obama actually made an effort to not nominate Hard Left Judges, much to the consternation of some Dems, and even moderate Judges were obstructed by the Rs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/us/politics/obama-lags-on-filling-seats-in-the-judiciary.html

I honestly don't believe that the Nuclear option would have been used had the Republicans not decided to stick it to Obama from day one https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/ and had continued the regular state of things. Then McConnell wouldn't have had any faux-justification for blocking Garland (hard to advise and consent when the option is never even allowed to reach the table).

But it is what it is now, and I doubt either party is ever going to undo either parties nuclear bombs and that's kind of it.

 

What you write is what you read. You base your opinions the same way most of us do. Your comments are usually informed and not outright hostile to others with an opposing opinion. You won't easily be persuaded anymore than I will. We can debate who did what and why. The facts are what they are no matter how one choses to interpret them.

Your last sentence is what I can agree on. The genie is now out of the bottle and won't be undone by the next administration no matter what party controls the Senate majority.

 

True to a point. I can legitimately point to two issues where my time on this site has shifted my thinking.

Illegal Immigration, and the inherent conflict of interest WRT Public Sector Unions.

I appreciate your posts and you've always treated me with respect so I try and respond in kind, as its way to easy to get into sniping mode.

Yep. History is history and we can't change it. But I do appreciate that we as a society are starting to recognize the need to push back on the "negativity all the time" mentality that we have endured for a while and recognizing the positive things we have.