Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dude... you can't link to Alex Jones and expect anyone to care two feths about it.

Anyways, because I love history, I found this little tidbit interesting.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415

Edit: I'm working on finding the actual passage vote, seems most data from that period is not easy to come by on the internet. This was vote 415, an attempt to get the resolution sent back to the committee, it failed. Supposedly, vote 416 was to pass the resolution, which passed along party lines. Republicans against, Democrats for.

At anyrate, it's just more establishment of the hypocrisy of our political system. Every side changes opinions in view of the political winds.

Just change the URL to 416, I think. You're talking about a vote in 1960, right?

 Ouze wrote:
Just change the URL to 416, I think. You're talking about a vote in 1960, right?

Truly, your google-fu is greater then mine.

 sebster wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
12% nationally, what are they looking like in their own districts where they actually have to get elected. Of course with the gerrymandering the way it is, it probably doesn't matter. Then again, a gerrymandering case is going up before the SC this year and with one less vote, it will likely get kicked back to the lower courts.

It's the senate that approves. State lines are screwy at times, but it'd be a stretch to call them gerrymandered

Senate district is gerrymandered? Wat?

There's like...a grand total of TWO per state. Are we looking at some crazy squiggly lines? I hadn't checked in a while...

Anyhoo... here's some more historical stuff:
President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies...
Justice Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days.
Justice Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him.

During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate SC nominations!

But that was like, ancient news dude, so a more 'ahem' recent event... Justice Abe Fortas resigned May 14, 1969. His replacement, Harry Blackmun, was in office starting June 9, 1970, making that gap a little over a year.

I think that Senate GOP can be disciplined enough to hold out till November.

Yeah, the senate is definitely not gerrymandered. House can be (and often is, by both sides), but it rarely as bad as ones for state houses.


Edit: And secondly, why should they hold out? Why should the ignore their constitutional duties to play a partisan game?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Edit: And secondly, why should they hold out? Why should the ignore their constitutional duties to play a partisan game?

Advise & Consent *is* their Constitutional duty.

It's not "Advise & Confirm".

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Edit: And secondly, why should they hold out? Why should the ignore their constitutional duties to play a partisan game?

Advise & Consent *is* there Constitutional duty.

It's not "Advise & Confirm".

And by failing to advise and consent they are not fulfilling their constitutional obligation. And of course we all know that "advice and consent" is taken to mean holding some hearings and then putting it to a vote, unless we pretend that none of those things are actually how it works because this time is "different."

Which of course you are because you're pretty much just, unsurprisingly, repeating Ted Cruz and the National Review right now.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Edit: And secondly, why should they hold out? Why should the ignore their constitutional duties to play a partisan game?

Advise & Consent *is* there Constitutional duty.

It's not "Advise & Confirm".

And by failing to advise and consent they are not fulfilling their constitutional obligation. And of course we all know that "advice and consent" is taken to mean holding some hearings and then putting it to a vote, unless we pretend that none of those things are actually how it works because this time is "different."

Which of course you are because you're pretty much just, unsurprisingly, repeating Ted Cruz and the National Review right now.

Hadn't checked NR in a few days, but DON'T. YOU. WORRY. I'll be sure to catch up.

Not scheduling a vote is not "failing" their constitutional duty. But, go ahead and make that argument.

Let's see whom Obama nominates shall we?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Edit: And secondly, why should they hold out? Why should the ignore their constitutional duties to play a partisan game?

Advise & Consent *is* there Constitutional duty.

It's not "Advise & Confirm".

And by failing to advise and consent they are not fulfilling their constitutional obligation. And of course we all know that "advice and consent" is taken to mean holding some hearings and then putting it to a vote, unless we pretend that none of those things are actually how it works because this time is "different."

Which of course you are because you're pretty much just, unsurprisingly, repeating Ted Cruz and the National Review right now.

You do realize that they have every right to say No to his nominations. Yes is not the only answer they are allowed to have.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Edit: And secondly, why should they hold out? Why should the ignore their constitutional duties to play a partisan game?

Advise & Consent *is* there Constitutional duty.

It's not "Advise & Confirm".

And by failing to advise and consent they are not fulfilling their constitutional obligation. And of course we all know that "advice and consent" is taken to mean holding some hearings and then putting it to a vote, unless we pretend that none of those things are actually how it works because this time is "different."

Which of course you are because you're pretty much just, unsurprisingly, repeating Ted Cruz and the National Review right now.

You do realize that they have every right to say No to his nominations. Yes is not the only answer they are allowed to have.

That's not what Scooty is suggesting here. The point is that while they certainly do have every right to turn down his nominations, they should behave in good faith. None of this garbage about how he "can't" make a nomination during an election year for example.

McConnell and Friends have already made it clear that they are going to drag their heels on any nominations.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Edit: And secondly, why should they hold out? Why should the ignore their constitutional duties to play a partisan game?

Advise & Consent *is* there Constitutional duty.

It's not "Advise & Confirm".

And by failing to advise and consent they are not fulfilling their constitutional obligation. And of course we all know that "advice and consent" is taken to mean holding some hearings and then putting it to a vote, unless we pretend that none of those things are actually how it works because this time is "different."

Which of course you are because you're pretty much just, unsurprisingly, repeating Ted Cruz and the National Review right now.

You do realize that they have every right to say No to his nominations. Yes is not the only answer they are allowed to have.

That's not what Scooty is suggesting here. The point is that while they certainly do have every right to turn down his nominations, they should behave in good faith. None of this garbage about how he "can't" make a nomination during an election year for example.

McConnell and Friends have already made it clear that they are going to drag their heels on any nominations.

Hey, they're only following the lead of Chuckie Schumer in 2007:


I mean... here's Chuckie going on record saying that the Senate not only has the right but the *duty* to block SC nominees from a lame-duck President. Only with an extraordinary nominee should the Senate confirm such an appointment.

Anyone with two neurons will know that Obama will only nominate a Sotomeyer/Kegan... so, this senate is basically such nomination is DOA.

Yeah but when my side does it I can make the argument that it's noble, or at least pretend like it's not happening so I can screech about it when the other side does it next cycle.

Seaward wrote:
Yeah but when my side does it I can make the argument that it's noble, or at least pretend like it's not happening so I can screech about it when the other side does it next cycle.

Sorry, did I say I find it acceptable in either case?
Because I'm pretty sure that I didn't say so.

 whembly wrote:

I mean... here's Chuckie going on record saying that the Senate not only has the right but the *duty* to block SC nominees from a lame-duck President. Only with an extraordinary nominee should the Senate confirm such an appointment.

Did you actually listen to what he said? I'm guessing not, because he never said that they have to block nominees from a "lame-duck President" (which of course Obama isn't), he said they have the right to not confirm someone with what he considered fringe ideological beliefs to prevent Court imbalance.

Of course Breitbert is spinning it more or less the same way you are (shocking, I know), so like with so many things, what you believe is more important than what's true.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I mean... here's Chuckie going on record saying that the Senate not only has the right but the *duty* to block SC nominees from a lame-duck President. Only with an extraordinary nominee should the Senate confirm such an appointment.

Did you actually listen to what he said? I'm guessing not, because he never said that they have to block nominees from a "lame-duck President" (which of course Obama isn't), he said they have the right to not confirm someone with what he considered fringe ideological beliefs to prevent Court imbalance.

And how likely do *you* believe that Obama will nominate a Scalia candidate? To maintain "a court balance"??

Exactly.

Of course Breitbert is spinning it more or less the same way you are (shocking, I know), so like with so many things, what you believe is more important than what's true.

¿Qué?

Don't read that site... it's a trainwreck.

Maybe you should lay off the TPM/Vox sauce... eh?

 whembly wrote:

Hey, they're only following the lead of Chuckie Schumer in 2007:

Didn't I just say in the political thread "the excuse "but they did it, too/first" belongs on the elementary school playground."?

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, if the Senate failing to approve judges in a timely manner leads to a delay in court cases being heard, could not then the Senate be sued for denying someone's right to a speedy trial?

So Whembly keeps up the same disproven lie about 2007...

 whembly wrote:
And how likely do *you* believe that Obama will nominate a Scalia candidate? To maintain "a court balance"??

Exactly.

Why do you keep trying to reframe what we're talking about every time I show you that what you said is utter bs? This isn't whether or not Obama will nominate a Scalia-type candidate in the least bit, it's you repeating lies you've read in the derposphere like they're the gospel truth and then actively rooting for the Senate to not do their fething job because you think childish games of "well they said" are a valid excuse to do it (while of course complaining about the fact that they did it) because it's Obama.

But since you asked, I think Fox's 'shortlist' is a pretty good roundup of who will probably get the nomination, particularly Sri Srinivasan or Patricia Millett (both of which are non-ideological moderates from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit). Slate also had them on top of their shortlist as well. I think Srinivasan is the best choice, especially considering he was nominated to the Appeals Court with a 97-0 vote in the Senate and backed by Ted Cruz. The SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein thinks the most likely pick is Attorney General Loretta Lynch (his first choice wasNinth Circuit Judge Paul Watford) and he also thinks that a nominee will get a vote.

¿Qué?

Don't read that site... it's a trainwreck.

Maybe you should lay off the TPM/Vox sauce... eh?

Right, there you go again, trying to claim I read some website with no actual proof while you literally regurgitate talking points from Breitbert/The Blaze/Fox News et al. mere hours after the articles post (all websites I actually read, which is how I can spot your use of their articles). Like most stooges that get caught red-handed, you try to shift the conversation away from yourself instead of just fessing up to what we all know is right. Of course you think that because I can rationally dismantled all of you inane talking points and outright lies, I must be on the "TPM (whatever the feth that is) and Vox 'sauce.'" But yeah Whembly, you caught me... I read liberal news sources (just not the ones you think) and I disagree with them. I also read conservative news sources and disagree with them.

I honestly don't think there is a less intellectually dishonest poster in the OT than you: willful ignorance, false analogies, double standards, etc... a veritable greatest hits list of what not do in a conversation.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Hey, they're only following the lead of Chuckie Schumer in 2007:

Didn't I just say in the political thread "the excuse "but they did it, too/first" belongs on the elementary school playground."?

Dude... didn't we reach Calvinball™ already?

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, if the Senate failing to approve judges in a timely manner leads to a delay in court cases being heard, could not then the Senate be sued for denying someone's right to a speedy trial?

No delay.

AFAIK there's no Constitutional requirements for a full 9 justice court.

It's bidness as usual except that any 4-4 tie means that the Appellate Court's ruling remains in effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
So Whembly keeps up the same disproven lie about 2007...

What lie?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And how likely do *you* believe that Obama will nominate a Scalia candidate? To maintain "a court balance"??

Exactly.

Why do you keep trying to reframe what we're talking about every time I show you that what you said is utter bs? This isn't whether or not Obama will nominate a Scalia-type candidate in the least bit, it's you repeating lies you've read in the derposphere like they're the gospel truth and then actively rooting for the Senate to not do their fething job because you think childish games of "well they said" are a valid excuse to do it (while of course complaining about the fact that they did it) because it's Obama.

I ain't reframing gak as anytime an ideological opponent of yours tries to make a point, you want to gak on it on a very schadenboner style. It's about *you* framing a rather one-side conversation about how gakky conservative ideas and generally anything Republicans doing *stuff*.

But since you asked, I think Fox's 'shortlist' is a pretty good roundup of who will probably get the nomination, particularly Sri Srinivasan or Patricia Millett (both of which are non-ideological moderates from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit). Slate also had them on top of their shortlist as well. I think Srinivasan is the best choice, especially considering he was nominated to the Appeals Court with a 97-0 vote in the Senate and backed by Ted Cruz. The SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein thinks the most likely pick is Attorney General Loretta Lynch (his first choice wasNinth Circuit Judge Paul Watford) and he also thinks that a nominee will get a vote.

Nah... it needs to be a rock-solid conservative imo, otherwise, the GOP Senate should simply say "Nein".

¿Qué?

Don't read that site... it's a trainwreck.

Maybe you should lay off the TPM/Vox sauce... eh?

Right, there you go again, trying to claim I read some website with no actual proof while you literally regurgitate talking points from Breitbert/The Blaze/Fox News et al. mere hours after the articles post (all websites I actually read, which is how I can spot your use of their articles). Like most stooges that get caught red-handed, you try to shift the conversation away from yourself instead of just fessing up to what we all know is right. Of course you think that because I can rationally dismantled all of you inane talking points and outright lies, I must be on the "TPM (whatever the feth that is) and Vox 'sauce.'" But yeah Whembly, you caught me... I read liberal news sources (just not the ones you think) and I disagree with them. I also read conservative news sources and disagree with them.

Good for you.

I honestly don't think there is a less intellectually dishonest poster in the OT than you: willful ignorance, false analogies, double standards, etc... a veritable greatest hits list of what not do in a conversation.

You'd be wrong.

At least we're no longer paying lip service to each other about how all they are is umpires, calling balls and strikes, huh?

Finally, we can all just admit they're politicians in robes, pretending to be judges.

 Ouze wrote:
At least we're no longer paying lip service to each other about how all they are is umpires, calling balls and strikes, huh?

Finally, we can all just admit they're politicians in robes, pretending to be judges.

I think that's a sad state... eh?

If that's case, what's the argument against direct Federal court elections?

 whembly wrote:

Nah... it needs to be a rock-solid conservative imo, otherwise, the GOP Senate should simply say "Nein".

What is a "rock-solid conservative"?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Nah... it needs to be a rock-solid conservative imo, otherwise, the GOP Senate should simply say "Nein".

What is a "rock-solid conservative"?

Scalia or Clerance Thomas?

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Nah... it needs to be a rock-solid conservative imo, otherwise, the GOP Senate should simply say "Nein".

What is a "rock-solid conservative"?

Scalia or Clerance Thomas?

So someone who will lose their nut after a few years or a puppet?

 whembly wrote:

Scalia or Clerance Thomas?

That isn't an answer, that is a platitude. You clearly don't know what a "rock-solid conservative" is.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Scalia or Clerance Thomas?

That isn't an answer, that is a platitude. You clearly don't know what a "rock-solid conservative" is.

You clearly don't know that I don't know...

You're fishing for something.

 whembly wrote:

You clearly don't know that I don't know...

If you don't know, why are you so certain that the Senate should block any Obama appointee who isn't a "rock-solid conservative"?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You clearly don't know that I don't know...

If you don't know, why are you so certain that the Senate should block any Obama appointee who isn't a "rock-solid conservative"?

I'm actually not so certain that this Senate *could* successfully block an Obama appointee to be honest.

However, recognize that this senate has nothing to lose to hold out till November.

They have everything to lose.

- "they appoint justices" is always a talking point in elections, but knowing that Cruz will appoint a direct representative of his theologically influenced view of the constitution will hurt them during the election.
- "they approve justices" is a bad thing for the very vulnerable senate seats that the GOP is trying to keep this election.
- the lower courts are packed with Obama appointments, and they are going to rule against every decision from the conservative district judges that will be "affirmed" by the SCOTUS due to the tie because they won't affect the liberal circuits.
- they have a huge bargaining chip right now to force concessions from Obama in order for him to get another appointment.

This is the GOP Senate version of being able to win the Super Bowl and deciding to go with the pass play instead of running it.

 whembly wrote:
I ain't reframing gak as anytime an ideological opponent of yours tries to make a point, you want to gak on it on a very schadenboner style. It's about *you* framing a rather one-side conversation about how gakky conservative ideas and generally anything Republicans doing *stuff*.

No Whembly, that's what you're trying to do, except it's "if the Democrats do it, it's bad but it's okay if Republicans do it because Obama." Unlike you, I don't have a team other than honesty which is why I'm holding you accountable to the stupid gak that spills out of your keyboard. Case in point: you repeated an exact claim from Breitbart with video "proof" to back it up that, when you actually listen to it, says nothing that you were claiming. However, because you automatically assume that because someone tells you that you're wrong, they've obviously on the other "team" and agree with the exact opposite.

I'm not claiming that Schumer was in the right in his comments, I'm telling you that your (repeated) characterization of them is wrong. Just like you were wrong when you repeated the National Report and Ted Cruz's claim about "NOT appointing justices in an election year."

Nah... it needs to be a rock-solid conservative imo, otherwise, the GOP Senate should simply say "Nein".

Right, which is proof that the system isn't working as intended, something you celebrate. God forbid we have a moderate jurist with that is non-ideological. The entire country might fething collapse.

Good for you.

As expected, you make a terrible point, it's refuted clearly, and then you walk away when have nothing else to say. This is like a repeat of the political thread, which is why it will go nowhere.

You'd be wrong.

Says the guy who makes a habit of making intellectually dishonest arguments and has a fething 280+ thread that shows it.

 d-usa wrote:
This is the GOP Senate version of being able to win the Super Bowl and deciding to go with the pass play instead of running it.