No, it’s fact that the desperate attempt at painting an event that happened 150 years ago as a precedent for today is invalid.
Fact. No precedent exists for what McConnell did.
Required reading:
http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/%20NYULawReviewOnline-91-Kar-Mazzone.pdf
Should be a simple matter to show:
When a Lame Duck President in their last year was able to get their SCOTUS nominee confirmed by a Senate majority from the opposing party.
did you read that?
Obama wasn’t a lame duck. Most people don’t understand what that means.
1 Like
Anthony Kennedy, confirmed February 3, 1988 during Reagan’s last year as President when Dem’s held the majority of the Senate.
.>>>>>
1 Like
This is where the parsing starts (or rather, continues) and we get all sorts of caveats and conditions about why the “precedent” set nearly 200 years ago is the only one that means anything.
Did you? emote face
Obama was a lame duck president in his second term, as was every President before him.
lol… a study in the slimes is no more than opinion. when you have historical facts… feel free
There is no parsing. The seat was not vacated during an election year and the dem senate had already lost its Borking mind.
I should have been more clear with my criteria.
When a Lame Duck President in their last year was able to get their a SCOTUS nominee, that was nominated in their final year as President, confirmed by a Senate majority from the opposing party.
The modified criteria more accurately describes Obama’s last year in office.
Both Bork and Kennedy were nominated in 1987, in Reagan’s second to the last year. Bork was rejected and Kennedy was confirmed in Reagans last year. Thus the replacement process began almost a full two years before Reagan left office.
Wow, that was pretty powerful…and very true.
There is that parsing we just talked about.
The New York Times cited an extensive study over Supreme Court nominations and processes. The study is in the link before the New York Times article. The study is quite extensive on literally every Supreme Court nomination an appointment.
Of course I can’t force you to read it but I also cannot force you to learn facts.
I know the facts and I don’t need a liberals trash study denying reality to give them to me.
Fact: Every single time in history a SCOTUS seat has been vacated in an election year with the president and senate from opposing parties the seat has remained vacant (save once). there is nothing else relevant to that.
You know the “facts” as they’ve been spoodfed to you and you gobbled them down.
It’s not a “liberal trash study.” It’s an academic paper, with extensive citations, looking at the history of SCotUS vacancies, the circumstances under which they happened, and the results/context of literally every single SCotUS vacancy in the history of the US. Hell, the last part of the essay is literally single supreme court vacancy, proposed vacancy, nomination, circumstances under which they happened, when they happened, etc.
I can only bring the water to you. I can’t force you to accept the facts as they are.
Of course not-because looking at the entire picture, instead of the narrow set of circumstances that must exist for your “precedent” to exist is the only way you can claim precedent. You don’t want to look at the entire picture because context doesn’t matter to you. Just blathering partisan politics.
This is absolutely one of the stupidest and saddest posts I’ve ever read.
Here’s for you buddy.
Nobody spoon fed me anything, I looked it up myself. The facts I site are historical facts. The study you site is designed to deny the reality of the facts and is trash. There is only one salient fact:
Every time in US history that the President and Senate majority have been from opposing parties and a SCOTUS vacancy has occurred in an election year the seat has remained vacant until after the election (save once). There is no spin from any study that can change that fact. Denying that that precedent was set in 1828 and followed 100% (-1) of the time is a denial of reality.
Vacancies created outside of an election year are not a part of the discussion as they do not fit the precedent. I know you’d like to include them, but they just ain’t it.
The “entire picture” is simple. Go find me ONE vacancy created in an election year with the President and Senate from opposing parties that was filled before the election took place with the exception of the Chief Justice seat which is different. (I believe it did happen once… lets see if you can find it)
What a desperate insult.
Another desperate insuolt.
of course you did.
Cite. Facts without much context-which is conveniently left out to provide further context. Your “Facts” are incomplete. Mine provide full context. That’s the difference.
No, the study I **c**ited puts every single supreme court vacancy in US history in context. I’m sorry that destroys your attempt at establishing a precedent.
Precedent, except when the precedent wasn’t followed, doesn’t establish a precedent.
LOL… every single SCOTUS vacancy is not at question. Only those created in an election year with the POTUS and Senate from opposing parties. That is the context. Nothing else is included in the context. History is what it is and the historical facts are what they are. No spin by any liberal egghead morons published in the leftist times can change that. I understand though, your liberal masters have provided you with a study (spin) to explain it all away in your desperate attempt to see republicans as evil and Obama’s nominee as a victim of them.
Every single vacancy is irrelevant, Only those created in an election year with the Senate and POTUS from opposing parties is.
