There is no constitutional duty for the senate to hold hearings or a vote on a SCOTUS nominee.
What word would be strong enough for you?
your denials are meaningless. The circumstances are the same, the process is the same. The President nominates, the Senate acts as the Senate will. Precedent is precedent until its not. You claiming otherwise is just inane. There have been 18 nominations in history for seats opened in an election year, in every single one (save one) when the Senate is held by the opposing party there has been no vote. That’s about as precedented as it can get.
So party before country…
No it isn’t. You even mentioned earlier that back in the era you’re trying to establish a precedent, the process was not the same as there were no hearings. And the link I provided last night demonstrates there are many other differences.
Ahem…from the other thread:
Now please, go ahead and tell us how it was different, or didn’t meet the very narrow set of conditions you’ve put forth in order to establish a precedent.
Thanks for proving my point, LOL
Lame duck Tyler appointed Nelson AFTER the election and the lame duck Senate confirmed him before the Senate and Presidency changed hands due to the election. They refused to seat anyone 6 times during the election year.
Further, though they tossed him from the party, Tyler and the Senate were both elected as Whigs… same party. Either way you want to look at it, the nomination was not made in the election year, it was made AFTER the election and made to prevent the opposing party and new President from making the appointment. There were also 2 vacancies on the court at the time and the 2nd was left vacant for Polk to fill with the new democrat Senate. Further Thompson’s seat did not become vacant during the election year, it was vacated in 1843. Still the Whig party refused to seat anyone in the seat until after the election when both Tyler and the Senate were both lame ducks. The other seat (Baldwins) which was made vacant during the election year was left vacant.
nominee…potus party seat…nominated result
John C. Spencer Tyler None Thompson Jan. 8, 1844 rejected (21–26) Jan. 31, 1844 23
Reuben Walworth] Tyler None Thompson Mar. 13, 1844 withdrawn June 17, 1844 96
Edward King Tyler Tyler None Baldwin June 5, 1844 lapsed (tabled-12)
John C. Spencer Tyler] None Thompson June 17, 1844 withdrawn June 17, 1844 0
Reuben Walworth Tyler None Thompson June 17, 1844 lapsed
Reuben Walworth]Tyler None Thompson Dec. 4, 1844 withdrawn Feb. 6, 1845 64
Edward King Tyler None Baldwin Dec. 4, 1844 withdrawn Feb. 8, 1845 66
Samuel Nelson Tyler None Thompson Feb. 4, 1845 confirmedFeb. 14, 1845 10
In 1888 Melville Fuller elevated to Chief Justice, as I said. He was already on the court.
There were no vacancies during the election year in 1880. Two justices retired after the election. Justice Strong retired Dec 14th 1880 and Justice Swayne retired in Jan 1881. The Democratic Senate filled one seat and left the other vacant. The Presidency did not change hands remaining GOP. The Senate however lost its Democrat majority (There was in fact no majority). Either way, the Senate knew when they confirmed one and did not vote on the other that the nomination would be made by a GOP President.
Please try again!
there is no difference. the president nominates, the senate does what it will. hearings are meaningless to the discussion. nominees are not confirmed by a hearing, they are confirmed by a vote.
there are no narrow conditions. the conditions are the same, the results are the same.
potus and senate from opposing parties, vacancies created during an election year.
Stop it you two. The hearings have provided the chance for Fifth Column democrat socialist Senators to let their hair down and act like the petulant children they are. And it does not play well in middle America!
JWK
Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary
“A thing I think is meaningless criteria is meaningless criteria.”
1828 v 2016 is apples and oranges.
1828 is not solitary. EVERY SINGLE TIME in our history that a seat has become vacant in the last year of a presidency in an election year with an opposing senate majority the seat has remained vacant until after the election (save once). What year(s) it happened is irrelevant. Precedent is precedent until its not.
So there’s a precedent, except when there’s not.
Look, we get it. The desperate attempt to justify and defend McConnell, who has continually flip-flopped on how high court nominees should be handled, is very clear.
Precedent is precedent. If the Senate wished to follow or not follow it is up to them. The precedent was set in 1826 and followed 100% of the time ( -1 ). The only desperate attempt here is from yiu in trying to deny the precedent. It was set in 1828 and it has been followed by the Senate over and over again. That would be what precedent is. I could care less about McConnell, I don’t even like him. I’d be much happier if the GOP would elect a new majority leader.
Violated. Raped. Prison raped.
Good of you to admit it.
That Republicans are party before country?
Because that was the post I was responding to…
Except the time when it’s not, as you’ve even admitted yourself.
When you do a thing one time, but then do the thing differently, even once, there’s not a precedent.
And democrats.
Whom…
10 char
