Who.
All of you. Every member of every tribe.
Cool story brah…
Thinker huh?
Despite your illogical premise saying no politician in the history of the UAS never sacrificed their position for the good of the country…
Name two.
And prepare to be destroyed.
false.
the ONE time it was different the vacancy was for chief justice and the nominee was already on the court. different circumstances, different outcome.
thanks for playing!
Lol it’s not on me to prove why you think all politicians from day one are tribalistic animals that only care about party over country…
Your 1828 precedent doesn’t hold because Crittenden wasn’t nominated until after the election as a lame duck. We are looking for a precedent where the president nominates an open seat during an election year but before the actual election.
None of Tyler’s nominations count since apparently you’re claiming Tyler was a Whig.
The only example that fits your “precedent” is Fillmore in 1852.
However, Fuller was not on the Supreme Court before Cleveland nominated him to Chief Justice in 1888.
This whole case rests on two examples, which you’re 50-50 on.
1 Like
Then don’t make the claim.
All you have to is open both eyes.
you want to exclude tyler? okay. whether or not he’s from an opposing party is subjective. it is however YOU that included nelson and i simply responded. at least i’m honest enough to admit that in that circumstance its subjective.
the seat for crittenden was vacated before the election. still we can exclude him if you wish.
edward bradford in 1852. the democrat senate let his nomination lapse.
you are right about fuller, cj is different though and fullers is the precedent for cj’s. it happened once after that too. i’ve said that from the beginning.
Yawzzers…
What time did it happen after that?
So the precedent is now an associate justice seat that is vacated during the calendar year of a presidential election where the President and Senate are of different parties and the nomination occurs prior to the election.
It has happened exactly once.
1 Like
always has been. chief justice is a different position. pretty sure Johnson tried to elevate fortas in 1968. he did not get a vote, but that was a different animal. I will accept the precedent for cj is to vote (never disputed that). I was including fuller as the -1, however, since it is cj, then I can say that 100% of scotus vacancies (excluding cj) that have occurred in the last year of a presidency have been treated exactly the same. none have ever gotten a vote.
Who started it with Article III judges other than SCOTUS?
So, when you say 100%, it’s one out of one. Is that correct?
Didn’t you claim it was 17 times or something?
1 Like
No, not false. A precedent is not a precedent when there are exceptions to the precedent.
Yes, what happened in 1828 was not the same set of circumstances as 2016. Glad you finally recognize that!
50-50 means a precedent, apparently.
Once, nearly 200 years ago, is apparently all that is needed to set precedent.
Amazing how the parameters, and numbers of times the alleged precedent has been set, keeps changing, isn’t it?
This seems pretty prescient in retrospect eh?
