You’re comparing apples and oranges, by your own admission. There is no precedent.
Has there been a single instance of a nominee from a president’s last year becoming a justice since 1828?
It didn’t stop Tyler from getting Samuel Nelson approved in 1845 (as a lame duck no less)
It didn’t stop Hayes in 1880 (also as a lame duck).
It didn’t stop Cleveland in 1888.
You sure this is a precedent? Seems they only follow it about every other time it happens.
Do bad he has to attempt to justify McConnell’s dereliction of duty by going back 120-200 years. Sad really.
.>>>>
I know.
SCOTUS also doesn’t have the authority to ignore the origination clause or change the meaning of words, but there you go.
1 Like
lol, still in denial there are no apples and oranges. there is only scotus vacancies that open in the final year of a presidency when the senate is held by the opposing party. the result in votes allowed is 100% - 1.
true, but monkeying with the powers of a separate branch like this, ain’t gonna happen.
[quote=“Ben_Natuf, post:227, topic:11706, full:true”]
lol, still in denial there are no apples and oranges. there is only scotus vacancies that open in the final year of a presidency when the senate is held by the opposing party. the result in votes not allowed is 100% - 1.
[/quote]…
Sure it will. As soon as the conditions are right.
Straight up not true.
1 Like
The amount of caveats that have to be throw in order to “establish” your “precedent” is truly laughable.
I mean, if you throw in caveats, conditions, ifs/ands/buts, hold your breath for 20 seconds, wait for the next full moon, and look in the mirror while saying bloody mary 3 times, then sure a precedent exists. Or something.
This is a justification, not a precedent.
too funny. there are no caveats.
seat opened in the last year of presidency, senate majority from opposing party.
100% -1
that’s precedent
A single incident of a thing over a 150 years ago, when the process wasn’t even the same, is not precedent.
Apples and oranges, like I said before.
single incident? lol. the fact that there were no seats vacated in similar circumstances for quite some time does not change the precedent. its precedent until its not. as of this moment, its still precedent. and its not a single incident. 100% -1
150 years old happening under wholly different circumstances, procedures, and processes.
Not a precedent.
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?
