![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
GOP leader Charles Grassley in the final Bush year 2008 said "The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president's term." This of course was when there was a Democratic Senate and a GOP President, the confirmation process continued. No Democratic obstruction even though they thought it likely they would defeat McCain. And for those who like facts rather than lies, here is the list of all the Supreme Court vacancies in the last year of an administration, facing an upcoming election since 1900. Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years : SCOTUSblog The present members of the SCOTUS with all the increased scrutiny now given, averaged 71 days between nomination and confirmation. The longest time from nomination to confirmation since 1900 is the 1916 nomination of Louis Brandeis which took 125 days. Obama is the POTUS for 11 months. So either admit that the sole goal is obstruction (nothing new) or get the process going. It is not that 11 months is inadequate time to evaluate and vote. If the GOP Senators wish to vote against a nominee, that is within their right, for any reason they choose. But do your job, have the hearings, and vote. |
Quote:
Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy!!!! Your ignorance is showing!!!!!!!!! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Since you brought it up...
Quote:
|
Quote:
But, I was correct when I said he was NOT nominated until 1987. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'll say this again, for those that have a hard time understanding facts. There has NOT been a supreme court justice NOMINATED in an election year in over 80 years. Nomination people, not confirmed. There is a big difference. If you check back, you will see that those that were confirmed in an election year, were also nominated the year before. It is a long process, taking several months ins some cases.
|
Quote:
|
On July 27, 2007, Schumer told his ACS audience:
" How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? … [F]or the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances." |
"...with a unanimous declaration by the Supreme Court that the president violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed three commissioners to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief recess of the Senate"
Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by
DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.