Same thing that the Democrats were screaming over Garland after they had shut down the appointment of Bush's federal court appointees and made a circus out of the Bork nomination. Two sides of the same coin.
Let's amend the relevant part of your post. Anthony Kennedy retired Antonin Scalia unexpectedly passed away. Under the U.S. Constitution, the POTUS has the duty of nominating his replacement. There are to be 9 justices. The Senate has a duty to confirm or deny the POTUS's nominee. It would actually be irresponsible for the Senate to delay the confirmation in lieu of the election. Do you agree that for close to a year, under the leadership of Mitch McConnell the Senate acted irresponsibly in 2016 by not even considering the nomination of Merrick Garland? In the case of Brett Kavanaugh the Senate is actually holding hearings. By the way the so called "Biden rule" which McConnell has cited for his rationale was never a formal rule. Biden made his statement in June of 1992, based on the hypothetical situation in which a conservative Republican justice would retire to give then President George H.W. Bush, who was trailing in the polls at the time, the opportunity to nominate a replacement for the hypothetical retired justice. In other words, Biden's statement was a response to a potential manipulation of the system which, in fact, never occurred. The vacancy created by the death of Scalia wasn't even close.
Okay. If that's your feeling, feel free to condemn McConnell and the Republicans for refusing to confirm a ton of judges during Obama's final year in office. If you do that, I'll tip my cap to you and say that you're being fair all around.
The point is that if the hearings really were so supposedly out of line, they would have made more ripples. Obviously the Democrats put on something of a show for their constituents, but that hardly makes it a "hit job." Again, he would have been easily confirmed, just like Gorsuch, if not for the sexual assault stuff blowing up.
Both sides have played it for sure at the USSC level. I could be wrong but not aware of all appointments being shut down at all levels resulting in a backlog of 150 appointments to make. That's pretty signiificant.
No, we don't. Why not? How many Supreme Court openings existed that provided precedent that Presidents didn't get to nominate people in Year 4? So if the Democrats manage to push this into Year 4 of Trump, they shouldn't have to deal with any more nominees?
There was nothing wrong with Garland and he would have easily been confirmed if it wasn't an election year. He was selected specifically because he was a moderate and there was little the Republicans could oppose given they didn't control who was put forward.
So when its a Dem president and a Pub senate it's okay for the Pubs to put off the hearing indefinitely, but not okay when the Dems try to accomplish the exact same thing?
Agreed. I have several posts in this and other threads regarding the selective hypocrisy that occurs every day. And I excluded Garland from my comment specifically because I think there's an argument on both sides to be made, even though the "Biden rule" never really existed as a Senate rule. Hypothethical- presuming the Senate is still Republican majority after midterms (which I think it will be), what do they do when RBG comes back from xmas break in January 2020 and tenders her resignation, because the hypothetical Biden rule is now the real McConnell rule?
Harry Reid was holding up Bush's nominees in committee when they controlled the congress and later when they lost it, he was organizing filibusters to keep them out. You might remember the whole "nuclear option" controversy from back then, which is referring to that situation. I mean if we want to be really partisan too and look at the very worst example of playing politics with the court, you could attribute that to FDR and his plan to stack the court when they didn't like his New Deal laws. Fortunately that failed. George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
The Bork nomination is at least within the realm of their duties of advice and consent. They advised that Bork wasn't the type of person that should be on the Supreme Court based on his beliefs. They did so with 6 Republicans agreeing with them. That seems like it was well within the rights of the Senate and how the process should work. If Republicans wanted to argue that Garland was outside of the mainstream, as Democrats successfully did with Bork, they should have done that.
For the record, it is totally fine if you have a hyper-partisan inequitable world-view. This is a free country afterall. If that is how you are, own it and be proud of it. I can accept that your perspective and opinions are hypocritical; but don't pretend to that they are anything other than that.
If the GOP holds the senate, there is no issue. They replace her. The "Biden/McConnell rule" only gets used when the other party controls the senate and can hold up the confirmation process. I think RBG tries to hold on until Trump loses his reelection bid and President Pocahontas or whoever can appoint a similar replacement.
My suggestion to you would be to remove the politics of this and just stick to the law. That should be second nature to you, right?
I don't disagree that the Garland thing was a huge step in the wrong direction. I am just saying that it had its roots in the obstructions of the past and both parties share guilt. Personally I prefer a more balanced court that aligns with the split in the population. I don't necessarily agree with the left's jurisprudence, but to say that they always simply call balls and strikes without regard to politics and ideology would be naive.
Your suggestion is noted. Your unwillingness to condemn McConnell and the Republicans is also noted. All I asked of you is to practice what you preach, even when it isn't politically advantageous. It seems you are not willing to do that. That's fine, but it undermines the point you were making.
You may want to scroll through the rest of the guy's twitter feed. Does it not strike you as the slightest bit odd that apparently the only people who purportedly know anything negative about Brett Kavanaugh just so happen to all be politically active liberals?
Thanks. It was difficult if not impossible to get a good statistical or numeric comparison there, as they referenced multiple congresses with different issues and the only one where they provided any numbers didn't sound so bad (allowing more District Court level approvals than for Clinton or Reagan but slightly fewer Circuit Court approvals than Clinton and significantly fewer than Reagan. Not sure if anything directly compares to what happened under McConnell in Obama's last year, but the point does remain that both sides engage in these types of politics.
