Ruth Bader Ginsberg died

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
I am a little surprised at the amount of people who are OK with Trump nominating a new SCJ. It is clearly against the rules, it's not even a gray area. It's wrong. Anyone who supports that kind of blatant disregard for the rules will forever forfeit their right to take exception to whatever rules the left ignores going forward, forever. Hillary's unsecured server and destruction of top secret emails? You can no longer hold that against the left. Sham impeachment circus? Not another word. Pack/expand the Supreme Court if the left gains contril of all 3 branches of gov't? You don't get to oppose any of that with a straight face.

Instead, Trump should use this as a reason to vote for him in because it's such an important issue voters are very concerned about and is a major reason why he was elected last time. America was terrified at who Hillary would have nominated, and they will feel the same about Biden.
Can you quote the "rule" it is against?
 

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
561
753
93
I believe that Cruz has his sights set on being POTUS one day, so I don't think he's a legit candidate (though I think he'd be a great justice).

Gowdy is smart and seems like a by-the-book type of person, but he's made comments in the past that sounded too pro-DC for my liking. I wouldn't select him for anything.

For SCOTUS, I hope President Trump selects Amy Coney Barrett.

For FBI Director, I hope he selects Sidney Powell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3o and starbrown

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
561
753
93
I am a little surprised at the amount of people who are OK with Trump nominating a new SCJ. It is clearly against the rules, it's not even a gray area. It's wrong. Anyone who supports that kind of blatant disregard for the rules will forever forfeit their right to take exception to whatever rules the left ignores going forward, forever. Hillary's unsecured server and destruction of top secret emails? You can no longer hold that against the left. Sham impeachment circus? Not another word. Pack/expand the Supreme Court if the left gains contril of all 3 branches of gov't? You don't get to oppose any of that with a straight face.

Instead, Trump should use this as a reason to vote for him in because it's such an important issue voters are very concerned about and is a major reason why he was elected last time. America was terrified at who Hillary would have nominated, and they will feel the same about Biden.
Can you quote the "rule" it is against?
I'll help. Please point out where it states that the POTUS cannot nominate a SCOTUS justice during an election year?

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
 

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
When we rejected Obama's choice citing an election year I guess we were full of shit?
Theeeeeerrrrrrrree we go. An admission there is no such rule. Paulryan disease is how we got to our current dystopia. Sorry, friend, 140 cities have been burned and our economy destroyed and nation bankrupted because we didn't stand up to evil. AND THE DEMS HAVE ALREADY STATED THEY ARE GOING TO TRY AND STEAL THE ELECTION THRU VOTING FRAUD.
The left (aka Dems) is an existential threat to our future. If you recall Abe Lincoln did some things far worse than this, and he saved the nation in doing so. They cheat and we leave this election up to the SCOTUS, Roberts will stab orangeman and our republic in the back.
*****************************************
Ted Cruz urges Senate to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat, warning of 'constitutional crisis' on Election Day
 
Last edited:

GretnaShawn

Graduate Assistant
Sep 28, 2010
5,612
5,138
113
I am a little surprised at the amount of people who are OK with Trump nominating a new SCJ. It is clearly against the rules, it's not even a gray area. It's wrong. Anyone who supports that kind of blatant disregard for the rules will forever forfeit their right to take exception to whatever rules the left ignores going forward, forever. Hillary's unsecured server and destruction of top secret emails? You can no longer hold that against the left. Sham impeachment circus? Not another word. Pack/expand the Supreme Court if the left gains contril of all 3 branches of gov't? You don't get to oppose any of that with a straight face.

Instead, Trump should use this as a reason to vote for him in because it's such an important issue voters are very concerned about and is a major reason why he was elected last time. America was terrified at who Hillary would have nominated, and they will feel the same about Biden.
Honest question, and truly I could be very ignorant on this, what rule? What is the rule that says that Trump can’t get a pick in before the election? Also, why was everyone on the left so mad that didn’t confirm Garland of it was against the rules? I was told he was done dirty by the right. I am honestly confused.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz

GBRforLife1

Junior
Feb 18, 2020
1,908
3,049
113
I am a little surprised at the amount of people who are OK with Trump nominating a new SCJ. It is clearly against the rules, it's not even a gray area. It's wrong. Anyone who supports that kind of blatant disregard for the rules will forever forfeit their right to take exception to whatever rules the left ignores going forward, forever. Hillary's unsecured server and destruction of top secret emails? You can no longer hold that against the left. Sham impeachment circus? Not another word. Pack/expand the Supreme Court if the left gains contril of all 3 branches of gov't? You don't get to oppose any of that with a straight face.

Instead, Trump should use this as a reason to vote for him in because it's such an important issue voters are very concerned about and is a major reason why he was elected last time. America was terrified at who Hillary would have nominated, and they will feel the same about Biden.
Waiting for a link to this "rule"
 

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
Theeeeeerrrrrrrree we go. An admission there is no such rule. Paulryan disease is how we got to our current dystopia. Sorry, friend, 140 cities have been burned and our economy destroyed and nation bankrupted because we didn't stand up to evil. AND THE DEMS HAVE ALREADY STATED THEY ARE GOING TO TRY AND STEAL THE ELECTION THRU VOTING FRAUD.
As someone else mentioned, we are in a war and losing. If you recall Abe Lincoln did some things far worse than this, and he saved the nation in doing so. They cheat and we leave this election up to the SCOTUS, Roberts will stab orangeman and our republic in the back.
Cities burn when the social contract is broken. It's irrational. It's ugly. But the story is as old as the hills. When police, the men and women meant to protect our communities, are unaccountable to the law, the disenfranchised tend to notice those sorts of things. You are making a false claims about the election. What you've written in all caps is a conservative conspiracy theory that gets the based riled. It's worked for decades, but it's overwhelming untrue. Does voter fraud exist? Yes. But the number of proven cases in minimal. Moreover, the idea that voter fraud only works in one direction is ridiculous. In fact, the party that has actually encouraged voter fraud for the upcoming election is the right, not the left. Besides, voter suppression has had a far greater impact on the outcome of elections than fraud. Lastly, Roberts is a conservative. He also possesses a brilliant legal mind. He recognizes the imperative that legal rulings are respected and enforced. The moment the courts become stacked in one direction the country runs the risk that people lose faith that the system can deliver justice. When that happens, people start ignoring the system, and they take matters into their own hands. Hence riots. Its tempting for conservatives to blame liberals, but remember Antifa isn't the only extremist group out there causing violence. This is Trump's America.
 

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
lol -
Cities burn when the social contract is broken. It's irrational. It's ugly. But the story is as old as the hills. When police, the men and women meant to protect our communities, are unaccountable to the law, the disenfranchised tend to notice those sorts of things. You are making a false claims about the election. What you've written in all caps is a conservative conspiracy theory that gets the based riled. It's worked for decades, but it's overwhelming untrue. Does voter fraud exist? Yes. But the number of proven cases in minimal. Moreover, the idea that voter fraud only works in one direction is ridiculous. In fact, the party that has actually encouraged voter fraud for the upcoming election is the right, not the left. Besides, voter suppression has had a far greater impact on the outcome of elections than fraud. Lastly, Roberts is a conservative. He also possesses a brilliant legal mind. He recognizes the imperative that legal rulings are respected and enforced. The moment the courts become stacked in one direction the country runs the risk that people lose faith that the system can deliver justice. When that happens, people start ignoring the system, and they take matters into their own hands. Hence riots. Its tempting for conservatives to blame liberals, but remember Antifa isn't the only extremist group out there causing violence. This is Trump's America.
Sorry, but your side has made it clear: "Give us unearned power or we will harm you"
That's not America. That's not rational. That's a failed ideology that should've died with the 20th century.
 

GBRforLife1

Junior
Feb 18, 2020
1,908
3,049
113
Cities burn when the social contract is broken. It's irrational. It's ugly. But the story is as old as the hills. When police, the men and women meant to protect our communities, are unaccountable to the law, the disenfranchised tend to notice those sorts of things. You are making a false claims about the election. What you've written in all caps is a conservative conspiracy theory that gets the based riled. It's worked for decades, but it's overwhelming untrue. Does voter fraud exist? Yes. But the number of proven cases in minimal. Moreover, the idea that voter fraud only works in one direction is ridiculous. In fact, the party that has actually encouraged voter fraud for the upcoming election is the right, not the left. Besides, voter suppression has had a far greater impact on the outcome of elections than fraud. Lastly, Roberts is a conservative. He also possesses a brilliant legal mind. He recognizes the imperative that legal rulings are respected and enforced. The moment the courts become stacked in one direction the country runs the risk that people lose faith that the system can deliver justice. When that happens, people start ignoring the system, and they take matters into their own hands. Hence riots. Its tempting for conservatives to blame liberals, but remember Antifa isn't the only extremist group out there causing violence. This is Trump's America.
Yeah totally. Trump made local cops not accountable to the law. You're a farce.
 

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
lol -


Sorry, but your side has made it clear: "Give us unearned power or we will harm you"
That's not America. That's not rational. That's a failed ideology that should've died with the 20th century.
Who are you quoting? Or are you channeling your imagined avatar of a liberal?
 

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
Yeah totally. Trump made local cops not accountable to the law. You're a farce.
I didn't say Trump made cops unaccountable. The problem is baked into the system, after all. But Trump continues dumping gas on the fire, then fans the flames. Has he made an effort to bridge the divide? No, he hasn't. He mentions Antifa, yet says nothing about the extreme right militias that absolutely add to this toxic stew of violence. Anyway, I didn't insult the many false claims you've made. You have a different opinion, and that is fine. But when you resort to insults you loo a fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBeav815

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
I didn't say Trump made cops unaccountable. The problem is baked into the system, after all. But Trump continues dumping gas on the fire, then fans the flames. Has he made an effort to bridge the divide? No, he hasn't. He mentions Antifa, yet says nothing about the extreme right militias that absolutely add to this toxic stew of violence. Anyway, I didn't insult the many false claims you've made. You have a different opinion, and that is fine. But when you resort to insults you loo a fool.
NebraskaRealitydenial, you have done nothing but remind people that TDS is a much bigger threat to the world than Covid-19
 

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
561
753
93
I didn't say Trump made cops unaccountable. The problem is baked into the system, after all. But Trump continues dumping gas on the fire, then fans the flames. Has he made an effort to bridge the divide? No, he hasn't. He mentions Antifa, yet says nothing about the extreme right militias that absolutely add to this toxic stew of violence. Anyway, I didn't insult the many false claims you've made. You have a different opinion, and that is fine. But when you resort to insults you loo a fool.
- "An effort to bridge the divide"? In order to "bridge the divide" the two sides need to share something meaningful in common. What, exactly, would that be?

- "Extreme right militias"? Really? We have left-wing groups like Antifa and BLM burning down cities, rioting, looting and killing people (to include police officers), and you seriously buy into this fabricated problem with "extreme right militias"?

I'd be careful throwing around the term "fool" when you're on here mindlessly regurgitating the nonsense the media has fed you.
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,401
7,743
113
Chicago Suburbs
Honest question, and truly I could be very ignorant on this, what rule? What is the rule that says that Trump can’t get a pick in before the election? Also, why was everyone on the left so mad that didn’t confirm Garland of it was against the rules? I was told he was done dirty by the right. I am honestly confused.
It wasn't technically against the rules-as-written but it was unprecedented what the GOP did when Scalia died. They said in March of Obama's final year that they intended to block the nomination until after the election. Which they did by refusing to meet with the new nominee in committee and promising to filibuster any actual vote of approval.

Bear in mind the term isn't over in November, the POTUS sits until January. They declared before even seeing any nominee that they would block whoever it was because they could. Let's not pretend that if the roles were reversed conservatives wouldn't be absolutely furious if the dems had said they're blocking a nominee sight unseen so they can seat a liberal if/when they get the White House.

It was perhaps not surprising but was widely regarded as dirty pool and contrary to the intentions of the policy that sitting Presidents nominate justices. They declared that with 9-10 months left in his term that President no longer has the right to nominate a justice. Pretty obviously 1) Because they wanted that seat to stay conservative and 2) Because they couldn't be stopped from doing so

Obama tried to call their bluff by nominating a moderate in Garland who Bush had famously endorsed years prior. Garland was, in my opinion, the best nominee. Better even than a liberal to carry the intention of the SCOTUS forward much though I am pretty socially liberal. That body is meant to deliberate and compromise, to pass down decisions that don't overtly favor one stripe over another. Stacking the court in either direction is terribly dangerous IMO.

Fast forward to 2017 when the GOP turned around and made it so you can't filibuster a SCOTUS nominee and block them going through. So those particular chickens are not Harry Reid's, they're Lindsay Graham's. He headed up that effort.

Hence the reason that so many people now want to say, "OHHHHHH no, you guys set the new precedent, you don't get to nominate anyone." Well the problem is the rules have been changed and the dems can't stop them like the GOP stopped Obama.

My understanding is that as it sits, the 53-47 GOP majority Senate cannot be stopped from confirming a justice prior to the election if they vote the party line. It would require 4 GOP defections because in the event of a 50-50 tie Pence can break the tie and confirm their justice.

I will be shocked if they don't announce an archconservative nominee on Monday. I have no indication that the party nor the president has any fear of the American public nor concern for any majority opinion on any matter. They have their agenda and they have been much better than the dems the last couple decades at getting their goals enacted by any means necessary.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gomerxx

HBK4life

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Jan 24, 2004
18,210
16,975
113
North of Lincoln South of Heaven
I didn't say Trump made cops unaccountable. The problem is baked into the system, after all. But Trump continues dumping gas on the fire, then fans the flames. Has he made an effort to bridge the divide? No, he hasn't. He mentions Antifa, yet says nothing about the extreme right militias that absolutely add to this toxic stew of violence. Anyway, I didn't insult the many false claims you've made. You have a different opinion, and that is fine. But when you resort to insults you loo a fool.
Maybe you should head back to the shadows and just reading posts for years. Lol
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz

GBRforLife1

Junior
Feb 18, 2020
1,908
3,049
113
I didn't say Trump made cops unaccountable. The problem is baked into the system, after all. But Trump continues dumping gas on the fire, then fans the flames. Has he made an effort to bridge the divide? No, he hasn't. He mentions Antifa, yet says nothing about the extreme right militias that absolutely add to this toxic stew of violence. Anyway, I didn't insult the many false claims you've made. You have a different opinion, and that is fine. But when you resort to insults you loo a fool.
I'm sorry I was wrong, being a farce would give you too much credibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: starbrown

GretnaShawn

Graduate Assistant
Sep 28, 2010
5,612
5,138
113
It wasn't technically against the rules but it was unprecedented what the GOP did when Scalia died. They said in March of Obama's final year that they intended to block the nomination until after the election. Which they did by refusing to meet with the new nominee in committee and promising to filibuster any actual vote of approval.

It was perhaps not surprising but was widely regarded as dirty pool and contrary to the intentions of the policy that sitting Presidents nominate justices. They declared that with 9-10 months left on the clock that President no longer has the right to nominate a justice. Pretty obviously 1) Because they wanted that seat to stay conservative and 2) Because they couldn't be stopped from doing so

Obama tried to call their bluff by nominating a moderate in Garland who Bush had famously endorsed years prior. Garland was, in my opinion, the best nominee. Better even than a liberal to carry the intention of the SCOTUS forward much though I am pretty socially liberal. That body is meant to deliberate and compromise, to pass down decisions that don't overtly favor one stripe over another. Stacking the court in either direction is terribly dangerous IMO.

Fast forward to 2017 when the GOP turned around and made it so you can't filibuster a SCOTUS nominee and block them going through. So those particular chickens are not Harry Reid's, they're Lindsay Graham's. He headed up that effort.

Hence the reason that so many people now want to say, "OHHHHHH no, you guys set the new precedent, you don't get to nominate anyone." Well the problem is the rules have been changed and the dems can't stop them like the GOP stopped Obama.

My understanding is that as it sits, the 53-47 GOP majority Senate cannot be stopped from confirming a justice prior to the election if they vote the party line. It would require 4 GOP defections because in the event of a 50-50 tie Pence can break the tie and confirm their justice.

I will be shocked if they don't announce an archconservative nominee on Monday. I have no indication that the party nor the president has any fear of the American public nor concern for any majority opinion on any matter. They have their agenda and they have been much better than the dems the last couple decades at getting their goals enacted by any means necessary.
It funny when you hear from the other side sometimes. I often hear that the left wins by any means necessary and the GOP does a terrible job of never getting their agenda accomplished. It’s interesting to see that both sides always thinks that the other is dirty and that they never get major victories.
 
Sep 7, 2018
467
470
63
She was the one playing politics and should be replaced. She's been non functioning for a couple years now and didn't allow the Court to function as it should. She intentionally stayed on to play politics.

The people should have a day? Yes, we should...we still have a few more months to HAVE our say.

Bring on the Appointee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
Honest question, and truly I could be very ignorant on this, what rule? What is the rule that says that Trump can’t get a pick in before the election? Also, why was everyone on the left so mad that didn’t confirm Garland of it was against the rules? I was told he was done dirty by the right. I am honestly confused.

STRAIGHT FROM THE SCOTUS WEBSITE: https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter

Posted Sat, February 13th, 2016 11:55 pm


In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.
The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.
President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.
On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.
On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.
On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.
In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.
On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.
And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year. That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.
 

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
- "An effort to bridge the divide"? In order to "bridge the divide" the two sides need to share something meaningful in common. What, exactly, would that be?

- "Extreme right militias"? Really? We have left-wing groups like Antifa and BLM burning down cities, rioting, looting and killing people (to include police officers), and you seriously buy into this fabricated problem with "extreme right militias"?

I'd be careful throwing around the term "fool" when you're on here mindlessly regurgitating the nonsense the media has fed you.
Please, another false claim, stirred by extreme right media. BLM is not burning down cities. These are easily disproved falsehoods. I'm not the one regurgitating nonsense. I'm basing my information on facts. You don't like the left, so you allow your mind to be easily manipulated by whatever rightwing sources you digest. I'm not arguing that every single protest involving BLM has been peaceful. Nor am I saying that every single BLM protester is innocent of destroying property. What I am saying is that overwhelmingly BLM protesters have not broken any laws. This can and has been verified. Instead, rightwingers like you have taken the incidents where a BLM has engaged in violence, and conflated those incidents with Antifa. Suddenly, to your mind, it's all evil and the entirety of the country is on fire. Yet you make no mention of right wing militias, which have also contributed significantly to the violence. It's willful act of bias, which is made worse by your accusations that others are biased. Regarding your first question, what do we all have to share? How about we're all Americans, and presumably we all want a fairer, inclusive and prosperous nation. I am going to assume the right wants those things.
 

huskernaut

First Team All-Big Ten
Nov 19, 2002
3,578
631
113
When we rejected Obama's choice citing an election year I guess we were full of shit?
the same obama who said we could keep out doctor, premiums would be reduced by 2500, deductibles would not change, all the while garnering control of 20% of the economy. Time to play by their rules, especially with the way Trump has been treated his first term.
 

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
STRAIGHT FROM THE SCOTUS WEBSITE: https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter

Posted Sat, February 13th, 2016 11:55 pm


In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.
The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.
President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.
On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.
On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.
On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.
In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.
On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.
And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year. That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.
Yes, but only twice has a vacancy occurred closer to a presidential election, and neither case did they seat a judge. They waited until after the election to nominate and confirm. So, it would quite literally be unprecedented if they tried to push this through before the election. For the sake of comparison, it was six months before the election when Obama made his SCOTUS nomination. We are 46 days out now. At any rate, that's the problem with precedent. What goes around, come around. I don't like that stance, it's hugely why our nation is as polarized as it is today. Norms are set for a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chipotlehusker

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,401
7,743
113
Chicago Suburbs
Yes, but only twice has a vacancy occurred closer to a presidential election, and neither case did they seat a judge. They waited until after the election to nominate and confirm. So, it would quite literally be unprecedented if they tried to push this through before the election. For the sake of comparison, it was six months before the election when Obama made his SCOTUS nomination. We are 46 days out now. At any rate, that's the problem with precedent. What goes around, come around. I don't like that stance, it's hugely why our nation is as polarized as it is today. Norms are set for a reason.
The dems can't stop them, the GOP removed that ability in 2017. They'll seat a justice, just you watch them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz

cecilB

Recruiting Coordinator
Nov 1, 2001
6,309
476
83
Yeah that's over the top. I don't agree with hardly a thing she's been in the majority on but she is a person of our history and I'll give her my respect
Wow, the majority of SCOTUS decisions are by unanimous consent. You sure about this, or just the dog whistle issues that periodically reach them?
 

RedMyMind

Blackshirt
Aug 22, 2017
3,427
3,395
113
But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent." https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/6244...errick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
Reparations for all the riots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: starbrown

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
Please, another false claim, stirred by extreme right media. BLM is not burning down cities. These are easily disproved falsehoods. I'm not the one regurgitating nonsense. I'm basing my information on facts. You don't like the left, so you allow your mind to be easily manipulated by whatever rightwing sources you digest. I'm not arguing that every single protest involving BLM has been peaceful. Nor am I saying that every single BLM protester is innocent of destroying property. What I am saying is that overwhelmingly BLM protesters have not broken any laws. This can and has been verified. Instead, rightwingers like you have taken the incidents where a BLM has engaged in violence, and conflated those incidents with Antifa. Suddenly, to your mind, it's all evil and the entirety of the country is on fire. Yet you make no mention of right wing militias, which have also contributed significantly to the violence. It's willful act of bias, which is made worse by your accusations that others are biased. Regarding your first question, what do we all have to share? How about we're all Americans, and presumably we all want a fairer, inclusive and prosperous nation. I am going to assume the right wants those things.
Name the "autonomous" cities created by the extreme right? Oh that's right, you can't.
The problem is your side thinks CHAZ/CHOP is ... "the summer of love" ... sorry, normal people don't want what you're selling.


STILL NOT TIRED OF WINNING
 

kaz36

Administrator
Moderator
May 2, 2005
28,153
20,485
113
I guess I don’t understand why this should be an issue. It is a sitting presidents job to nominate a SCJ to fill an open spot. Right now the sitting president is Trump. It is also on the senate to vet that candidate and approve or disapprove in a timely manner. I would say this no matter who the president is and have no idea why that president would want to wait to let the next person do it. I also think what the senate did in 2016 was completely wrong. Supreme Court spots should not be left open as it is a very important part of our government and one of the three branches.
 

54T

Newbie
Aug 20, 2020
74
206
33
The dems can't stop them, the GOP removed that ability in 2017. They'll seat a justice, just you watch them.
Let’s not pretend the Dems wouldn’t do the exact same thing if the shoe were on the other foot. If they had controlled the Senate in 2016, they would definitely have seated a Justice in an election year - and they would have had every right to do so. As Obama told us: “Elections have consequences “.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
24,452
18,500
113
When we rejected Obama's choice citing an election year I guess we were full of shit?
It was clearly politics BUT that IS the way it works now. Really it's the way it has always worked to some degree. While all of the accolades pour in for Ruth Bader Ginsburg we have to remember that she was one of the most ferociously partisan Supreme Court Justices to serve on the court. It seems only fitting that the process to replace her would be equally partisan. As Reagen and both Bushes learned though, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. It seems there's something that happens when somebody takes up permanent residence in D.C. and is given that much power.
 
Last edited:

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
24,452
18,500
113
I guess I don’t understand why this should be an issue. It is a sitting presidents job to nominate a SCJ to fill an open spot. Right now the sitting president is Trump. It is also on the senate to vet that candidate and approve or disapprove in a timely manner. I would say this no matter who the president is and have no idea why that president would want to wait to let the next person do it. I also think what the senate did in 2016 was completely wrong. Supreme Court spots should not be left open as it is a very important part of our government and one of the three branches.
I only disagree with your last part about it being completely wrong. It IS in fact a partisan process whether we like it or not. It probably became more partisan when the extreme left crucified Bork but it has always been partisan.
 

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,963
2,790
113
It was clearly politics BUT that IS the way it works now. Really it's the way it has always worked to some degree. While all of the accolades pour in for Ruth Bader Ginsburg roll in we have to remember that she was one of the most ferociously partisan Supreme Court Justices to serve on the court. It seems only fitting that the process to replace her would be equally partisan. As Reagen and both Bushes learned though, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. It seems there's something that happens when somebody takes up permanent residence in D.C. and is given that much power.
Her last words were political. That should tell us everything we need to know about how objective she was on the court. I respect the woman, but she always had a political agenda that superceded her desire to rule on the constitutionality of a case.
 

Latest posts