You may be happy he is your senator, but he should follow his own rules. If he required a newly elected President to decide an appointee after one election, he should do the same for the next election.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Do you believe that ProVobis?
As I recall, the “rule” he asserted was regarding a Presidential election year for a second term president. That is clearly not the case here. So he isn’t breaking the rule.
Yes, cheaters do this sort of thing.
What, if anything, is FAKE in this article?
I’m not finding any “rule” about not giving a Supreme Court nominee a hearing in the Senate during a presidential election year.
nymag.com
It doesn’t matter about a lame duck president. A nominee was selected by the president, the senate needed to have a hearing to determine if the nominee was qualified for the SC justice position.
www.wgbh.org
www.washingtonexaminer.com
That was the talking point, as I recall (even with a specific mention of Obama being ineligible for re-election). Indeed, that’s noted in several of the links you posted, Obama being a lame duck. But whether it was an established “rule” beforehand or not, the point was that that was the reasoning in the talking points, and thus to put someone on the Supreme Court this year wouldn’t be a violation of it, because Trump is running for re-election.JSRG:
I’m not finding any “rule” about not giving a Supreme Court nominee a hearing in the Senate during a presidential election year.
Setting aside the fact the Declaration of Independence has no legal force in the United States, and the fact that was just one complaint (the point of the Declaration of Independence was to give a big list of complaints to make their case), this still isn’t applicable. This refers to King George refusing his “royal assent” (the equivalent of a president signing a bill into law, though though I believe there was no veto opportunity) to laws that would allow the colonists to set up their own judicial system. One has to strain mightily to find a connection between the two outside of them involving judges.
The Senate would not, and count not, give their “Assent to Laws.” Royal assent doesn’t exist in the United States. Even if we want to consider it broadly as the passing of laws, there isn’t any law to be passed here.
The Supreme Court doesn’t need nine members to function. Indeed, it started with six, later raised to seven, and then only raised to nine in 1847. (it was later raised to 10 before being brought back down to 9)
The article’s title makes a claim… that it doesn’t work out. The Senate’s Court blockade has never happened before? It totally happened! Yes, it was a long time ago, but it did happen, when Millard Fillmore nominated Edward Bradford in an election year, and the Senate simply refused to take any action whatsoever on his nominee or the other people he attempted to nominate subsequently for the position. The election happened, Franklin Pierce won, and the Senate approved his choice.
Who cares? That was back in 1973. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have changed a lot since then. Most specifically, back then each of the two parties was more inwardly split on the issue of abortion; that is hardly the case now.
As I mentioned before:
It was affirmed by a Full Republican Court in 1992. Gorsuch mentioned that it was affirmed at his hearings.
Roe v. Wade was, in truth, not really “affirmed.” Its “central holding” was affirmed but it changed some of the underlying tests which resulted in abortion regulations being allowed that would have been flat-out denied under Roe v. Wade. That’s why Blackmun dissented, arguing they should adhere to the Roe standard and strike down all of the laws in question (the plurality under the new standard struck down some and upheld others).JSRG:
It was affirmed by a Full Republican Court in 1992.
Has a candidate ever stated in their hearing that they would overturn an existing precedent? (discredited cases like Buck v. Bell don’t count)
Thanks to Reagan’s ability to take the Evangelical vote away from Carter, in spite of Reagan’s having signed a very pro-abortion bill when he was governor in California. Go figure.
And he was correct. But that doesn’t mean anything about how he would rule on a case.
Yes, I agree that the senate can refuse to appoint a nominee. In fact, the senate can reject every nominee until they determine a nominee is qualified through the selection process.
Reagan did sign the bill, to be able to exclude some more radical provisions (which he would not have been able to do had he vetoed and the legislature overridden the veto), and not realizing that the mental health exception would be so widely misused.