Merrick Garland - the Forgotten Supreme Court Nominee (2016)

[DonRocks]

This is not a partisan post, and I'd be writing the *exact* same thing if the parties were reversed - of that, you have my word of honor.

Justice Scalia passed away in early Feb, 2016, and President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy, only to have the majority party refuse to vote on him, because 'the country should wait-and-see if there will be a change in party in the Presidency.'

I'm sorry, but this is the biggest pile of partisan BS I've seen in a long time. How long is a President's second term, 3 years and 1 month? Suppose all other Presidential functions were locked down for the final *11 months* of a term? How well would that go over?

Forgetting parties - because this (at least, in theory) has nothing to do with either party, is it fair that the President can't nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacant seat because he has "only" 11 months left in his term?

If either party did this, I'd be crying foul, and I think it's the biggest boatload of partisanship I've seen since the election. It's wrong on every single level that I can think of.

Dissenting opinions are welcome. I groused about it when it was happening, and I'm still grousing about it. 

And if it makes my position any more credible, I'm still grousing about Robert Bork, who fully deserved to be voted onto the Supreme Court, and was rejected entirely because of partisan politics.

One day, sometime in the distant future, two things will happen:

1) One party will do something because it's the correct thing to do, even though it hurts their party.

(and here's the important part)

2) The other party will take note of this, and *also* do something because it's the correct thing to do, even though it hurts their party.

That is the moment when you will know there's a chance that our partisan, grab-what-you-can, when-you-can, political system might work - but not before this happens.

[DonRocks]

Hypothesis: No President should be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice after March 15th during a Presidential election year.

Discuss: Why or why not?

[sheldman]

5 hours ago, DonRocks said:

Hypothesis: No President should be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice after March 15th during a Presidential election year.

Discuss: Why or why not?

Any such rule would require a constitutional amendment. (Short of a constitutional amendment, the Senate could adopt a rule that it won't consider a nominee put forward after some arbitrary date in an election year; but any such rule could be changed to fit the political winds of the moment, so it wouldn't really be a reliable rule.) And if we want to think about possible constitutional amendments to reduce the influence of past presidents over the future by reducing the longevity or number of their Supreme Court appointments, let's think about those in bigger terms. The obvious proposal would be fixed terms.

[Steve R.]

I can think of more reasons why no President should be allowed to nominate one in the first 6 months: fresh off the campaign, with political "debts" fresh in everyones' minds, not yet comfortable with his/her new power/position...

The last part of a President's term would, in my mind, be the best time given the President's knowledge base, lowered immediate vested interest in rulings & interest in legacy.

Especially, since its only a nomination and those with ongoing responsibility can then do their thing.

[Al Dente]

As long as the Prez is the Prez, he or she can do their job.

[DonRocks]

On 10/26/2017 at 10:01 AM, Al Dente said:

As long as the Prez is the Prez, he or she can do their job.

One would think. Should we disallow declaring war on a country if we're attacked after Mar 15? 

In my lifetime, I know of no greater transgression against the American political system (the President had almost *ten months* left in his term).

I remember in late 1991 when Bill Clinton got elected (and Democrats also won control of the House and Senate), and some reporter asked him (I'm approximating this situation entirely from memory) what this country should do if threatened during the President's lame-duck tenure, between Election Day and Inauguration Day. Clinton responded, 'Foreign nations are going to deal with our country's *one* President: George Bush.'

The Senate Majority Leader did this because he thought he could get away with it, and he did.

[Al Dente]

1 hour ago, DonRocks said:

In my lifetime, I know of no greater transgression against the American political system (the President had almost *ten months* left in his term).

Agreed. It was appalling and the repercussions of McConnell and crew getting what they wanted by upending the rules will haunt us for decades.

And remember, the transgressors had plenty of praise for Garland until they suddenly didn't.

Mar 16, 2016 - "Republicans Have Repeatedly Praised Merrick Garland" by Eugene Scott on cnn.com

[DonRocks]

34 minutes ago, Al Dente said:

Agreed. It was appalling and the repercussions of McConnell and crew getting what they wanted by upending the rules will haunt us for decades.

And remember, the transgressors had plenty of praise for Garland until they suddenly didn't.

Mar 16, 2016 - "Republicans Have Repeatedly Praised Merrick Garland" by Eugene Scott on cnn.com

Is there a reason that Supreme Court justices don't have term limits? (I don't remember where this is spelled out in the Constitution, or the reason it was established as such - it just seems like it would solve a lot of problems - even a twelve-year term, or something like that. Plus, that way, the American public would know in advance when certain judges would be leaving the bench, and why *not* know that?)

[I know I may sound like I'm against one party with these posts, but I assure everyone I'm not. It's the action itself that I find deplorable, and I'd be saying the exact same thing no matter who perpetrated it.]

[Al Dente]

1 hour ago, DonRocks said:

Is there a reason that Supreme Court justices don't have term limits? (I don't remember where this is spelled out in the Constitution, or the reason it was established as such - it just seems like it would solve a lot of problems - even a twelve-year term, or something like that. Plus, that way, the American public would know in advance when certain judges would be leaving the bench, and why *not* know that?)

[I know I may sound like I'm against one party with these posts, but I assure everyone I'm not. It's the action itself that I find deplorable, and I'd be saying the exact same thing no matter who perpetrated it.]

Some good points here:

"Why the Supreme Court Needs 18-Year Term Limits" by Ben Feuer on latimes.com

I wholeheartedly support term limits for the Court. Having octogenarians who haven't had any exposure to the real world in decades making such critical longterm decisions is just plain dumb. For instance, most of the current Court has virtually no understanding of current technology. I can't imagine my wise grandfather making an informed decision about net neutrality. Also, when you get to a certain age, who knows how sharp your mind is? I'm in my freakin' early 50's and the ol' noggin ain't 100% as it once (arguably) was. 

And as far as I can tell, the Constitution doesn't say anything about lifetime tenure:

Quote

Article III

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Once again, that ancient document just doesn't line up with modern reality. WTF is "good behavior" in this context? In my opinion, these lifetime gigs are a form of tyranny. 

And yes, I'd be just as likely to throw out RBG as any of the others despite my leftie views.

[DonRocks]

On 4/2/2017 at 12:18 AM, DonRocks said:

This is not a partisan post, and I'd be writing the *exact* same thing if the parties were reversed - of that, you have my word of honor.

Justice Scalia passed away in early Feb, 2016, and President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy, only to have the majority party refuse to vote on him, because 'the country should wait-and-see if there will be a change in party in the Presidency.'

I'm sorry, but this is the biggest pile of partisan BS I've seen in a long time. How long is a President's second term, 3 years and 1 month? Suppose all other Presidential functions were locked down for the final *11 months* of a term? How well would that go over?

Forgetting parties - because this (at least, in theory) has nothing to do with either party, is it fair that the President can't nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacant seat because he has "only" 11 months left in his term?

If either party did this, I'd be crying foul, and I think it's the biggest boatload of partisanship I've seen since the election. It's wrong on every single level that I can think of.

And so this act of treason becomes amplified. 

Again, I would say this, loudly, had *either party* done it.

Ours is a fatally flawed Constitution - I hope that the next "Great Experiment" learns from the USA's mistakes.

[DonRocks]

On 4/2/2017 at 12:18 AM, DonRocks said:

This is not a partisan post, and I'd be writing the *exact* same thing if the parties were reversed - of that, you have my word of honor.

Justice Scalia passed away in early Feb, 2016, and President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy, only to have the majority party refuse to vote on him, because 'the country should wait-and-see if there will be a change in party in the Presidency.'

I'm sorry, but this is the biggest pile of partisan BS I've seen in a long time. How long is a President's second term, 3 years and 1 month? Suppose all other Presidential functions were locked down for the final *11 months* of a term? How well would that go over?

Forgetting parties - because this (at least, in theory) has nothing to do with either party, is it fair that the President can't nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacant seat because he has "only" 11 months left in his term?

If either party did this, I'd be crying foul, and I think it's the biggest boatload of partisanship I've seen since the election. It's wrong on every single level that I can think of.

Dissenting opinions are welcome. I groused about it when it was happening, and I'm still grousing about it. 

And if it makes my position any more credible, I'm still grousing about Robert Bork, who fully deserved to be voted onto the Supreme Court, and was rejected entirely because of partisan politics.

One day, sometime in the distant future, two things will happen:

1) One party will do something because it's the correct thing to do, even though it hurts their party.

(and here's the important part)

2) The other party will take note of this, and *also* do something because it's the correct thing to do, even though it hurts their party.

That is the moment when you will know there's a chance that our partisan, grab-what-you-can, when-you-can, political system might work - but not before this happens.

This is as good a time as any to remind people of one of the worst abuses of political power I've ever seen.

The Senate Majority Leader tweeted this today, of all days: