Selective amnesia regarding Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement. [I Got Something To Say]

It seems some people have forgotten how Obama's nomination for the supreme court in 2016 was ignored by the Senate as they considered that the next president should fill the vacsncy and now are calling for a replacement to occur before the election.
Will the hypocrisy ever end?

[quote] On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. The Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on this nomination made during the last year of Obama's presidency, with the Republican majority insisting that the next elected president should fill the vacancy. Senate Republicans' unprecedented refusal to consider the nomination was considered highly controversial. Garland's nomination lasted 293 days and expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress. The seat Garland was nominated for was eventually filled by Neil Gorsuch, appointed by President Donald Trump [/quote]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

PrivateHell · M

Selective memory is right... it seems you (and many others) keep conveniently "forgetting" the rule you are discussing was actually introduced in 1996 by not just Democrats, but none other than professional second banana himself, Joe Biden. It's name in the Senate is the "Biden rule" for this reason.

You also "forget" that the rule leaves it up to the Majority Leader to decide if a nominee is to be confirmed or held over during a Presidential election year.

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@PrivateHell so what's your opinion? Should a replacement be made before the election?

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@PrivateHell There is no Biden rule, it was just an informal proposal in a speech - you're formalizing it unnecessarily and injecting new legalisms into it.

Biden's totally hypothetical proposal was actually pretty simple - wait until after the election or appoint a moderate. At the time, nobody paid attention. Tbh pretty sure most would be relatively comfortable with this.

PrivateHell · M

@EuphoricTurtle I think it should. And yes, I will admit that it's because the election is not guaranteed, so this is our best chance to protect the Constitution as it stands now.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@PrivateHell Those kinds of dirty tactics make it logical for the democrats to punish them if they win the presidency and the senate, something that is a possibility here. It's amazing that we are at a point where a credible threat of court packing actually makes conventional sense.

PrivateHell · M

@QuixoticSoul Amazing how it became "informal" each time the GOP has issued it. But, this is exactly what the country has come to expect from both sides. "Rules for thee, but none for me." Perhaps this is why Congress approval ratings remain the lowest in history.

PrivateHell · M

@QuixoticSoul lie to me and tell me that if the roles were reversed right now, the Dems would not be packing the court. We all know they would be. The difference is, the Constitution would be toilet paper by November.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@PrivateHell If the roles were reversed, Democrats would have held a vote for the Garland-analogue in '16. They are way less comfortable pushing norms than the GOP has been recently.

And yes, highly informal - Biden more or less mused about the future in a speech, not even in context of a nomination. How many times has the GOP issued it exactly?