NDL Forum

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:08 pm
Anyone else is what I'm saying that complex? Am I not being clear?

History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament. It has never happened once in all of American history.

shel311 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:28 am So...what is everyone crying about then if this is the historical precedent through all of time?

History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament. It has never happened once in all of American history.

Crowes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:21 pm I posted this earlier obviously no one read it but Shelly jumps all in the conservative nation review take on the situation....

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supr ... ion-years/

According to the article above there is no overwhelming precedent like that georgie's article is trying to assert. You have to all the way back to the 1800s to find anything to resemble what the republicans did to Obama. From 1900 to 2016 all supreme court nominations went thru like normal regardless of if it was a election year. Even had one or two that had the president and senate from different parties and they still got confirmed.

So it all boils down to the republicans created a precedent in 2016 and now don't wanna be held to the same standard. It is what it is

dakshdar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:46 pm In summary, both sides stopped working together a long time ago and it sucks.

dakshdar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:46 pm In summary, both sides stopped working together a long time ago and it sucks.

Crowes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:21 pm I posted this earlier obviously no one read it but Shelly jumps all in the conservative nation review take on the situation....

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supr ... ion-years/

According to the article above there is no overwhelming precedent like that georgie's article is trying to assert. You have to all the way back to the 1800s to find anything to resemble what the republicans did to Obama. From 1900 to 2016 all supreme court nominations went thru like normal regardless of if it was a election year. Even had one or two that had the president and senate from different parties and they still got confirmed.

So it all boils down to the republicans created a precedent in 2016 and now don't wanna be held to the same standard. It is what it is

shel311 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:35 pm We don't know where shit will stand next year but Crowes has the next 50 years pegged.

Crowes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:32 pm So you'll be ok when they do figure out the importance of the courts then proceed to expand and pack the supreme court?

You guys really do vote in troves huh? 6 outta the last 7 presidential elections you guys have lost the vote count. I think the Dems will have the last laugh soon enough tho.... Thas why for me personally im not really that bent outta shape over this or if trump wins again I'll happily trade 4 more years of Trump to get next 50 years or so of my life with liberals in control.

Crowes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:49 am Changing the goal line when it's convenient seems to be exactly where both political parties are at in this environment.

shel311 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:35 pm We don't know where shit will stand next year but Crowes has the next 50 years pegged.