Kathianne
11-15-2016, 07:31 AM
Of all the arguments to vote for Trump, this was the most compelling. Ultimately one had to decide if they believed he'd appoint someone Scalia-like or not.
That time is past, he won.
Now, folks are awakening to the reality of what Obama/Reid, unharnessed partisanship, executive decrees, and uncivil Senate behaviors are likely to result in:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/14/when-trump-makes-a-supreme-court-nomination/
When Trump makes a Supreme Court nomination<section id="top-content" class="col-lg-12 col-md-12 col-sm-10 col-xs-10 col-xs-offset-1 col-sm-offset-1 col-md-offset-0 col-lg-offset-0 layout" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; min-height: 1px; float: left; width: 1080.8px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 40px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: FranklinITCProLight, HelveticaNeue, "Helvetica Neue Light", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; padding: 0px !important; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(213, 213, 213) !important;"><iframe frameborder="0" src="https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-5/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-2&p=https%3A//www.washingtonpost.com" id="google_ads_iframe_/701/wpni.opinions/blog/volokh-conspiracy_2" title="3rd party ad content" name="" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="200" height="60" data-is-safeframe="true" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; vertical-align: bottom;"></iframe>
</section>
November 14 at 1:32 PM
...
Back in 2013, after Republicans filibustered Democratic nominees as Democrats had filibustered Republican nominees (http://volokh.com/2013/11/21/time-go-nuclear/), then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked the “nuclear option,” eliminating the filibuster for lower court and executive branch nominees. As a technical matter, Reid’s move (accomplished by a simple, party-line majority vote) left the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees, but there was little question (http://volokh.com/2013/11/21/senate-goes-nuclear-expect-fallout/) that such a filibuster would not last.Just one month ago, Reid indicated that Senate Democrats — were they to obtain control of the Senate — would not allow Republicans to filibuster a Clinton-nominated Supreme Court pick. As Talking Points Memo reported: (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again)
“I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we’re going to be able to get judges done with a majority. It takes only a simple majority anymore. And, it’s clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told ’em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It’ll have to be done again,” Reid told TPM in a wide-ranging interview about his time in the Senate and his legacy.
“They mess with the Supreme Court, it’ll be changed just like that in my opinion,” Reid said, snapping his fingers together. “So I’ve set that up. I feel very comfortable with that.”
Senate Democrats may argue that there is something illegitimate about the Senate’s failure to act on a judicial nomination, in effect holding open a seat for the next president to fill. I share the view that such actions constitute bad behavior, but they are perfectly constitutional (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2823802) and quite precedented (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432030/biden-blocked-more-roberts). Numerous judicial nominees have had the misfortune of getting nominated to appellate courts within a year of a presidential election, only to have the Senate sit on its hands. Often, as occurred in 1992 (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/01/us/waiting-for-clinton-democrats-hold-up-court-confirmations.html?smid=tw-share), this is done with the express purpose of preserving vacancies for the next president.
...
That time is past, he won.
Now, folks are awakening to the reality of what Obama/Reid, unharnessed partisanship, executive decrees, and uncivil Senate behaviors are likely to result in:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/14/when-trump-makes-a-supreme-court-nomination/
When Trump makes a Supreme Court nomination<section id="top-content" class="col-lg-12 col-md-12 col-sm-10 col-xs-10 col-xs-offset-1 col-sm-offset-1 col-md-offset-0 col-lg-offset-0 layout" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; min-height: 1px; float: left; width: 1080.8px; margin-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 40px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: FranklinITCProLight, HelveticaNeue, "Helvetica Neue Light", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; padding: 0px !important; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(213, 213, 213) !important;"><iframe frameborder="0" src="https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-5/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-2&p=https%3A//www.washingtonpost.com" id="google_ads_iframe_/701/wpni.opinions/blog/volokh-conspiracy_2" title="3rd party ad content" name="" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="200" height="60" data-is-safeframe="true" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; vertical-align: bottom;"></iframe>
</section>
November 14 at 1:32 PM
...
Back in 2013, after Republicans filibustered Democratic nominees as Democrats had filibustered Republican nominees (http://volokh.com/2013/11/21/time-go-nuclear/), then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked the “nuclear option,” eliminating the filibuster for lower court and executive branch nominees. As a technical matter, Reid’s move (accomplished by a simple, party-line majority vote) left the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees, but there was little question (http://volokh.com/2013/11/21/senate-goes-nuclear-expect-fallout/) that such a filibuster would not last.Just one month ago, Reid indicated that Senate Democrats — were they to obtain control of the Senate — would not allow Republicans to filibuster a Clinton-nominated Supreme Court pick. As Talking Points Memo reported: (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again)
“I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we’re going to be able to get judges done with a majority. It takes only a simple majority anymore. And, it’s clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told ’em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It’ll have to be done again,” Reid told TPM in a wide-ranging interview about his time in the Senate and his legacy.
“They mess with the Supreme Court, it’ll be changed just like that in my opinion,” Reid said, snapping his fingers together. “So I’ve set that up. I feel very comfortable with that.”
Senate Democrats may argue that there is something illegitimate about the Senate’s failure to act on a judicial nomination, in effect holding open a seat for the next president to fill. I share the view that such actions constitute bad behavior, but they are perfectly constitutional (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2823802) and quite precedented (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432030/biden-blocked-more-roberts). Numerous judicial nominees have had the misfortune of getting nominated to appellate courts within a year of a presidential election, only to have the Senate sit on its hands. Often, as occurred in 1992 (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/01/us/waiting-for-clinton-democrats-hold-up-court-confirmations.html?smid=tw-share), this is done with the express purpose of preserving vacancies for the next president.
...