Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133457
|
Posted: 20 September 2020 at 9:39am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
“Superficially”
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Wickett Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2016 Location: United States Posts: 865
|
Posted: 21 September 2020 at 3:12pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
The nomination should be handled in the normal course. Trump is the president, so he has a duty to nominate a new justice, and the senate should vote on that nominee (even if the vote occurs after the election; the process should not be rushed or delayed). If Trump's nominee is not confirmed, then the next president can nominate an alternate.
Republicans preventing a vote on Garland in 2016 was a shameful and illegitimate abuse of political power. Rather than create a precedent based on that, 2016 should be an aberration.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Brian Miller Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004 Location: United States Posts: 31229
|
Posted: 21 September 2020 at 3:49pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
No, John W. They established the precedent in 2016, but that was only because it didn’t suit them. Now, it’s in their interests so things are “different”. All they’re doing is proving how unscrupulous and hypocritical they truly are.
Edited by Brian Miller on 21 September 2020 at 3:49pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Wickett Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2016 Location: United States Posts: 865
|
Posted: 21 September 2020 at 6:14pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
I understand that. My position is that to the greatest extent possible we should avoid politicizing the judiciary.
Politics are always going to come into play during confirmation hearings, and occasionally it is ugly, but for the most part the senate has historically confirmed qualified justices in a bi-partison manner. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. So even conservatives who disagreed with her views voted to confirm her because she was qualified. There are numerous exceptions, but that is how it works MOST of the time.
Also, as Jascon Czeskleba mentioned in the other thread, McConnell is wrong. Presidents have nominated justices during election years in the past, and those nominees have been confirmed by the senate, even when the senate majority and the president were from different parties. Reagan nominating Kennedy was the most recent example.
Republicans played politics in 2016, and that was the wrong thing to do. Democrats want to play politics this time. They want the Republican's political move from 2016 to be the new precedent (at least until the next time it doesn't work in their favor).
Instead they should do the right thing now to avoid further politicizing the judiciary.
Edited by John Wickett on 21 September 2020 at 6:29pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Peter Martin Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 15973
|
Posted: 21 September 2020 at 6:40pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
In principal, I actually agree with John Wickett here. The despicable and unscrupulous move was what happened in 2016 and although it is now shameful to see all the hypocrisy, that unscrupulous move shouldn't set a precedent.
That said, Trump rushing to come up with a nominee in a week or a handful of weeks simply to get one in before the election, as opposed to doing the groundwork to arrive at a suitable candidate would also seem to come under the same bracket of repeating the unscrupulous, politically-motivated moves.
If Trump could be trusted to pick a nominee in a non-rushed, non-politically motivated manner, then that would be fair. Or to pick a candidate that was inarguably worthy.
However, Trump's last candidate was accused by multiple women of sexual assault and the American Bar Association re-opened their assessment of Kavanagh's temperament for the position following those accusations -- something that was never resolved, as the senate voted before the evaluation was due.
Furthermore, 2400+ law professors signed a letter opposing Kavanagh's confirmation, citing his 'intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner' displayed throughout his congressional testimony. This categorisation doesn't seem unfair to me based on what I saw.
Can Trump be trusted to avoid rushing it? By way of contrast, Byron White announced his retirement on 19 March 1993. Bill Clinton announced RGB's nomination -- to replace White -- on 15 June 1993. So, a full 12 weeks later. The same time-frame here would be December.
Can we trust Trump to steer clear of allowing the nomination to be largely guided by political motivations?
The democrats shouldn't play politics if Trump can be trusted to do likewise.
But we know he can't be trusted; we know he will play politics with his nomination.
Edited by Peter Martin on 21 September 2020 at 6:42pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Brian Miller Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004 Location: United States Posts: 31229
|
Posted: 21 September 2020 at 6:40pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
...They want the Republican's political move from 2016 to be the new precedent...
*******
No. They’re simply calling them on their bullshit lies and hypocrisy.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Rebecca Jansen Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018 Location: Canada Posts: 4635
|
Posted: 21 September 2020 at 7:06pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Trump/McConnell may have outsmarted themselves, the first woman they thought to honor with R B-G's seat either didn't want it, or at least not this way (a lot of people in the legal profession did respect her, including her stated wishes), or wasn't interested in agreeing to vote the way they demand on the health care act coming up for a decision. So now they're on to the next woman on the list who will be flattered as one of the very very best until she declines or refuses to take their orders. Maybe there will be no woman willing to take this seat under these conditions, or one that will in effect be stripping millions of their health coverage? And he winds up back at Ted Cruz again where he was the night Bader-Ginsburg died.
I would love to see them do themselves a mischief over these 47 days as Mr. Humphries used to say on Are You Being Served.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
|
John Wickett Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2016 Location: United States Posts: 865
|
Posted: 21 September 2020 at 8:31pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
Picks are never rushed. Judicial candidates are being evaluated on a continuous basis, so the president always has a short list. As alluded to by Rebecca, right now the president's team will be reaching out to potential nominees to gauge their interest, ask a few questions, etc. before they finalize the pick.
If a justice is actually confirmed before the election, it will be the senate that rushed the process; not the president.
I read the other day that it usually takes about 70 days to fill a vacancy on the SC.
So if this was handled in the normal way, Trump would nominate a justice, and that person would be confirmed by the senate after the election. If the nominee is not confirmed, then whoever is president at that point would nominate another candidate.
Edited by John Wickett on 21 September 2020 at 8:34pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Wickett Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2016 Location: United States Posts: 865
|
Posted: 21 September 2020 at 8:37pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
Ruth Bader Ginsburg deserves to be honored for her years of service, but it would be inappropriate to delay the process in order to honor her "dying wish." I don't want to be insensitive, but frankly, her desires regarding this are irrelevant. The process of selecting a justice, including the fact that the selection of a nominee is the job of the sitting president, is laid out in the Constitution.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Wickett Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2016 Location: United States Posts: 865
|
Posted: 21 September 2020 at 9:02pm | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Peter,
Based on his legal resume, Kavanagh was inarguably worthy when the nomination was made. There was no hint of any accusations against him until after he was announced as the pick.
If you want to argue that Trump should have replaced him at that point, that's fair. Some have argued that due to the importance of the office of SCJ, the mere accusation should be enough to disqualify a candidate.
If that's your position I disagree. We'd never be able to approve anyone as a justice, because political opponents could immediately disqualify any candidate by making unfounded accusations against them. That's why it was important that due process take its course here.
As far as that goes, you are correct that multiple women accused Kavanagh, but only Christine Ford had even a shred of credibility, and then the problem was that Kavanagh was equally credible. I thought it was a close enough call that either side could reasonably justify their vote to confirm or deny him.
I don't give any weight to those who questioned Kavanagh's temperament during the hearings. What temperament are you supposed to have when you're falsely accused of repeated systematic gang rape on national television? (I'm referring to the accusations made by Judy Leighton)
What should matter is his courtroom demeanor, which was not questioned.
Edited by John Wickett on 21 September 2020 at 9:05pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Paul Kimball Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 September 2006 Location: United States Posts: 2206
|
Posted: 21 September 2020 at 9:37pm | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
is there way just to block a topic like you block a person? I don't ever want to see politics again after the last 4 years.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Marc Baptiste Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2004 Location: United States Posts: 3655
|
Posted: 22 September 2020 at 2:19am | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
In a sane, decent world I also would like the judiciary to remain as non-politicized as possible - that includes the nominating and confirmation processes. However, we know all too well that President Trump completely threw out the "rule book" when he assumed office. We also know all too well that Senate Majority Leader McConnell and more than a few of his GOP cohorts are hypocrites of the highest order!
In other words, hopes of a non-politicized judiciary is toothpaste out of the tube - and there is no getting it back at this point. If we as liberals/progressives/Democrats take the high road and play by the old "rule book" that Trump has clearly thrown out the window, we will live to regret it for generations.
The best we can do is try our best to adhere to as much principle, sanity and decency as we CAN, while doing our best to prevent Trump and the Republicans from their scorched earth policy of governance.
Marc
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|