Sam Lowry said:
Jinx 2 said:
GrowlTowel said:
Just can't wrap your head around that Biden Rule.
God bless you.
And you just can't wrap your head around the fact that there is no "Biden rule" that extends 10 months from the election and a year from inauguation.
Under that system, any sitting president would be a lame duck almost his entire final year.
But it's a clever enough tactic--always blame Democrats for their own self-destruction (and they are good at it) than hold your own politicians responsible for their bad behavior.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/
Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.
Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today:
"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."
He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.
"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.
"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."
Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.
There have been ten Supreme Court vacancies in election years in which the president's party didn't control the Senate. Of those ten seats, none were filled before the election, three were filled after the election, and seven were left vacant until a new president took office. In at least a couple of cases, the Senate took no action for almost a year.
There have been ten nominees in election years in which the president's party did control the Senate. No less than half of those nominations were made after the election. All but one was confirmed before the next president took office.
Garland's rejection was completely normal and expected. If a vacancy arises in 2020, Republicans will likely fill it even if Trump loses the election. That too will be completely normal and expected.
https://www.afj.org/myths-vs-facts-on-scotus-vacancyMYTH: President Obama should not nominate a Supreme Court justice because he is a "lame duck" president and thus should not be allowed to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year.
FACT: President Obama is not a "lame duck" president. According to Merriam-Webster, a lame duck is "an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor." This usage has been around since the mid-nineteenth century and is the reason the Twentieth Amendment, which shortens the period between an election and the start of the next Congress and president, is referred to as the "Lame Duck Amendment." Thus, President Obama will not be a lame duck until after the November elections.
FACT: Thirteen (13) presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies during a presidential election year. Our first president, George Washington, established this precedent. In 1796, Washington nominated Samuel Chase and Oliver Ellsworth to two vacancies on the Supreme Court. In fact, Ellsworth was nominated to the Chief Justice position on the Court. The Senate immediately confirmed both nominees. Importantly, these nominations and confirmations occurred the same year that the nation faced its first truly contested presidential election after Washington announced that he would not seek a third term.
FACT: The most recent president to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year is Ronald Reagan. In 1988, the Democratically-controlled Senate unanimously confirmed Reagan's nominee to the Court, Anthony Kennedy.
FACT: The 13 presidents who have filled Supreme Court vacancies during a presidential election year are:
George Washington (1796, Justice Samuel Chase and Chief Justice Oliver Elsworth)
Thomas Jefferson (1804, Justice William Johnson)
Andrew Jackson (1836, Justice Philip Barbour and Chief Justice Roger Taney)
Abraham Lincoln (1864, Chief Justice Salmon Chase)
Ulysses S. Grant (1872, Justice Ward Hunt)
Rutherford Hayes (1880, Justice William Woods)
Grover Cleveland (1888, Justice Lucius Lamar and Chief Justice Melville Fuller)
Benjamin Harrison (1892, Justice George Shiras, Jr.)
William Taft (1912, Justice Mahlon Pitney)
Woodrow Wilson (1916, Justices Louis Brandeis and John Clarke)
Herbert Hoover (1932, Justice Benjamin Cardozo)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1940, Justice Frank Murphy)
Ronald Reagan (1988, Justice Anthony Kennedy)
FACT: Of the 112 justices that have served on the Supreme Court, 17 of them have been confirmed in a presidential election year.
FACT: The Senate has confirmed 6 Supreme Court justices who were nominated by 6 presidents during a true lame duck periodafter the incumbent president had been voted out of office and before the newly-elected president had been inaugurated. Benjamin Harrison submitted a nominee to the Senate in February 1893 after Grover Cleveland had defeated him in the 1892 elections. His nominee was nevertheless confirmed shortly thereafter. Rutherford Hayes made two nominations during his lame-duck period but only one was confirmed by the Senate. (The other nominee was confirmed after re-nomination by incoming president James Garfield.) John Tyler was able to secure Samuel Nelson's confirmation to the Supreme Court in February 1845 after being defeated in the 1844 elections. The other three Supreme Court justices who were confirmed during lame-duck periods were nominated by presidents Martin Van Buren (February 1841), Andrew Jackson (March 1837), and John Adams (January 1801).
FACT: John Adams was the first president to establish true lame duck appointments to the Supreme Court. In January 1801, after he had lost his re-election bid to Thomas Jefferson, Adams nominated John Marshall to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Senate quickly confirmed Marshall before Jefferson's inauguration despite Adams's defeat at the polls. Chief Justice Marshall went on to become the longest-serving Chief Justice and one of the most influential members of the Court. This precedent is important because the actions of our founding fathers at the time sheds important light on what is permitted or required under the Constitution with respect to Supreme Court vacancies.