sailordeac
Well-known member
At the moment, I think there should be an up or down vote in the Senate.
I have already said on this thread that I'm still thinking about the issue, but I'm leaning toward the view that an up or down vote should occur. If it does, no one should vote no just because Obama was the nominater.
Just curious but what would be the argument against this?
May have been posted already, but I don't think this would ever happen:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...a-lynch-most-likely-candidate-replace-n518916
Just curious but what would be the argument against this?
As to the more pertinent question of whether this senate should give the forthcoming nomination from Obama an up or down vote before the election, I'm still thinking about it. As I have stated, I don't think it's constitutionally required for them to do so. Practically speaking, in the abstract, I do think there is some merit to an argument that, at some point in time before an election, a senate may justifiably refuse to vote on a president's nominee. If, for example, if Justice Scalia had died on January 19, 2017 (or even the first Monday in November 2016), and Obama immediately nominated someone, I think the senate could justifiably refuse to vote for the nominee. So, the argument would go, with delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire already having been awarded, we are now far enough along in the election cycle that eyes are forward to the new president and not backward to Obama.
That said, my present thinking is that we are not sufficiently close to a change in power that the senate should stall. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but 11 months just feels like an awfully long time to wait.
Care to share those names?
Junebug, names?
I haven't given it much thought since the last vacancy, but I bet Mike Luttig would still take the job. You remember him, right? He was one of the ones Reid said would be filibustered if nominated back when O'Conner stepped down. Did you know that a nominee that is filibustered wouldn't get an up or down vote? Kindof like what the democrats did to Miguel Estrada on his nomination to the DC circuit court. Funny, I don't remember a liberal outcry then that the senate had a constitutional obligation to give him an up or down vote, but maybe I forgot it.
Did Bush not fill the O'Conner seat?
You mean the seat that became vacant 6 months into his second term?
Robert Bork says hello.
He wasn't not confirmed because Reagan nominated him. He was not confirmed because libs didn't like his ideology.
Turnabout, if it comes, will be fair play.