With the nominees and hearings going on recently, it got me to thinking....

 

With Presidential nominees for both cabinet positions and the Supreme Court, is there ever a reason not to confirm them outside of being woefully under-qualified?

 

This goes both ways. I personally feel the only reason to ever cast a dissenting vote is if the nominee is not qualified for the position. The current Education Secretary nominee, as an example.

 

The Senate should've absolutely voted and confirmed Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court when President Obama nominated him, and they should absolutely confirm the cabinet nominees and Supreme Court nominee of President Trump, unless qualifications are an issue.

 

Am I wrong in this? Is my thinking off base?

 

Agree or disagree?

Partisan politics will always be involved in this one. Looking back, it would appear that the elected representatives delayed any action based on the voice of the American people.

 

I think that any appointment can change the face of the nation and a cautious approach to the balance of power, by both parties, should be the focus.

 

Not sure if that is always the logic used.

Disagree with the OP. The Republicans choose to make the appointment of Scalia's replacement a top issue of the presidential and Senate elections. People voted and they put both the U.S. Senate and the presidency in

the hands of the Republicans. The GOP's decision was not without precident.

 

I agree with you about cabinet picks, especially the initial ones following a presidential election. One could argue that poll numbers and mid-term election results should be considered when a cabinet member must be replaced later in the term.

No SCOTUS has ever been confirmed in the last 80 years in an election year. It's always been left up to the public to decide by the presidential election which way they want the court to go. Obama tried to break that precedent and got shut down. It's that simple. Had hillary won she would have got her pick. "Elections have consequences". Remember that.

No SCOTUS has ever been confirmed in the last 80 years in an election year. It's always been left up to the public to decide by the presidential election which way they want the court to go. Obama tried to break that precedent and got shut down. It's that simple. Had hillary won she would have got her pick. "Elections have consequences". Remember that.

 

And how many times has a seat come open during an election year?

And how many times has a seat come open during an election year?

 

You tell me?

You tell me?

 

I genuinely don't know. You're the one that claimed there was established precedent for not filling a vacant judgeship in an election year.

No SCOTUS has ever been confirmed in the last 80 years in an election year. It's always been left up to the public to decide by the presidential election which way they want the court to go. Obama tried to break that precedent and got shut down. It's that simple. Had hillary won she would have got her pick. "Elections have consequences". Remember that.

 

Kennedy was voted on the bench in the election year of 1988. Done so with the sitting President finishing his second year.

 

So once again, facts being quickly uttered aren't always true.

Kennedy was voted on the bench in the election year of 1988. Done so with the sitting President finishing his second year.

 

So once again, facts being quickly uttered aren't always true.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html

 

This is the Democrat response. From the article, "After rejecting President Reagan’s first nominee, Robert Bork, in 1987, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Anthony M. Kennedy in 1988. Democrats are citing Kennedy as an election-year precedent, though the vacancy occurred earlier.

 

The Republicans contend the following from the article.

"A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Benjamin Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote. Republicans cite this confirmation as the last time an election-year vacancy led to a successful confirmation."

 

So basically, the Republicans are saying that no "Election Year vacancy" has been filled in 80 years. They are correct. Democrats are saying the precedent is Kennedy because he was "confirmed" in an election year. They are also correct.

 

Both parties are spinning words to make their case. It is all semantics and they are both right.

With the nominees and hearings going on recently, it got me to thinking....

 

With Presidential nominees for both cabinet positions and the Supreme Court, is there ever a reason not to confirm them outside of being woefully under-qualified?

 

This goes both ways. I personally feel the only reason to ever cast a dissenting vote is if the nominee is not qualified for the position. The current Education Secretary nominee, as an example.

 

The Senate should've absolutely voted and confirmed Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court when President Obama nominated him, and they should absolutely confirm the cabinet nominees and Supreme Court nominee of President Trump, unless qualifications are an issue.

 

Am I wrong in this? Is my thinking off base?

 

Agree or disagree?

 

Who decides if a person is qualified or not?

Who decides if a person is qualified or not?

 

Each person can make their own decisions on that. I thought that went without saying....

Each person can make their own decisions on that. I thought that went without saying....

 

It seemed like you are taking black and white approach. When it's not nearly that simple. Even basing a vote on the qualifications isn't black or white. From what I know about the process it's very subjective. So that was a serious question.

And how many times has a seat come open during an election year?

 

It's been since the 1880's since a Senate confirmed a Justice in an election year for a President of the opposite party.

 

How often it happens I am not sure.

Kennedy was voted on the bench in the election year of 1988. Done so with the sitting President finishing his second year.

 

So once again, facts being quickly uttered aren't always true.

The first nominee Robert Bork was shot down that was nominated in the middle of 1987. Congress took almost 5months on hearings. Kennedy was nominated in 1987 and

the democratic congress decided to wait till January to hold the hearings. A little different scenario.

The first nominee Robert Bork was shot down that was nominated in the middle of 1987. Congress took almost 5months on hearings. Kennedy was nominated in 1987 and

the democratic congress decided to wait till January to hold the hearings. A little different scenario.

 

Bork is exhibit A as to what can go wrong in a SC appointee. Most held his Nixon hatchet job from the Saturday Night Massacre on Bork and he never could get any real support over that.

 

Different scenario? Sure. But the statement "Hasn't happened in 80 years . . ." tends to not mention alternative scenarios that might contradict that.