Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '18 14:386 edits
    All this talk about rejecting a Supreme Court nominee got me digging into some history.

    Did you know that there are only 11 nominees to the Supreme Court that were rejected by the Senate?

    Here is a list of the last 4:

    1. Robert Bork (1987) Appointed by Reagan
    2. G Harrold Carswell (1970) Appointed by Nixon
    3. Clement Haynsworth Jr. (1969) Appointed by Nixon
    4. John Parker (1930) Appointed by Herbert Hoover

    All of these rejected nominees were submitted by Republican Presidents. Yay! In fact, you have to go all the way back to 1894 to see a Supreme Court justice rejected by the Senate that was appointed by a democrat.

    Some interesting info,

    Bork was rejected mainly because he was viewed as possibly wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade which seems to have become an acceptable litmus test to see if they are qualified Justice. Meanwhile, Court members like Hagan have never been a judge but in terms of being qualified, she is just fine anyway.

    Other Republican nominees that were rejected, such as Harrold Carswell and John Parker, were rejected because they were seen a racists. I'm not sure of the dirt they dug up on Carswell, but I can tell you what they dug up on Parker. Parker was nominated by Herbert Hoover and rejected in 1930 on the basis of this comment, "The participation of the Negro in politics is a source of evil and danger to both races and is not desired by the wise men in either race."

    So all well and good, don't vote for the Republican nominated Parker, but just a few years later FDR appoints Hugo Black.

    Who is Hugo Black you ask?



    Hugo Black had been associate justice of the Supreme Court for less than a month when the news broke. In September of 1937, an exposé by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette found proof of Black’s membership in the Ku Klux Klan. He had joined in September of 1923, and resigned in July, 1925, as one of his first moves before running for one of Alabama’s U.S. Senate seat. Ironically, the smoking gun was Black’s resignation letter, written in legible longhand on Klan stationery, which appeared on the paper’s front page.

    Franklin Roosevelt, who nominated Hugo Black, was implicated in the scandal, which threatened to have far-reaching consequences for the president’s New Deal image. What was once seen as shrewd politics — the New Deal-friendly textualist was confirmed with a 63–16 vote — had become a disgrace. “Millions of Americans,” wrote one Indiana newspaper, “will not forget this sole tangible accomplishment of President Roosevelt’s attempted ‘liberalization’ of the Supreme Court.”

    Yea, sounds about right.

    Just one more interesting fact, after Carswell's name and reputation had been destroyed by Leftists, Nixon then appointed Harry Blackman to take his place and was nominated 94-0, and overwhelming favorite for both parties. He then went on to author Roe vs. Wade. Yay GOP!

    As for the current justices, all the democrat justices got well over 60 votes to be nominated from both parties. However, all the Republican picks got under 60 votes EXCEPT John Roberts who later upheld Obamacare. Yay GOP!

    Here are the votes from the Senate each received:

    Here is a list of the Democrat appointments

    Sotomayor (67-29)
    Kagan (63-29)
    Ginsburg (96-3)
    Breyer (87-9)

    And now the lowly evil Republicans, except Roberts, of course

    Roberts (78-22)
    Thomas (52-48)
    Alito (58-42)
    Gorsuch (54-45)

    You can always spot a conservative Justice backstabber like Roberts cuz they will always get more than 60 votes from the Senate.
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Oct '18 14:482 edits
    @whodey said
    All this talk about rejecting a Supreme Court nominee got me digging into some history.

    Did you know that there are only 11 nominees to the Supreme Court that were rejected by the Senate?

    Here is a list of the last 4:

    1. Robert Bork (1987) Appointed by Reagan
    2. G Harrold Carswell (1970) Appointed by Nixon
    3. Clement Haynsworth Jr. (1969) Appointed by Nixon
    4 ...[text shortened]... President Roosevelt’s attempted ‘liberalization’ of the Supreme Court.”

    Yea, sounds about right.
    As usual you're full of s**t, Bork was rejected because he had a long paper trail of extremist views (he once famously described the Ninth Amendment as an "inkblot"😉 and because as Solicitor General he fired Archibald Cox as special prosecutor in the "Saturday Night Massacre" after the Attorney General and top Assistant Attorney General had refused to do so.

    I fail to see how information obtained years after Black was already on the court is comparable to Parker's blatant racism being revealed during the confirmation process.

    How many votes did Merrick Garland get?

    How many votes were there against Scalia?
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Oct '18 14:56
    @whodey said
    All this talk about rejecting a Supreme Court nominee got me digging into some history.

    Did you know that there are only 11 nominees to the Supreme Court that were rejected by the Senate?

    Here is a list of the last 4:

    1. Robert Bork (1987) Appointed by Reagan
    2. G Harrold Carswell (1970) Appointed by Nixon
    3. Clement Haynsworth Jr. (1969) Appointed by Nixon
    4 ...[text shortened]... vative Justice backstabber like Roberts cuz they will always get more than 60 votes from the Senate.
    The Senate that confirmed Thomas had 57 Democrats.

    It is virtually inconceivable these days that a Senate with that many members of the opposition party would confirm any nominee by a president of the other.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '18 15:062 edits
    @no1marauder said
    As usual you're full of s**t, Bork was rejected because he had a long paper trail of extremist views (he once famously described the Ninth Amendment as an "inkblot"😉 and because as Solicitor General he fired Archibald Cox as special prosecutor in the "Saturday Night Massacre" after the Attorney General and top Assistant Attorney General had refused to do so.

    I fail to ...[text shortened]... ion process.

    How many votes did Merrick Garland get?

    How many votes were there against Scalia?
    Funny, the news during that time only talked about Bork possible overturning Roe vs Wade. You do recognize this as a top issue, right?

    Speaking of which, the abortion scandal surrounding Elena Kagan certainly did not derail her nomination

    To protect President Clinton's position on partial-birth abortions, Elena Kagan doctored a statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Conservatives think this should disqualify her from the Supreme Court. They understate the scandal. It isn't Kagan we should worry about. It's the whole judiciary.

    Funny that.

    Same old hypocritical same old.

    As for Bork and the "massacre", his boss was Nixon and he was told to fire those people. This just goes to show how politicized the DOJ really is. His only other option was to resign, which he obviously should have done and almost did.

    However, those without sin, cast the first stone. Why is it none of the other poo on Dim appointments ever hits the fan like Bork, or are they all saints?

    I know, maybe Bork drank in college.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '18 15:10
    @no1marauder said
    The Senate that confirmed Thomas had 57 Democrats.

    It is virtually inconceivable these days that a Senate with that many members of the opposition party would confirm any nominee by a president of the other.
    I think he was chosen specifically because of his color.

    Democrats will look at a persons race or sex before assessing their character.

    Would you say that this is what happened or did Thomas have the moral character to become part of SCOTUS?
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Oct '18 15:141 edit
    @whodey said
    Funny, the news during that time only talked about Bork possible overturning Roe vs Wade. You do recognize this as a top issue, right?

    Speaking of which, the abortion scandal surrounding Elena Kagan certainly did not derail her nomination

    To protect President Clinton's position on partial-birth abortions, Elena Kagan doctored a statement by the American College of Obste ...[text shortened]... ntments ever hits the fan like Bork, or are they all saints?

    I know, maybe Bork drank in college.
    BS. Bork was rejected for the reasons I gave; Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by the same Senate.

    Yes, the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General did resign rather than acquiesce to Nixon's attempt to obstruct justice and Bork should have to.

    EDIT: Scalia was actually confirmed the prior year though the Senate was mostly unchanged.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Oct '18 15:15
    @whodey said
    I think he was chosen specifically because of his color.

    Democrats will look at a persons race or sex before assessing their character.

    Would you say that this is what happened or did Thomas have the moral character to become part of SCOTUS?
    Thomas was unqualified and should have been rejected even apart from the Anita Hill allegations.

    For 30 years he has pouted on the Court and refused to take part in oral argument.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '18 15:401 edit
    @no1marauder said
    Thomas was unqualified and should have been rejected even apart from the Anita Hill allegations.

    For 30 years he has pouted on the Court and refused to take part in oral argument.
    So you would say that the majority democrat Senate confirmed him because of his race?

    BTW, what makes someone qualified?

    I think Kagan never sat as a judge.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '18 15:423 edits
    @no1marauder said
    BS. Bork was rejected for the reasons I gave; Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by the same Senate.

    Yes, the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General did resign rather than acquiesce to Nixon's attempt to obstruct justice and Bork should have to.

    EDIT: Scalia was actually confirmed the prior year though the Senate was mostly unchanged.
    Scalia is dead, which is why he was not mentioned, and he was not a deciding swing vote at the time.

    I think we can both agree that all that matters is the final vote that swings left or right, which is why we have what we have now.

    Why so much opposition to the rest, you will have to decide for yourself.

    Maybe Republicans are inherently evil and corrupt and unqualified.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Oct '18 15:49
    @whodey said
    Scalia is dead, which is why he was not mentioned, and he was not a deciding swing vote at the time.

    I think we can both agree that all that matters is the final vote that swings left or right, which is why we have what we have now.

    Why so much opposition to the rest, you will have to decide for yourself.

    Maybe Republicans are inherently evil and corrupt and unqualified.
    Maybe you're a partisan hack liar.

    What was the Merrick Garland vote again?
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Oct '18 15:521 edit
    @whodey said
    So you would say that the majority democrat Senate confirmed him because of his race?

    BTW, what makes someone qualified?

    I think Kagan never sat as a judge.
    A lot of SCOTUS justices in the past hadn't been judges. In fact, nearly half. https://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html


    Kagan would have been a judge but for the usual Republican shenanigans:

    On June 17, 1999, Clinton nominated Kagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to replace James L. Buckley, who had taken senior status in 1996. The Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican Chairman Orrin Hatch scheduled no hearing, effectively ending her nomination. When Clinton's term ended, her nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court lapsed, as did the nomination of fellow Clinton nominee Allen Snyder.[37]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '18 15:54
    @no1marauder said
    Maybe you're a partisan hack liar.

    What was the Merrick Garland vote again?
    What is it with Leftists attacking the character of those they disagree with?

    Is your debating skills that bad or your positions too vacuous to fill with anything other than vile slanderous accusations?

    As for Merrick Garland, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called "Biden Rule" to justify why the Senate should not consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court in an election year.

    McConnell is using Biden’s own words from 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president and Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to explain why he intends to block President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick in an election year.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Oct '18 15:571 edit
    @whodey said
    What is it with Leftists attacking the character of those they disagree with?

    Is your debating skills that bad or your positions too vacuous to fill with anything other than vile slanderous accusations?

    As for Merrick Garland, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called "Biden Rule" to justify why the Senate should not consider the nomination of Merrick ...[text shortened]... to explain why he intends to block President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick in an election year.
    More BS. There was no "Biden rule" and at least a dozen SCOTUS nominees were confirmed in the last year of a President's term:

    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)

    https://www.afj.org/myths-vs-facts-on-scotus-vacancy

    Even the Biden speech in 1992 was twisted out of all context:

    FACT: The “Biden Rule” had never existed until Republicans in the Senate decided to obstruct President Obama and abort their own constitutional duties to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. The rule is based on a floor speech then-Senator Joe Biden gave in the summer of 1992, but the situation that he was speaking about—a Supreme Court justice all of a sudden deciding to retire only months before a presidential election—never came to pass. Biden never spoke about what should happen if, instead, a justice passed away.

    (Same article)

    Stop constantly lying and being a partisan hack and I'll stop calling you a lying partisan hack. Of course, you have a lot of nerve whining about attacking the character of political opponents - you do that in virtually every single one of your posts.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '18 15:571 edit
    @no1marauder said
    A lot of SCOTUS justices in the past hadn't been judges. In fact, nearly half. https://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html


    Kagan would have been a judge but for the usual Republican shenanigans:

    On June 17, 1999, Clinton nominated Kagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to replace James L. Buckley, who had taken senior sta ...[text shortened]... nomination of fellow Clinton nominee Allen Snyder.[37]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
    So essentially you would say that precedent makes someone qualified or not being a judge beforehand should not disqualify you?

    Please list the qualifications you look for.

    As for the partisanship of the court system, would you say that only Republicans are guilty of this or is the whole system a vacuous partisan Swamp of hypocrisy?
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '18 16:04
    @no1marauder said
    More BS. There was no "Biden rule" and at least a dozen SCOTUS nominees were confirmed in the last year of a President's term:

    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 v ...[text shortened]... king the character of political opponents - you do that in virtually every single one of your posts.
    How am I lying?

    From Wiki:

    The situation led to conflict between the White House and Republican leadership. Republican leaders have claimed that the vacancy should not be filled until after the next president is elected,[15] and threatened that the Republican-controlled Senate might delay the appointment of a new justice until after the inauguration of a new president.[16] Republicans cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, arguing that if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer, President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement, or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate. Little-noticed at the time, Republicans began to refer to this idea as the "Biden rule". Biden responded that his position was, and remained, that the President and Congress should "work together to overcome partisan differences" regarding judicial nominations.[17]

    You make it sound as if I made up the Biden Rule. I'm just merely pointing it out.

    Now as to whether the Biden Rule is BS is another topic of conversation altogether.

    In fact, if Trump has to appoint someone in his last year, no doubt the Democrats will point to Garland being snubbed.

    So does precedent make it right? That seems to be the way it is in DC.
Back to Top