For how long can a SCOTUS nomination be filibustered in congress?

post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
[Post New]02/14/2016 17:51
quote
Anonymous
Just curious, could it really be long enough to last until the incoming president takes his/her oath?
[Post New]02/14/2016 17:52
quote
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
It doesn't need to be filibustered. The Republicans can just choose not to move on it. There have been vacancies in the past that lasted two years (though it was a real long time ago).
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:09
quote
Anonymous
Take a look at the declared Nudicial Emergencies brought to us by the obstructionist McConnell-led Senate.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/judicial-emergencies
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:11
quote
Anonymous
I wish people could get impeached for this kind of thing.
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:23
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I wish people could get impeached for this kind of thing.


The available approach is to vote them out of office but that will not happen because the base of the Republican party agrees that the confirmation should be held up. Impeachment is not an option for a senator.
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:23
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I wish people could get impeached for this kind of thing.


Who would be doing the impeaching? The senators doing the filibustering?
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:24
quote
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:It doesn't need to be filibustered. The Republicans can just choose not to move on it. There have been vacancies in the past that lasted two years (though it was a real long time ago).


Yeah, I don't get all the filibuster talk. No need to filibuster when you have the majority. That is, unless you are a Cruz and the Republicans majority somehow agrees on Obama's nominee.
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:26
quote
takoma
Member Offline
Even if they allow a vote, they have the numbers to vote down any candidate if they remain united. However, if the nominee is someone like Srinivasan, who is not ideologically liberal, I suspect that several Republicans would feel it their duty to vote for him, so McConnell would probably try to avoid the vote.
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:26
quote
Anonymous
But the neat thing is that if Republican Senators really do this, it becomes a talking point during the election regarding reasons we should vote out a do-nothing Republican Congress.

I realize Republicans also might come out to vote for essentially appointing the next Supreme Court justice -- so waiting could mobilize the Republican party, too.

But for Republicans, the issue would just be vote to keep the 5-4 conservative split in the court. Whereas for Democrats it would be vote to change that split and also look at the ridiculous, unprecedented shenanigans these dopes are pulling and the important judicial business they are holding up -- isn't it really time we took charge and sent them a message that these partisan hijinks are not acceptable?
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:27
quote
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I wish people could get impeached for this kind of thing.


The available approach is to vote them out of office but that will not happen because the base of the Republican party agrees that the confirmation should be held up. Impeachment is not an option for a senator.


There are Senators such as Ron Johnson who were already in tough races and will find life even more difficult now.
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:27
quote
Anonymous
Too many important cases that could come down to 4-4 if they decide to hold up a nomination, though. And waiting for the election will lol likely backfire on them.
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:28
quote
Anonymous
takoma wrote:Even if they allow a vote, they have the numbers to vote down any candidate if they remain united. However, if the nominee is someone like Srinivasan, who is not ideologically liberal, I suspect that several Republicans would feel it their duty to vote for him, so McConnell would probably try to avoid the vote.


Vulnerable Republican senators may vote with Democrats to have an up or down vote but only if the nay votes are enough to ensure that it does not actual vote to approve or disapprove.

It would give cover to those senators who could say they voted to have an up or down vote but were outvoted by their colleagues.
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:30
quote
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:But the neat thing is that if Republican Senators really do this, it becomes a talking point during the election regarding reasons we should vote out a do-nothing Republican Congress.

I realize Republicans also might come out to vote for essentially appointing the next Supreme Court justice -- so waiting could mobilize the Republican party, too.

But for Republicans, the issue would just be vote to keep the 5-4 conservative split in the court. Whereas for Democrats it would be vote to change that split and also look at the ridiculous, unprecedented shenanigans these dopes are pulling and the important judicial business they are holding up -- isn't it really time we took charge and sent them a message that these partisan hijinks are not acceptable?


I think the next couple of rounds of primaries will have a huge influence on the Republican strategy. If Trump starts to walk away with the nomination, Republicans may begin to think that a non-ideological candidate like Srinivasan is better than waiting for a left-winger nominated by President Clinton or Sanders.

[Post New]02/14/2016 18:36
quote
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:But the neat thing is that if Republican Senators really do this, it becomes a talking point during the election regarding reasons we should vote out a do-nothing Republican Congress.

I realize Republicans also might come out to vote for essentially appointing the next Supreme Court justice -- so waiting could mobilize the Republican party, too.

But for Republicans, the issue would just be vote to keep the 5-4 conservative split in the court. Whereas for Democrats it would be vote to change that split and also look at the ridiculous, unprecedented shenanigans these dopes are pulling and the important judicial business they are holding up -- isn't it really time we took charge and sent them a message that these partisan hijinks are not acceptable?


I think the next couple of rounds of primaries will have a huge influence on the Republican strategy. If Trump starts to walk away with the nomination, Republicans may begin to think that a non-ideological candidate like Srinivasan is better than waiting for a left-winger nominated by President Clinton or Sanders.



Their main fear is of a primary challenge from the right. So even if they thought that the country would be better off with a moderate than a Clinton choice, I doubt they would be willing to vote to confirm. Cruz and his fellow nutters would destroy them for treason to the cause. They are in Total War mode.
[Post New]02/14/2016 18:39
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Take a look at the declared Nudicial Emergencies brought to us by the obstructionist McConnell-led Senate.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/judicial-emergencies


Not quite. Obama hasn't even nominated someone to fill all those vacancies. Currie vacated in October 2013. No one has been nominated to fill that spot yet.

And really you should really look into Leahy's and Reid blocking of Bush judicial nominees if you want to understand how all this "obstructing" started
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics