[arwineap]

I assume that they were not talking about Jackson.

McConnell blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland for 293 days arguing that there was not enough time before the election.

Then, somehow, they turned around and passed through Amy Coney Barrett in 35 days, instead of following the same precedent of waiting for the election.

The hypocrisy is blatant and disgusting.

[kolbe]

The fact that you think this is hypocrisy, and are willing to voice that "opinion" (i.e. regurgitating what some news outlet told you) with such assuredness within this community using such passionate and extreme language is why I find some of the pretentiousness on here to be so bad that I just have to laugh at it.

If you are actually a programmer, figuring you why Garland wasn't a precedent for ACB wouldn't be hard. You just conveniently left out an 'if' statement in your analysis

[arwineap]

Garland was nominated in March 2016

Amy was nominated September 2020

Go ahead and inform the class why we didn't have enough time for the appointment in March but did in September.

[kolbe]

"not enough time"

LOL. It's like taking someone seriously who wants to build my web stack on fortran.

[arwineap]

The fact that you cannot defend McConnell's position is telling.

[kolbe]

You're smart. Here's a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Sup...

Notice that whenever there was an A1-A2 party split, especially when a nomination was approaching an election, either the nomination failed, or it didn't succeed until the lame duck (if the president's party won re-election).

The exceptions require some better historical knowledge. For example, Democrats approved Anthony Kennedy (the most liberal justice a modern republican has ever nominated) in late 1987, but only after they had blocked Robert Bork.

The historical precedent for compromise was even in the data: when it was successful, the votes were XX-0

The real failure here was on the part of Obama, who refused to budge at all with the political lean of his nominee. He looked at the polls, saw that Hillary was slated to crush someone who was essentially running as a joke, and thought "I don't need find a bipartisan compromise, Hill will just fill this in January."

But even when it's not close to an election year, look at the Nixon years. Democrats blocking everything until they got nominees they truly approved of. I'm sorry Obama had such hubris as to think Dems were a lock for 2016 that he didn't have to compromise, but he rolled the dice and lost. Sorry. That doesn't make it illegitimate. It makes it the same exact political situation that has always existed.

[arwineap]

I think you're misunderstanding. Bork was rejected, with a vote. We are looking at candidates who's vote has lapsed and trying to understand why a vote was never called.

In 1954 John Marshall Harlan II lapsed in November of an Election year. That's probably the precedent you're looking for. The reason you probably didn't include him is because the reason he lapsed and was re-done in the next session of congress was because there was no time, and he was the first nominee to be questioned in front of the senate. So despite the session lapsing, he was again nominated, accepted as a nominee and eventually voted on.

The example before that is Pierce Butler, who again was nominated in November (21st, not an election year), and they couldn't make it before the legislative session ended. Similar to John Marshal Harlan, he was again nominated in December, and voted on in the same month.

The reality is we have to go past William B Hornblower in 1893, and past Stanley Matthews in 1881, all the way to 1866 with Henry Stanbery to find our last instance of a nominee who was lapsed, but not voted on. To skirt their responsibility to vote they passed the Judicial Circuits Act to reduce the number of justices to 7, denying Jackson his right of an appointment.

Looking back to modern day, none of these fit the Garland example.

- Garland was nominated in March, not at all at risk of missing the legislative session

- No Senate has ever decided to skirt it's responsibility by refusing to acknowledge the nominee.

- Garland was a moderate, and likely would have been confirmed. He was previously confirmed to the court of appeals in 1997 by a vote of 76-23.

- There is no precedent for refusing to vote on a nominee in an election year. There have been 7 election year nominations since the civil war, and all 7 were confirmed (only one without a vote)

My original claim was that they are hypocrites, and they are. Amy's nomination was done in an election year, in September before the election.

> The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. - McConnell (2016)

> I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first time, you can say Lindsey Graham said "let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination" - Lindsey Graham (2016)

> "I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg." - Lindsey Graham (2020)

----

> look at the Nixon years. Democrats blocking everything until they got nominees they truly approved of.

Untrue, Democrats voted on all 6 of Nixon's nominees, and only 2 were rejected. This is precisely what I mean, even when congress doesn't agree with the president their responsibility is to call the vote, and show the disagreements in the vote.

> Notice that whenever there was an A1-A2 party split, especially when a nomination was approaching an election, either the nomination failed, or it didn't succeed until the lame duck (if the president's party won re-election).

Feel free to share an example.