Hey McConnell and otherReTHUGs - Hug this up-Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

[malaise]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
<snip>

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Lamar Rucker, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clark was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.
More at link

Mitch McTurtle is a moron.

[Hortensis]

1. Yes, just one of the facile lies that are SOP for the GOP.

Regarding McConnell in all this, unfortunately he is a clever moron. I've read the only biographies out on him. He spent 30 years wanting the position he has now finally achieved, 30 years during which his only real interest seemed to be acquisition of power. He is very, very good at strategizing and implementing that strategy, and he was instrumental in bringing us Citizens United and other similar legislation.

Turns out Turtle Face, by always being willing to sell his influence, has always been an extremely good fundraiser, and he uses that money to help people who then help him acquire more power. He also betrays his constituents routinely but gets reelected by the simple technique of using very large amounts of outside money to crush his opponents under mountains of negative media. Of course, now the amount of money he can raise from the ultrawealthy for his projects probably is effectively unlimited. He became Chinese Big Business's man in DC after rendering invaluable service at the time of the Tien An Men massacre to the very wealthy man who later became his father-in-law. (He helped quash sanctions against China.)

Extremely telling, McConnell has a remarkable lack of a worthy legacy of achievement from all his years in government. He has used his power almost exclusively for political maneuvering and tradeoffs to business and the wealthy -- to gain further power. When he became majority leader, many wondered if he would finally turn to building a personal legacy of worthy legislation. The answer came almost immediately by commitment to further obstruction. No. No sign of that yet. It's all political power plays with no thought of cost or benefit to America. The museum he set up to honor himself displays such things as dirty campaign ads that would shame others; he is proud of them.

All a way of saying, of course, don't expect anything good or decent from this man. Or anything stupid. He's very good at what he does do.

[brer cat]

2. Thanks for a very informative post, Hortensis.

We really need to take back the Senate. Any dem who doesn't vote is a total fool...your sig line is on point.

[malaise]

3. Well said

[onenote]

4. How the GOP will reply

The repubs will argue that in none of the instances cited was the President a true "lame duck" -- someone not eligible to run for another term.

I think that's a bullshit distinction, but don't be surprised when you hear it.

[corkhead]

5. Usually one does not become a lame duck until a successor has been elected

No one should be surprised that the republicons are trying to change the rules on the fly to suit their agenda.

[onenote]

8. Not really the case anymore

I remember there being plenty of references to Bush as a lame duck during his second term.

The more significant fact is that it doesn't matter whether Obama is a "lame duck" President or not. Even under the narrower definition of a lame duck, a President's powers are no less than they are at any other time. If Congress calls a post-election "lame duck" session, bills that they pass still have to be signed by the President to become law -- they don't carry over to the next President. And a "lame duck" President can veto bills, declare war, etc etc.

So the expected distinction -- that Obama is a "lame duck" President seeking to fill a vacancy occurring in his last year in office is meaningless. Being a lame duck doesn't change a damn thing from the standpoint of the Constitution.

[mountain grammy]

6. THE BIG LIE!

Repeat, repeat, repeat. Rubio said it at least six times Sunday morning while the interviewer sat with his thumb up his ass.

[kairos12]

7. Rethugs live in a fact-free world. Thanks for the information.