Re: The Talking Point That Anthony Kennedy Was NOMINATED In 1987, And Only APPOINTED in 1988...

[TrollBuster9090]

You may have noticed the GOP candidates falling all over themselves during the last debate with the newly crafted talking point that there is '80 years of precedence' against a President appointing a SCOTUS Justice in his last year in office. To which the moderator pointed out that St. Reagan appointed Kennedy during his last year in office in 1988. To which Cruz attempted to claim Kennedy was NOMINATED in 1987, and merely confirmed and appointed in 1988.

Actually, Reagan nominated Kennedy on NOVEMBER 30th 1987, and the Democratic Senate confirmed him a little over two months later, with every Republican voting for him.

So, they're attempting to sell the bullshit excuse that Reagan nominating a SCOTUS judge with THIRTEEN months left in his mandate was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from Obama nominating a SCOTUS judge with ELEVEN months left in his mandate.

Nice try, guys. Just admit that it was a hastily crafted talking point, and try again with something else. Or, better yet, just admit that you're, yet again, trying to obstruct absolutely everything that Obama does. That excuse is fine with your base, and nobody BUT your base is believing the bullshit about 80 years of precedence against a President nominating a SCOTUS judge in the last year of his mandate.

[Kingofalldems]

1. But but but Schumer said something once!

This is a made up story!!!1!

HUGH!

[immoderate]

2. However, in previous years, the senate did not have the reputation for obstruction

it now seeks to protect.

Obama may nominate, as he should, but if the senate confirms someone, it will be extreme 'loss of face,' in the current denial climate. They can roll it out forever. I know it won't help them in the election. OTOH, it will do no harm with their base.

--imm

[TrollBuster9090]

4. True. As far as the GOP base is concerned, the only GOOD thing the GOP Senate has ever done

is to obstruct everything Obama tries to do. However, they're still pissed that they passed a budget in order to avert another dumbass government shut down.

I just saw George Will and Charles 'Sauerkraut' Krathammer on Fox saying that Mitch McConnell has to figure out some svengali, byzantine way of stopping the Senate from ever hearing an Obama nomination, because if it goes to the floor for a vote (or if it goes to the judiciary committee and they refuse to hold hearings on a nominee) then it will be OBVIOUS that the GOP is just being obstructionist. Well, that didn't make sense, given that the GOP being obstructionist is the worst kept secret in Washington.

So, now we can look for old Mitch to start saying "There is no precedent for hearings on a SCOTUS nomination during an odd numbered leap year, when Jupiter and Saturn are rising in the House of Aquarius....so...derp derp..."

[Wounded Bear]

13. It was obviously obstructionist...

when they announced their intentions before the body was cold.

[hfojvt]

14. it only became an election year appointment

actually the nomination was before the election year, because the Democrats in the Senate rejected two nominees. The time between when Powell resigned and Kennedy took office was 237 days and we are now about 260 days from the election.

Would you really be happy with Senate Democrats if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died in February of 2008 and they confirmed Roberts before the election instead of rejecting him?

As I recall I wanted them to fillibuster Roberts and even Russ Feingold would not do it.

No, unless Obama appoints a very conservative justice (and many Republican voters are not gonna trust (and the RWNM will encourage them not to) ANY person that Obama nominates).

Either way, my feeling is that it will fire up their base more than it does ours, especially given the vitriol of our primary.

[TrollBuster9090]

15. My point had nothing to do with WHY it was an election year appointment.

My point had nothing to do with WHY it was an election year appointment. Just the fact that it WAS an election year appointment. Something that they said is unprecedented, when it is NOT unprecedented. And if their argument was really valid, either Reagan would have said "okay, you guys won. You ran out the clock, and I can't make an election year appointment." Or, the Senate Republicans of 1988 would have said "No, we can't do this." But neither of those things happened, so they are just being hypocritical, as usual.

As are a few Senate Democrats who wanted to filibuster any SCOTUS nominee that Bush proposed.

[hfojvt]

3. the story is a little different from that

because first, Reagan nominated Robert Bork on 1 July 1987, some 17 months before the end of his term. Bork was rejected on 23 Oct 1987 by a vote of 42-58. THEN Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg on 29 Oct 1987 and he got shot down and withdrew on 7 November 1987. Almost three weeks later, Reagan nominated Kennedy.

Ginsburg got shot down because it was rumored that he smoked marijuana while on the faculty of Harvard.

He later admitted it was true,


and was sentenced to three years in Federal prison until he was pardoned by Bush Sr. in 1992.

Okay I made that last part up, but it makes a better story, doesn't it. I wanna be a paperback writer.

[TrollBuster9090]

10. True, but that doesn't change the fact that this particular talking point is false.

The talking point is that you 'can't' or 'shouldn't' nominate or appoint a SCOTUS Justice in an election year, and not only is it false, but their biggest icon actually did it. As usual, they're being mind-blowingly hypocritical.

Voting down one nominee after another is a separate issue. If they plan to do that (which is obviously what will happen), that's fine. But the talking point that there is 80 years of precedence for not appointing a SCOTUS Justice during an election year is a non-starter that they obviously pulled out of their asses without thinking about it first.

[Major Hogwash]

5. We will beat this drum for as long as it takes to get a new Supreme Court Justice appointed.

The Republicans can not hold out for very much longer.
This meme is false . . . and everyone knows it!!

[oberliner]

6. Powell retired in June of 1987

Reagan nominated Bork to take his place.

The Democrats vowed they would vote him (or any other conservative named by Reagan) down.

As soon as he was nominated, prominent Democrats (led by Ted Kennedy) railed against him in the most strident of terms (justifiably so, in my opinion).

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 9-5 to reject his nomination.

The full Senate rejected him by a vote of 58-42 with every Democrat but two voting no.

That battle ran from July to October of 1987.

It was only after that (and after his second choice withdrawing because he smoked pot) that Reagan finally went with a more moderate choice in Kennedy and he sailed through the confirmation process and was confirmed unanimously.

[hfojvt]

7. is there an echo in here?

It did take two months for Kennedy to sail through. But after all, how could Ted attack a Kennedy?

[oberliner]

8. Just saw your post

Sorry about that!

It is odd how everyone seems to have forgotten the Bork episode.

[hfojvt]

12. I remember Bork being Borked

but not that he preceded Kennedy. I can only quote those dates from a handy reference book on SCOTUS that I bought some years back from the history book club. I may have even gotten it for $1 plus shipping or it may have been one of my required purchases. Pretty handy and informative book to have, especially now. Although I used it a couple weeks ago debating a teacher about prayer in schools.

Anyway, Bork was almost 20 years ago so some are not old enough to remember it. I thought it was odd in 1996 that people older than me did not remember Bob Dole being a candidate for Veep in 1976, but as I recall I ran into a few who didn't.

[TrollBuster9090]

16. Fortunately, not only am I old enough to remember Bork being Borked, but I'm also old enough

I'm also old enough to remember WHY. He was Nixon's hatchetman during the Watergate "Saturday night massacre." Bork fired the special prosecutor who was investigating criminal activity by the President after two AGs resigned rather than follow Nixon's order to do so. I'd say having a proven track record of believing the President is ABOVE criminal prosecution is good grounds for not being on the SCOTUS. Ironically, it was actually Ford who ended up putting the President above criminal prosecution. Nixon, anyway. I can't believe he actually granted a blanket, retroactive pardon to Nixon for anything HE MIGHT have done while President. Like...if they'd dig up a mass grave underneath the Rose Garden in 1976, and find out Nixon was killing people by the hundreds, he'd be immune from prosecution. *sigh*

[LanternWaste]

19. Objective source for that is....?

"or any other conservative named by Reagan..."

Objective source for that is....?

[oberliner]

20. Ted Kennedy

''If we receive a nominee who thinks like Judge Bork, who acts like Judge Bork, who opposes civil rights and civil liberties like Judge Bork, he will be rejected like Judge Bork, just like that,'' Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said on the Senate floor.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/24/politics/24REAG.html?pagewanted=all

[Reter]

9. To be fair, Robert Bork was nominated in July of 1987

The hearings took quite a bit of time and debate. After him, the next guy had to withdraw because he smoked pot as a youth (what a joke times were back then). Then finally in November, Reagan nominated a reasonable moderate (compared to the other two) in November.

[TrollBuster9090]

11. That's true, but it has nothing to do with what they're claiming.

They're claiming that Presidents don't nominate or appoint SCOTUS Justices during election years, which is demonstrably false. They're not claiming that there aren't lots of examples of Democrats voting down Republican nominees, and therefore it's fine for them to vote down any nominee Obama puts forward. It would have been better for them to make that argument, but they didn't. They foolishly shot their mouths off before thinking about it first, and claimed Obama shouldn't even NOMINATE anybody because...(because, oh I don't know...because it's a LEAP YEAR....). Thus, making it obvious that he shouldn't even nominate anybody because they're going to block his nominations NO MATTER WHO they are. Their only flaw being that Obama nominated them.

[JHB]

18. See my #17 below

Even with the delays, the gap between Powell's departure and Kennedy's seating was about seven and a half months.

They want to run the clock out for over three months longer than that.

[JHB]

17. Let's also note...

Kennedy replaced Lewis Powell on the SCOTUS.

Powell retired on June 26, 1987.

Reagan chose Bork to replace him 5 days later (July 1). A little over 2 months later, the contentious confirmation hearings were held. The judicial committee rejected the nomination by 9-5 vote on October 6. On October 23, he was rejected by a full Senate vote (42 for, 58 against).

Reagan then nominated Douglas Ginsburg, but on Nov. 7 Ginsburg asked that his name be withdrawn, because his non-youthful weed-smoking would be a bone of contention under President "Just Say No".

So on November 11, 1987, Reagan selected Kennedy. Kennedy got his confirmation vote on Feb. 3, 1988 (97 for, 0 against) and joined the court on Feb. 11.

So from Powell's departure to Kennedy's seating was some 230 days, having gone through two other nominees first.

There are 339 days left in Obama's presidency.

But, once again, IOKIYAR.