Scalia confirmed right before Election Day, nominated in July '86

[L. Coyote]

When you suffer from severe memory loss, it may be time to leave the US Senate! McConnell and Grassley voted for confirmation of Justice Scalia in September!

Scalia was confirmed right before Election Day

.... Sen. Grassley said on Saturday: “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.”

Of course, as steadfast hypocrisy goes, this only gets better.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia was nominated by President Reagan in July of 1986 and confirmed on September 17th, just 48 days before Election Day, when Democrats regained control of the Senate.

There was no bickering over “unfairness” of the process. There was no demand that President Reagan, a lame duck Commander-in-Chief facing the prospect of losing the Senate, wait until the next session of Congress to put forth his nominee.

There was the Constitutional mandate of the President and the duty of the Congress to confirm or reject the President’s nominee. .....

The Republicans all know this very well. They are just posturing to get a more conservative nomination. They should know by now that they don't control Obama.

My prediction, the whole process will end before the conventions because the Rs have everything to lose and nothing to gain.[center]

[davidn3600]

1. It's different now.

The polarization of this country has reached extreme levels. There are no moderates anymore to be a voice of reason.

[L. Coyote]

3. What, the pocket Constitution has new rules?

The great thing about a Constitutional government, the rules remain the same no matter which special interest tries to say otherwise.

The polarization is largely a media construct. Meanwhile, the people are unified about most things. That sort of false perception serves the interest of those who want to divide us with fear and hatred.

[Reter]

2. The Presidential year was 1988

I don't recall anyone saying “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a senatorial election year.”

[L. Coyote]

4. The Senate changed control with the election, to Democratic. That is going to happen again in Nov.

So the situation is not identical, but similar.

[onenote]

6. No one is making an argument based on what might happen to the Senate

They're arguing that there will be a new President.

We have better arguments and don't need to invent a weak one.

[onenote]

5. Correct. And making easily distinguished arguments doesn't help

The history of nominations and confirmations during presidential elections is strong enough that we don't need to be making weak arguments.

[Yupster]

7. Of course 1986 wasn't a presidential election year

1984 and 1988 were, but I guess if you expand the definition to include any election, not just presidential election, then it's always an election year for some office somewhere.

[Herman4747]

8. Well, 1986 wasn't a presidential year. n/t

[L. Coyote]

9. And the Constitution doesn't distinguish them! The hypocrisy is the same, that's the point.