That time an extended vacancy led Antonin Scalia to suggest a 60-day limit on confirmation process

[kpete]

https://twitter.com/YAppelbaum/status/699777523622813697

[Skinner]

1. Good find.

[passiveporcupine]

2. Oh the irony

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. For VP

And for a specific reason, i.e., Presidential succession.

What does this have to do with SCOTUS?

[SCantiGOP]

4. Whose ox is being gored?

Dems were in no hurry to name a VP because the Dem Speaker of the House was next in line. So, politics was the reason and Scalia thought that was wrong when it was the "other side" doing it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. I understand that

All I'm saying is that the circumstances are completely different. The headline of the OP implies that Scalia was for fast SCOTUS confirmations.

Of course, with the Democrats being OK with holding off a VP confirmation for political purposes, there should be no reason for them to have a problem with holding off a SCOTUS confirmation for political purposes.

As I've said on this issue before, politicians in both parties are hypocrites when it comes to confirmations of any kind.

[TrollBuster9090]

7. Not only that, but Scalia said he was speaking for Gerald Ford. Nowhere does it say he agrees.

*Shrug*

Too bad. I got all excited for nothing.

[tomm2thumbs]

6. I guess 'caretaker' is the operative word now

or is that 'undertaker' ?

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

8. So Scalia was lobbying for Rockefeller/Stevens

Lol