Merrick Garland nominated to USSC

[Josquius]

So the US Senate has never confirmed any Supreme Court Judges in an election year before?  I am asking because election years happen quite often

Apparently 1/3 of presidents have appointed a SCJ in an election year.

[Valmy]

This is just Obama trolling the Republicans and making them look bad by not even agreeing to appoint a moderate right?

That is part of it I am sure.

[Malthus]

This is just Obama trolling the Republicans and making them look bad by not even agreeing to appoint a moderate right?

Pretty well. But the Republicans painted themselves into this corner. Now, no matter what they do, they look dumb - but it was their own damn fault, for categorically announcing they wouldn't approve any nomination.

If I was Republican, I would accept this guy and then trumpet it as a victory - that we forced Obama to nominate this highly respected judge, rather than the liberal stooge/mouthpiece he no doubt would have selected had we not acted! But Obama is calculating, probably correctly, that the Republicans simply can't do that - their obstructionist rhetoric has been so heated, they just can't appear to back down no matter what.

[Capetan Mihali]

It's a Hail Mary, I guess. As long as there's a small chance of having a Republican president in office, they'll clutch at that diminutive straw.

Trump would probably nominate Donnie Wahlberg or some shit. Would Republicans really prefer a Republican-nominated lesser Wahlberg over a qualified, moderate Democratic candidate? Actually, now that I say that, they probably would. 

WAHLBERG, J., OPINION OF THE COURT
Mr. Justice Wahlberg delivered the opinion of the Court....

I like the sound of that.   If only we get both Wahlbergs on the US S.Ct.  A SCOTUS/NKOTB alliance would be a powerful defense against tyranny.

I'm sure it's happened before that two Justices have had the same last name -- did they just use first initials to distinguish, or full first names, I'm curious.

[alfred russel]

McConnnell is absolutely wrong.  I hate it when leaders of our country totally misuse the phrase "constitutional right."  The Senate has no "constitutional rights."  It has constitutional powers and duties.  What McConnell should have said, were he being honest, was "It is a president's constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate's constitutional duty to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent."  Of course, that looks bad, doing one's duty by refusing to do one's duty,   The argument that the Senate should not act until after all the elections are over is defeated by the fact that there will always be elections forthcoming.

If he was really trying, he would point out that the president is required to appoint with the "advice and consent" of the senate. He would formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent and frame the issue as one in which the president is abdicating his constitutional responsibility in an election year by refusing to listen to the advice of the senate, not them.

[jimmy olsen]

So the US Senate has never confirmed any Supreme Court Judges in an election year before?  I am asking because election years happen quite often

It's quite rare, but it has happened.

[grumbler]

So the US Senate has never confirmed any Supreme Court Judges in an election year before?  I am asking because election years happen quite often

Yes.  They have done so something like eight times in the last 40 years.

[grumbler]

If he was really trying, he would point out that the president is required to appoint with the "advice and consent" of the senate. He would formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent and frame the issue as one in which the president is abdicating his constitutional responsibility in an election year by refusing to listen to the advice of the senate, not them.

The president nominates, the Senate confirms, and then the president appoints.

[alfred russel]

If he was really trying, he would point out that the president is required to appoint with the "advice and consent" of the senate. He would formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent and frame the issue as one in which the president is abdicating his constitutional responsibility in an election year by refusing to listen to the advice of the senate, not them.

The president nominates, the Senate confirms, and then the president appoints.

The actual constitution states that the senate's role includes advice and consent.

[grumbler]

If he was really trying, he would point out that the president is required to appoint with the "advice and consent" of the senate. He would formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent and frame the issue as one in which the president is abdicating his constitutional responsibility in an election year by refusing to listen to the advice of the senate, not them.

The president nominates, the Senate confirms, and then the president appoints.

The actual constitution states that the senate's role includes advice and consent.

I don't understand the argument you are making.  The Constitution says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ..."  That's exactly what I said.  Nomination, confirmation, appointment. 

You argue that McConnell should "formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent..."  The president cannot appoint sans consent*, so your scenario is constitutionally impossible.  What is the point of this argument?

* interim recess appointments excepted

[alfred russel]

If he was really trying, he would point out that the president is required to appoint with the "advice and consent" of the senate. He would formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent and frame the issue as one in which the president is abdicating his constitutional responsibility in an election year by refusing to listen to the advice of the senate, not them.

The president nominates, the Senate confirms, and then the president appoints.

The actual constitution states that the senate's role includes advice and consent.

I don't understand the argument you are making.  The Constitution says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ..."  That's exactly what I said.  Nomination, confirmation, appointment. 

You argue that McConnell should "formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent..."  The president cannot appoint sans consent*, so your scenario is constitutionally impossible.  What is the point of this argument?

* interim recess appointments excepted

Whether the senate has a role in advising who should be appointed is ambiguous in the text, and would at least be a bit more effective from a PR point of view than just saying "no hearings" (or apparently even meetings).

[grumbler]

Whether the senate has a role in advising who should be appointed is ambiguous in the text, and would at least be a bit more effective from a PR point of view than just saying "no hearings" (or apparently even meetings).

The Senate absolutely has a role in advising on who should be appointed. There is no ambiguity on that whatsoever.