She thought Hillary would win the 2016 election and choose her replacement. It didn't work out that way.
RBG RIP
- Thread starter BabyPeterzz
- Start date
She thought Hillary would win the 2016 election and choose her replacement. It didn't work out that way.
Comrade in Seattle
Member
Can you guys believe who the GOP nominated for the Supreme Court? Amy Barrett. She is that racist who "adopted" err I mean kidnapped two kids from Haiti and turned them into chlid slaves in her home.
Brennan was appointed with even less time before the election (think an October nomination). Look at the history on both sides. 10 times in history a Sup. Ct. Justice was nominated in an election year when the President and Senate were from the same party. They were confirmed 9 of 10 times.
When opposite parties controlled both parties, the nominations were usually delayed. This is the status quo.
As I recall Honest Abe was one of the only Presidents to delay a nomination.
Comrade in Seattle
Member
This tweet is Sooo profound. Im literally crying right now. Its so moving. Im balling my eyes out guys.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
The Brennan example isn't really a good one though, that was a recess appointment meaning the next senate would ultimately decide whether they'd end up sticking, further I don't think the left would be nearly as upset if Trump was nominating a liberal, or hell even a moderate to fill RBG's seat.
If we flip the script would Dems not seek an appointment? Seems it would be foolish not to. They tried with Obama, but couldn't push it through with a Republican controlled Senate. I am no fan of Trump and much of today's Republican party, but I can't blame them for this one.
Obama hinted as much to RBG without actually asking her to retire. And she should have if she wanted to have a left leaning ideological judge succeed her.
Seems a good idea for any Supreme to retire when the get to 80 when their party controls the White House and Senate.
Last edited:
Zombie
Well-Known Member
No arguments from me there, and yeah, these days it would be almost criminal politically not to make every effort to fill a SC vacancy when you have a chance. I was just pointing out how different the Brennan situation is to where we are today. It's unfathomable that a president from either party would nominate a justice from the other side of the aisle.
That is a good point. So why appoint Brennan at all? Oh yeah, to get the Irish Catholic vote as Ike was worried he'd lose. The first time IIRC that a Supreme nomination was done with the main/sole purpose to shore up votes. The Brennan appointment was a linchpin to many of the issues with the court today along with Marbury v. Madison. But that is another discussion.
Right, but the savvy move is do retire when your party controls the White House and Senate. Obama was most concerned about losing the Senate. At the time, Republicans had a 77% chance of taking the Senate in the mid-term election which can to fruition at the end of 2014, which could mean compromising on any potential candidate for Obama and Hillary if she had won.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Yeah I was just thinking about that. The difference lies not so much in it being a particularly noble or "sporting" thing to do, but that making a play for a different parties voters via a SC seat just doesn't make any sense anymore.
As for Marbury vs Madison, the role of the judiciary is going to come into sharp focus over the next few years. While judicial review has, in recent history at least, had its defenders on the left, I think there's a good chance that's going to change.