 |
Learn your history, it started long before 2016
Author: William Brennan
Date: 09-19-2020 - 18:33
2016 and 2020 are very different. 2016 the opposition party controlled the Senate. 2020 the administration and Senate are the same party. That has always been the huge difference in confirmations.
Almost every time a late opening has occurred when the Senate and president were the same party, the opening has been filled before the president's term has ended. Doing that again would be the norm, not the exception. In contrast when the opposition party controlled the Senate they frequently rejected or delayed confirming. That's just normal politics, not some sudden new betrayal come 2016. But history never begins earlier than most convenient for the Democrats.
There are 45 days until the election, more than 100 until the new Senate is sworn in. Ginsburg was approved in 50 days from nomination to confirmation. Prior confirmations were often faster. So there is nothing wrong with nominating this week and confirming before the end of the year. Or even possibly confirming before the election. It shouldn't take over a month to vet a judge previously voted on for prior positions and hold hearings.
In 1956 a Supreme Court justice resigned in mid October. The Senate wasn't in session and so Eisenhower made a recess appointment the next day. The new Senate did the confirmation in January 1957.
So there's precedent for what will probably happen. The Senate will begin the confirmation process and then adjourn prior to the election without reaching the voting stage. Trump will make a recess appointment. The Senate will approve or reject after the election, whether the old Senate or the new one in January. All legal, nothing nefarious.
Cry me a river Dems. Because everyone knows that if it were a Dem president and Senate in this position, they would ram the confirmation through before the election. You're not fooling anyone.
Almost every time a late opening has occurred when the Senate and president were the same party, the opening has been filled before the president's term has ended. Doing that again would be the norm, not the exception. In contrast when the opposition party controlled the Senate they frequently rejected or delayed confirming. That's just normal politics, not some sudden new betrayal come 2016. But history never begins earlier than most convenient for the Democrats.
There are 45 days until the election, more than 100 until the new Senate is sworn in. Ginsburg was approved in 50 days from nomination to confirmation. Prior confirmations were often faster. So there is nothing wrong with nominating this week and confirming before the end of the year. Or even possibly confirming before the election. It shouldn't take over a month to vet a judge previously voted on for prior positions and hold hearings.
In 1956 a Supreme Court justice resigned in mid October. The Senate wasn't in session and so Eisenhower made a recess appointment the next day. The new Senate did the confirmation in January 1957.
So there's precedent for what will probably happen. The Senate will begin the confirmation process and then adjourn prior to the election without reaching the voting stage. Trump will make a recess appointment. The Senate will approve or reject after the election, whether the old Senate or the new one in January. All legal, nothing nefarious.
Cry me a river Dems. Because everyone knows that if it were a Dem president and Senate in this position, they would ram the confirmation through before the election. You're not fooling anyone.
