Legal minds - just curious.... regarding the SC appointment

[OhioBlue]

Are you aware of anything in the constitution, laws passed by Congress, judicial decisions, State codes or even local ordinances that have stated:

X is wrong if the parties involved belong to different political parties, but it is okay if they belong to the same political party? (Maybe there is some FEC regs?) But really, the logic that you can dismiss your constitutional duty for a year to allow hearings for Obama's nominee because it is an election year, but they're fine to rush through Trump's when people have already started voting?

This seems to be the angle lots of R Senators are trying to use as an explanation for their flip-flop. It seems like a snake oil salesman line rather than logic.

On edit:
Here are Senator of Ohio, Rob Portman's contradictory statements:

“During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.” - Rob Portman, April 14, 2016

Now:

“In the more than two dozen vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court during a presidential election year in our nation’s history, the sitting president made a nomination in every single case. Leader McConnell has said that he will hold a vote on any nominee President Trump sends to the Senate, and I intend to fulfill my role as a U.S. Senator and judge that nominee based on his or her merits. The president was elected in 2016, in part, based on a commitment to nominate men and women to the judiciary who would fairly and impartially apply the law and protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, not advance public policy goals by legislating from the bench. Likewise, in both 2016 and 2018, the American people have re-elected a Republican Senate majority to help President Trump fulfill that commitment.

“In 2016, when the vacancy occurred following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, I said ‘the president has every right to nominate a Supreme Court justice … But the founders also gave the Senate the exclusive right to decide whether to move forward on that nominee.’ Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposing-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. In contrast, when the presidency and the Senate are controlled by the same party, the precedent is for the president’s nominees to get confirmed. In the 19 occasions that a vacancy has occurred when the President and the Senate are of the same party, the Senate has confirmed the nominee and filled the seat in every instance but one. I look forward to seeing who President Trump plans to nominate and thoroughly assessing his or her qualifications for this important role.”

He never commented on the Presidency and Senate's political parties in 2016.

[RainCaster]

1. An impeached president should not be allowed to choose a new justice

Just a thought

[unblock]

2. Of course not. Mcturtle just says crap that means "we're doing it because we can."

That said, his real constitutional argument is that if senate approval is required, it's totally at the senate's discretion and it has no obligation to approve or even consider a presidential nominee.

From a constitutional perspective, it's hard to claim this is incorrect. Certainly, the senate could have killed it in committee or otherwise pretended or even just voted no on every nominee.

What *should* happen is that the whole country should say that's completely irresponsible and corrupt and republicans should have paid a hefty political price for that.

Sadly, our failing democracy isn't that responsive to the majority....

[Yavin4]

3. The difference between the parties is that the Republicans will seize power to suit their goals

and the Dems believe in preserving institutional norms over actually seizing power to do good.

[BainsBane]

4. Parties aren't mentioned in the constitution

The founders despised them.

The reason they could stop Obama's appointed and yet still shove Trump's through is that they have control of the Senate. It's pure power.

[OhioBlue]

5. Right. But the logic some Senators are trying to spin in their press releases is

completely contradictory. I added Portman's comments on edit to my OP. Graham's are similar.

[BainsBane]

6. That's because

they have absolutely no principles. They gleefully show their hypocrisy.

[Azathoth]

7. The Senate is an explicitly political body

Rules and precedents mean nothing except insofar as a majority of Senators choose to respect or change them. With the exception of basic constitutional requirements (quorum needed to vote, majority needed to pass, etc.), the Senate makes its own rules and it is expected that rulemaking process will include political considerations.

[hardluck]

9. Perfect summation

[radius777]

8. Bla bla bla he's a gaslighting hypocrite.

We need to expose these fuckers and make them pay a price.

Their hardcore base may not care, but moderates and swing voters will see it for what it is - a shameless power grab.

[duforsure]

10. If trumps illegitimate

Everything can be reversed. That's what needs to be proven, and used against him and for removal now. That's why he's obstructing his taxes from being exposed, and having Barr stop all investigations against him. It all goes back to putin.