zlacker

Don't worry... he also criticized Obama for golfing too much, and has gone golfing more frequently than Obama.

And Senate Republicans have openly asked judges to resign so they can be replaced by conservative judges, and their justification for why it's okay to do this so close to an election but it wasn't okay to confirm Garland so close to an election literally amounts to "Obama's a Democrat, Trump's a Republican."

>>jcranm+(OP)
To be fair, the judges asked to resign (really retire) are conservatives. It's the same reason Ginsburg hasn't retired despite her health issues -- everything to do with which party would be nominating her replacement.

The next time the Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans the whitehouse, I wouldn't expect them be interested in confirming any judges right before a Presidential election either.

>>jcranm+(OP)
> And Senate Republicans have openly asked judges to resign so they can be replaced by conservative judges, and their justification for why it's okay to do this so close to an election but it wasn't okay to confirm Garland so close to an election literally amounts to "Obama's a Democrat, Trump's a Republican."

It's worse than that. There were at least three high ranking Republican Senators who said that if Clinton won the election, they would go her entire 4 (or 8) years without confirming any Supreme Court nominees, keeping any vacant seats open until there was a Republican President again to fill them.

>>Anthon+u4
Or ever, really. What incentive is there for a party in opposition to ever confirm the opposing party's choice for the Supreme Court.

>>ghshep+w6
In past times there was a thing called compromise. Not very familiar anymore, I know. Instead of leaving a seat empty for the next ten years until the same party controls the Senate and the whitehouse (and not knowing ahead of time whether it'll be yours or not), the President can nominate a moderate which the opposition party Senate might confirm for the same reason. Better a moderate now than the other guy's candidate later.

But when you're looking at electoral math that says you're about to have even odds of taking the whitehouse and probably won't lose the Senate, that doesn't really apply.

>>tzs+46
As distasteful and unprofessional as it is, it is their right. If the Senate, and its Senators, for whatever reason decide not to act, there's nothing the President can do. It's distasteful, but it's neither illegal nor out of character.

>>Anthon+A8
That's probably the most insightful and (to my mind) intelligent assessment I've heard when asking that question. It eliminates any handwaving about "tradition" or "precedent" - and gets right down to the fundamental elements of power and control, and risk.