To have been unassailable, the McConnell principle should have been stated as
“All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year — when the Senate and President are of different parties and the vacancy had been held by a Justice of a party different from the party of the nominee.
Since at least 1945 there has not been an election year vacancy filled by a President when the Senste is of the opposite party AND the nominee is of a different party than the Justice previously filling the vacant seat
The key point is that since at least 1945 no President other than Obama ever tried to nominate, and no President has succeeded succeeded in successfully nominating, a Justice of a party different from the Senate and whose confirmation would result in a “seat switch”.
Strom Thurmond filibustered Abe Fortas's elevation to Chief Justice in 1968.
The judicial wars started with Abe Fortas, not Robert Bork. The difference is that liberals have admtited that Fortas was corrupt while conservatives haven't admitted that Bork was an extremist.
Abe Fortas, who was indeed confimed as an associate justice of the supreme court, was ultimately not confirmed as CJ because of ethical issues, not ideological ones.
The Ideological warfare that Democrats always start began with their absolutely shameful treatment of Robert Bork, a brilliant jurist as qualified as anyone ever was to serve on the highest court. You call him "an extremist" because you're on the extreme leftist and no doubt regard anyone right of center as extreme.
Unfortunately, conservatives failed to quickly understand or to respond to the ideological warfare the Ds had unleashed. Hence the 96-3 vote to confirm a true ideological extremist of the left by the name of Ruth Bader GInsberg.
So no, I wasn't "quite wrong." But you are quite disingenous.
Bork was given full hearings and a vote. 6 Republicans voted against him. Even John Stennis of Mississippi, past leader of Southern segregationists, voted against him. Here was an editorial of the time by William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr. on why Bork was unaccceptable, https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/15/opinion/why-judge-bork-is-unacceptable.html
Bork was given full hearings and a vote. 6 Republicans voted against him. Even John Stennis of Mississippi, past leader of Southern segregationists, voted against him. Here was an editorial of the time by Willima Thaddeus Coleman, Jr., a Republican,
To have been unassailable, the McConnell principle should have been stated as
“All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year — when the Senate and President are of different parties and the vacancy had been held by a Justice of a party different from the party of the nominee.
Since at least 1945 there has not been an election year vacancy filled by a President when the Senste is of the opposite party AND the nominee is of a different party than the Justice previously filling the vacant seat
The key point is that since at least 1945 no President other than Obama ever tried to nominate, and no President has succeeded succeeded in successfully nominating, a Justice of a party different from the Senate and whose confirmation would result in a “seat switch”.
Although a few of his colleagues were confused on the concept, McConnell made clear that his obstruction was in the opposite-party scenario. https://eppc.org/publication/mcconnells-supreme-court-tactics-politics-101/
You are quite wrong, it started witn Strom Thurmond.
Democrats always start it.
You are quite wrong, it started witn Strom Thurmond.
You must be referring to the Thurmond Myth.
Try again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_rule
Strom Thurmond filibustered Abe Fortas's elevation to Chief Justice in 1968.
The judicial wars started with Abe Fortas, not Robert Bork. The difference is that liberals have admtited that Fortas was corrupt while conservatives haven't admitted that Bork was an extremist.
Thank you for making my exact point.
Abe Fortas, who was indeed confimed as an associate justice of the supreme court, was ultimately not confirmed as CJ because of ethical issues, not ideological ones.
The Ideological warfare that Democrats always start began with their absolutely shameful treatment of Robert Bork, a brilliant jurist as qualified as anyone ever was to serve on the highest court. You call him "an extremist" because you're on the extreme leftist and no doubt regard anyone right of center as extreme.
Unfortunately, conservatives failed to quickly understand or to respond to the ideological warfare the Ds had unleashed. Hence the 96-3 vote to confirm a true ideological extremist of the left by the name of Ruth Bader GInsberg.
So no, I wasn't "quite wrong." But you are quite disingenous.
Here is how I would have voted on every US Supreme Court nomination between 1987 and 2010 if I were a Senator:
Robert Bork - Nay
Anthony Kennedy - Yea
David Souter - Yea
Clarence Thomas - Nay
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Yea
Stephen Breyer - Yea
John Roberts - Yea
Samuel Alito - Nay
Sonia Sotomayor - Yea
Elena Kagan - Yea
I would have voted for Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts as moderate conservatives.
Meanwhile, I would have voted against Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as hardline conservatives.
Sotomayor 🤣
How about the erudite KBJ?
Bork was given full hearings and a vote. 6 Republicans voted against him. Even John Stennis of Mississippi, past leader of Southern segregationists, voted against him. Here was an editorial of the time by William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr. on why Bork was unaccceptable, https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/15/opinion/why-judge-bork-is-unacceptable.html
Bork was given full hearings and a vote. 6 Republicans voted against him. Even John Stennis of Mississippi, past leader of Southern segregationists, voted against him. Here was an editorial of the time by Willima Thaddeus Coleman, Jr., a Republican,