You lost me on the "clearly unconstitutional" part.

Doesn't the constitution says the Senate acts on the nominations of the President?

Of course the Senate internal rules have always seemed unconstitutional to me. While I wouldn't be thrilled about it happening now under whacko leadership and president, I think overall it would be a change for the better if the filibuster disappeared.

The current senate Democrats would disagree with you. And so would most Republicans since they realize they could be a minority sometime in the future. That's why I think it's unlikely the Senate would vote to change the filibuster rules.

Also, tradition.

So they should have voted 'no.'

And the threat of that should have forced Obama to pick a moderate appointee, perhaps even one that Republicans had suggested in the past as a possible split-party appointee, like Merrick Garland.

That's how a democracy is supposed to work. Obama doesn't get the flag-burning commie he wants, and Republicans don't get the gun-toting American patriot they want.

The problem in this case was that McConnell was out there a few nanoseconds after Scalia's death talking to the media about how the Senate wasn't going to confirm any Obama nominee, before Obama had even nominated anyone.

Democrats definitely take the blame for turning the nomination process into a partisan fiasco, with them bragging about how they Borked Bork in the 1980s. But Republicans and Democrats have both carried on that fine tradition for the past 30 years, each nominee being painted as the worst thing since ... the last nominee.

Scalia and Kagan were friends. If people want someone who's going to carry on Scalia's legacy, they should pick someone who's willing to get together for beers with someone they vehemently disagreed with in the courtroom.

Um no. Democracy is founded on the basis f self preservation

Anyone ever been to Abu Dhabi?

How bad is it for Americans right now woudld you think?

I thought it was 10 months.

Some senators say a year, others say a year and a half.

By that measure, 25-40% of the time, the sitting President will be unable to complete his or her Constitutional duties because of Senate tradition.

Scalia died February 13. There was a new nominee January 31. So 2 weeks shy of a full year.

Sad sad day for america. I think modern liberalism and the american decline is one of the best books I've ever read

I don't gather you understood what I meant.

The Senate rejecting a nominee is no big deal. I think even George Washington had one rejected. For reasons good or bad, rejections are part of the Senate's Constitutional duty.

The travesty is the public punditry surrounding it. Democrats should have quietly voted no, and honestly, had they been better behaved prior to the nomination, Reagan probably would have compromised and chosen a more moderate candidate that had a chance of getting confirmed.

Imagine Scalia getting confirmed unanimously today.

I know what you meant, I was just saying that it was a big loss for the american people that bork was not confirmed.

What does nomination day have to do with it? Obama was out Jan 20.

Republicans are complete hypocrites.
Completely obstructionist last 8 years, no spending allowed, shut down goverment twice. That was after republican pres inherited budget surplus and ran it to largest deficits in the world.

Now republican pres elected that soesnt even champion all. their causes (infra invest, no free trade, tariff away) and they are giving him a blank check.

Flame away....

Actually this is an example of hypocracy You have a problem with the appointment of Supreme Court justices being what you think is unconstitutional but have no problem at all when they judges themselves make rulings that are unconstitutional, basically decisions by judges that aren't strict textualists (some rulings may be the right thing to do but still clearly the wrong decision).

It still is 11 more days without a properly functioning top of one of our 3 branches of goverenment

But ok, a full year minue 3.5 weeks. Still shameful.

Huh, were you talking about me? I didn't say anything about the justices or nominees, I know literally nothing about Trump's or Obama's nominees. I said I thought it was unconstituional for the Senate to ignore Obama's nomination.

This is my view, fwiw.

I don't mean you specifically but here is a followup. (1) if it is unconstitutional do you have a problem with it being done? (2) decisions like roe v. wade regardless of your stance on abortion are clearly unconstitutional, do you feel they should be overturned?

I think Roe v Wade was a ridiculously written and reasoned decision, it was a crazy stretch to relate abortion to unreasonable searches and siezures.

However, I think conservative justices have made bad rulings as well. I don't see what that has to do with my feeling that it is both unconstitutional and a horrible scandal to let the country go without a full supreme court for nearly a year.

It was a big loss for conservative Americans that Bork was not confirmed. It was a big loss for all Americans that Bork's appointment went down the way it did.

It was a big loss for liberal Americans as well, they may just not know it

Time for new thread title IMO

I'll get us back on track pope: 40 years to Mars?! Let's think big: Proxima b in 40 years!

Here's a link to the Lubin manuscript for those of you with some extra time on your hands...

I'd take that bet.