General Discussion

Xipe Totec

(44,558 posts)

6. Were there any SCOTUS Nominations by GWB rejected after July 2007?

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:34 PM

Feb 2016

Schumer can say what he wants, but there were no SCOTUS vacancies to fill between July 2007 and the end of GWB's term in office.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee [View all] yeoman6987 Feb 2016 OP

Regardless, Chuck & Mitch (Chitch? Muck?) don't get to freestyle the Constitution Orrex Feb 2016 #1

That's true. yeoman6987 Feb 2016 #54

They're not going freestyle, but Obama should not have taken recess appointments off the table CommonSenseDemocrat Feb 2016 #79

I doubt the senate would take any official recesses if recess appointments were on the table NobodyHere Feb 2016 #86

They are currently in a recess CommonSenseDemocrat Feb 2016 #92

Umm, because he's a buffoon? tularetom Feb 2016 #2

Figures you would post this. In context he said that Bush's nominee would have to show that they blm Feb 2016 #3

Yeah, really. The OP is soooo concerned. Arugula Latte Feb 2016 #8

Yup ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2016 #48

Definitely a pattern. nt laundry_queen Feb 2016 #60

and your point is? hfojvt Feb 2016 #55

That's not what GOP's are saying, is it? They are saying NO - period. No ifs or buts about it. The blm Feb 2016 #62

so you are going to pretend you don't know what they mean? hfojvt Feb 2016 #63

Both sides are NOT clearly doing it. Schumer is talking about the DISHONEST approach blm Feb 2016 #69

refuse to see it, then? hfojvt Feb 2016 #70

Schumer is NOT the majority leader of the Senate ... GeorgeGist Feb 2016 #72

You peddle baloney. Schumer also said extraordinary circumstances - a death would qualify. blm Feb 2016 #85

Robert has not turned out to be so bad treestar Feb 2016 #80

Roberts saved Obamacare Reter Feb 2016 #82

However, no nominee was actually blocked. DCBob Feb 2016 #4

Precisely! Obama has every right to appoint whomever the fuck he wants! InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2016 #11

He does, but the Senate has every right to refuse to confirm if they object. Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #50

Actually, none of this surprises me. Hypocrisy abounds. razorman Feb 2016 #59

I'd like to see the repugs try to reject his nomination if it's a Latino/Latina candidate brush Feb 2016 #77

Perhaps. But I'm not so sure. Since the Latin threshold has been passed razorman Feb 2016 #78

What Latin threshold? brush Feb 2016 #89

What I meant was that we already have the first Latin Justice razorman Feb 2016 #90

Okay, that still doesn't negate the resentment that Latino Americans will . . . brush Feb 2016 #91

The key to sanity is considering one's own preference when power is reversed. Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #84

I like that. Hadn't heard it put that way before. razorman Feb 2016 #88

There was no vacancy. former9thward Feb 2016 #67

It's actually not the same thing. What a shock, right? kcr Feb 2016 #68

Do a recess appointment. leveymg Feb 2016 #5

Need a recess for that. onenote Feb 2016 #9

Sounds good to me! ... Famous African American Women for $600 Alex... InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2016 #13

They only last until next session Reter Feb 2016 #83

Were there any SCOTUS Nominations by GWB rejected after July 2007? Xipe Totec Feb 2016 #6

Oh, you alcibiades_mystery Feb 2016 #7

This is one way SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #10

STOP BEING REASONABLE AND LOGICAL!! WillowTree Feb 2016 #41

Really, and then we also need sane judges who will respect the law, so the best result Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #51

Looks like concern trolling from here. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #12

Seriously! InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2016 #14

Some here pine for Reagan and can barely contain themselves now that his last crappy Rex Feb 2016 #75

I often see you complaining about sourcing... TipTok Feb 2016 #93

And another shows up. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #94

Two things. Marr Feb 2016 #15

Exactly. The post has a false premise. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #16

Yep! Blatantly dishonest, imo. blm Feb 2016 #36

Also it's a hit and run post. Would love for OP to defend his position. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #37

The right wing seems all upset. What a shame, eh? Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #17

I don't get the drama over this LittleBlue Feb 2016 #18

Nope. The President will do his job and nominate.. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #19

And the Senate will do their job SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #20

Bullshit, what they are screaming about is not their job. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #22

It's certainly their job to confirm or reject SCOTUS appointments n/t SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #25

Reject before nomination? Don't think so. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #27

Think so SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #31

Where in the Constitution does it say they have to be fair to the nominee? davidn3600 Feb 2016 #44

So we aren't allowed to discuss it? Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #45

He will, but it won't go anywhere unless he nominates someone who leans conservative LittleBlue Feb 2016 #23

Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #21

Anthony Kennedy. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #26

That's laughable SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #30

Democrats don't act like far right wing republicans. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #33

When it comes to SCOTUS SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #34

Though I keep reading that allegation, I see no consistent evidence supporting it. LanternWaste Feb 2016 #38

Except, it is NOT what was said, is it? Why pretend both sides would do the same? blm Feb 2016 #39

Much as I try not to answer a question with another question....... WillowTree Feb 2016 #49

I agree with you. But there's a good reason for the outrage. Marr Feb 2016 #24

Because our party is more like their party than we care to admit. (eom) HassleCat Feb 2016 #28

Let's see ... given the rest of the FIASCO.... underpants Feb 2016 #29

"except in extraordinary circumstances" Hugin Feb 2016 #32

one guy as opposed to their whole party....pale comparison spanone Feb 2016 #35

we have faith you'll get it right one day LanternWaste Feb 2016 #40

Not too obvious. Behind the Aegis Feb 2016 #42

Here's GOP and Cave hero Reagan (on Anthony Kennedy) in his last year: Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #43

May not be any difference between McConnel and Schumer on this but huge difference between parties hollowdweller Feb 2016 #46

Washington Examiner is not a credible news source meow2u3 Feb 2016 #47

I didn't know it was right wing. Seems everything is now adays. yeoman6987 Feb 2016 #52

I love that story. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #65

What took you so long? lpbk2713 Feb 2016 #53

Hi Yeoman....curious...why are you catching so much heat.... clarice Feb 2016 #56

Thanks. I guess some are bored and need to vent to me. yeoman6987 Feb 2016 #57

I guess. nt clarice Feb 2016 #58

I think some feel the need pintobean Feb 2016 #61

Thank you. yeoman6987 Feb 2016 #64

I like being informed of actual facts that relate to the premise of the post.. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #66

What an open minded "progressive" attitude. Good on ya mate. nt clarice Feb 2016 #97

Because the only place the quote appears is right-wing websites, and only in the last week. NYC Liberal Feb 2016 #96

58-42 to confirm. Zo Zig Feb 2016 #71

Obama's nominee will be in the mainstream CreekDog Feb 2016 #73

Oh my! Some of you are really worried about us getting a liberal judge on the bench! Rex Feb 2016 #74

Well, he was wrong too. PatrickforO Feb 2016 #76

Seems like a lifetime since we had a Liberal Supreme Court majority. It's the republicans B Calm Feb 2016 #81

It is entertaining watching conservatives crap their pants over the thought of a liberal judge Rex Feb 2016 #87

The ONLY places this quote appears are right-wing websites from the last few days. NYC Liberal Feb 2016 #95