You know as well as I do that Fortas has a scandal and so was basically considered and withdrawn because he was seen as unfit. Happy to look at the other cases but I think we will find similar examples. Garland was picked apart. He was just ignored.
-
-
Replying to @neeratanden @Yellow_Dog1959
Yes, the Fortas precedent - the only time a POTUS ever failed to get any nominee thru a Senate *his* party controlled - turns heavily on ethics. The others, however, were not; they were more direct election-year or lame-duck showdowns between POTUS & a Senate of the other party.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @Yellow_Dog1959
If you’re going back to Tyler, then this proves the opposite case. Because the Court started with 6 Justices.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @neeratanden @Yellow_Dog1959
If you concede - as the record clearly shows - that you were wrong to claim that not taking up a nominee "had never happened," then yes, we can also discuss the history of the Court's size.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @Yellow_Dog1959
I don't concede it because I don't know the record of the Tyler Administration, but since you mischaracterized the Fortas case, I'm not planning to take your graph's word for it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @neeratanden @Yellow_Dog1959
Mischaracterized how? Bipartisan filibuster, Democrat-controlled Senate, major ethical problems. The history is well-known.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @Yellow_Dog1959
Fortas is not an example for your argument. But more importantly this whole graph seems error ridden. Harlan was confirmed! But in the graph it says there was inaction. Taking a long time is not the same as inaction.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You're reading it backward - his nomination was rejected, then his second nomination was withdrawn after the Senate declined to act - more here https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf …
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Yes, the Senate was held by the opposing party, so it declined to confirm. Just as happened in 2016.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
No, I've argued all along that the presidents gets nominees confirmed in election years (or lame duck sessions) when his party controls the Senate, & not when they don't. The history is quite clear.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.