2016 Postmortem

Igel

(36,742 posts)

30. That's confusing.

Sat Dec 3, 2016, 06:22 PM

Dec 2016

I remember 2009. There was a small (D) majority in the Senate--57 or 58 (D) + 2 (I) for most of the year.

"The nomination was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in August 2009 by a vote of 68 to 31, making Sotomayor the first Latina Supreme Court Justice in U.S. history." http://www.biography.com/people/sonia-sotomayor-453906#first-hispanic-supreme-court-justice

At least 7 or 8 (R) voted for Sotomayor. So we know how the GOP acted on a SCOTUS vacancy in 2009. Most voted against, some voted for.

That was early, and before an additional 7 years of "gotcha" and scorched-earth politics.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why didn't the liberal justices retire from the Supreme Court during Obama's 2 terms? [View all] liquid diamond Dec 2016 OP

Or first. Hubris. La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #1

That thought crossed my mind liquid diamond Dec 2016 #9

Souter retired in 2009... Cooley Hurd Dec 2016 #2

Thank you for the correction. liquid diamond Dec 2016 #10

David Souter retired MFM008 Dec 2016 #3

Yeah, wouldn't that have been sweet. Now we have a catastrophe PearliePoo2 Dec 2016 #4

I know things look dire, TexasTowelie Dec 2016 #5

I'm sorry TT, didn't you read the fine print on that precedent... CincyDem Dec 2016 #33

Actually the fine print says TexasTowelie Dec 2016 #34

because we would have 3 empty seats on the SC now. because they would never get confirmed so long putitinD Dec 2016 #6

Just how far can congress keep liquid diamond Dec 2016 #11

no, the Democrats would fold like an acordian and give the fuhrer anyone he chooses. putitinD Dec 2016 #14

Would he have been able to replace them? ucrdem Dec 2016 #7

Why did some self-identified progressives refuse to vote for Hillary? still_one Dec 2016 #8

Same answer: hubris and callousness towards others La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #12

Hubris? Really? EffieBlack Dec 2016 #17

To answer your question.. yup. pangaia Dec 2016 #18

I am at least this judgemental about liberals La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #22

Exactly Me. Dec 2016 #27

I believe they were waiting for Hillary brush Dec 2016 #21

Because liquid diamond Dec 2016 #13

They wanted to wait for a Democratic Senate FBaggins Dec 2016 #15

Why didn't the progressives who insisted that they were the "new revolution" that would help Bernie EffieBlack Dec 2016 #16

there is no revolution. single payer lost by a huge amount in colorado JI7 Dec 2016 #23

You can't do single payer on a state by state basis. Bernie learned that when his beloved Vermont's politicaljunkie41910 Dec 2016 #35

Yes so where is that revolution we heard so much about since they spoke loudly on Nov. 8 politicaljunkie41910 Dec 2016 #36

Hillary was suppposed to win, and the senate flip. TheCowsCameHome Dec 2016 #19

Did it work out any better for you than for us? La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #32

Hindsight is a marvelous thing, no doubt. Paladin Dec 2016 #20

If it were hubris at all Uponthegears Dec 2016 #24

Really? Me. Dec 2016 #25

Given the GOP record of eight years of obstruction, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #26

Ok. liquid diamond Dec 2016 #28

That depends on how the Senate sets up its rules at the beginning of the next session guillaumeb Dec 2016 #29

That's confusing. Igel Dec 2016 #30

But the GOP leaders had already decided, in 2009 as we know, to obstruct Obama. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #31

Kagan got appointed in 2010 Txbluedog Dec 2016 #38

Maybe they were like the rest of us paigeatemyshoes Dec 2016 #37

It IS a "lifetime appointment"... BlueProgressive Dec 2016 #39

Well scalia died and that didn't help. Cha Dec 2016 #40