Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 21 2020 02:39am)

The shortest confirmation was 19 days in 1970. Not disagreeing or opining in any way on what you're saying, merely correcting factually inaccurate information.

Further, there's still 4 months in the current administration. Plenty of time.

Edit: Correction: It was 1969, not 1970, and it was 17 days, not 19. My bad, my memory is shit, especially for historical events I didn't live through. :/

Edit 2: Looks like even I'm fake news. Abe Fortas was appointed by Johnson on July 28th, 1965, and confirmed on August 11th, 1965. My math sucks, but I'm pretty sure that's 14 days.

Either way, the point stands. You can go through the historical record of nominations vs confirmations yourself, but 50 days is nowhere near the fastest.

Edit 3: Byron White under JFK took 8 days.

No matter what I'm looking at here, the idea that it's supposed to take months is not precedented.

Edit 4: Just to drive the point home, nearly every nomination by George Washington was confirmed within 1 day.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Sep 21 2020 12:23pm)

George Washington, who was anti-partisan and appointed people based on qualifications rather than partisan strategy? He'd nominate someone moderate from the minority party (himself being an independent) just to unify people. Contrast this with Trump, who is possibly the most partisan president in the history of the country.

And holy Christ, you can't compare Byron White to any of the people Trump wants to nominate.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 21 2020 12:41pm)

Thus far Trump's nominations have been spot on Constitutionalists. I see no reason this will change.

Quote (thundercock @ Sep 21 2020 12:44pm)

That's not their only job though. They also have to interpret federal law...what's the best way to do that?

Quote (thundercock @ Sep 21 2020 03:13pm)

The underlying issue is whether or not we should fill the vacancy this close to the election. You can easily phrase that without sounding biased: "Given that the election is weeks away, should the SCOTUS vacancy be filled after inauguration day?"

Here is the pdf: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-09/topline-reuters-rbg-supreme-court-vacancy-092120.pdf

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?...President Donald Trump should nominate a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg before his term ends.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?...The winner of the election should be able to appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement on the Supreme Court.

The numbers I referenced refer to the 2nd question and there's actually a substantial gap between the two questions.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 21 2020 12:50pm)

I don't believe you and I have the same understanding of what the Supreme Court's duty is. They do not write law (in spite of roe vs wade). They do not rewrite law. Their job is only to interpret law when it comes down to appeals, overturning cases, or judging cases against states. Interpreting federal law, for 95% of their job, is determining if laws passed by congress are Constitutional in the first place. And if not, overturning them.

Part of the underlying issue with why the Supreme Court is that rather than being a check and balance on both the utilization of executive power, AND the writing of legislation, instead they've had a bad habit of using said "interpretations" to write entirely new laws in and of themselves. That's literally NOT their job.

If the Zombie Apocalypse ever hits and heaven forbid George Washington ever came back, he'd be so pissed at what's been done to blur the checks in power that we'd likely be all doomed.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 21 2020 12:50pm)

I don't believe you and I have the same understanding of what the Supreme Court's duty is. They do not write law (in spite of roe vs wade). They do not rewrite law. Their job is only to interpret law when it comes down to appeals, overturning cases, or judging cases against states. Interpreting federal law, for 95% of their job, is determining if laws passed by congress are Constitutional in the first place. And if not, overturning them.

Part of the underlying issue with why the Supreme Court is so controversial is that rather than being a check and balance on both the utilization of executive power, AND the writing of legislation, instead they've had a bad habit of using said "interpretations" to write entirely new laws in and of themselves. That's literally NOT their job.

If the Zombie Apocalypse ever hits and heaven forbid George Washington ever came back, he'd be so pissed at what's been done to blur the checks in power that we'd likely be all doomed.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Sep 21 2020 12:51pm)

Fair amount of detail which you boiled down to 62% vs 23% mistakenly.

The sampling isn't proportionally represented between republican vs democrat which will obviously skew the % result.

If you look at the broken down data it just basically says the respondents are responding in a very partisan manner. Only useful data imo is from independents & undecided that only seem to have a slight inclination towards waiting after the election rather than the boiled down eye grabbing % you posted.