[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=burger link=topic=14611.msg156505#msg156505 date=1455495675]
This is really simple: the "both sides do it" thing does not apply here.  Bork got a vote and lost, and his replacement got a vote and was easily nominated.  Obama's votes against Bush's nominees were meaningless theater, as the outcomes were never in doubt.

If Obama's nominees get a fair and prompt vote and can't get 50 votes, I won't complain.  But that option, in an unprecedented step, has already been taken off the table by McConnell.

Don't tell me it's just politics. This is something new under the sun.

Why do Obama's votes get a pass as "meaningless theater?"
[/quote]

I think there's a distinction between a Senator exercising his/her independent judgment to choose to vote no on a nomination and the majority party deciding en masse to block a vote from every taking place, or a Senator staging a filibuster to ensure no vote takes place.  He doesn't get a pass on his votes, but context, as always, matters.  The Roberts nomination was assured of success, especially given a Republican majority, and with Democrats splitting evenly on that vote, there was relative freedom to make a "this guy isn't liberal enough for my taste" statement.  Alito was similarly guaranteed success, and though then-Senator Obama voted against the cloture vote (which passed anyway and was never in danger of failing), there was no real filibuster of Alito's nomination (in the sense of actually holding up the Senate's business by holding the floor), and his votes against Alito on cloture and final confirmation were thus more akin to protest votes--again, "this guy isn't liberal enough for my taste and I want people to know it."  Ultimately, Alito's nomination was approved in just three months, so Democratic opposition to Alito didn't really impact his timeline. 

In other words, you can describe those votes as theater because they weren't consequential due to the nominations never being in doubt.  Had either nomination been in serious question, with Democrats having a substantial majority in the Senate at the time, it would be interesting to see whether that would cause a change in voting pattern.  Because a failed Supreme Court nomination is so rare, I think many of the Senators voting no on Roberts or Alito would have reluctantly voted to confirm them if Democrats had held the majority, particularly with Roberts.  An academic question at this point, sure, but it would be an interesting question to ask President Obama (once he's out of office and in a more reflective frame of mind) whether he regrets voting against Chief Justice Roberts and/or Justice Alito. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=burger link=topic=14611.msg156505#msg156505 date=1455495675]
This is really simple: the "both sides do it" thing does not apply here.  Bork got a vote and lost, and his replacement got a vote and was easily nominated.  Obama's votes against Bush's nominees were meaningless theater, as the outcomes were never in doubt.

If Obama's nominees get a fair and prompt vote and can't get 50 votes, I won't complain.  But that option, in an unprecedented step, has already been taken off the table by McConnell.

Don't tell me it's just politics. This is something new under the sun.

Why do Obama's votes get a pass as "meaningless theater?"
[/quote]

I think there's a distinction between a Senator exercising his/her independent judgment to choose to vote no on a nomination and the majority party deciding en masse to block a vote from every taking place, or a Senator staging a filibuster to ensure no vote takes place.  He doesn't get a pass on his votes, but context, as always, matters.  The Roberts nomination was assured of success, especially given a Republican majority, and with Democrats splitting evenly on that vote, there was relative freedom to make a "this guy isn't liberal enough for my taste" statement.  Alito was similarly guaranteed success, and though then-Senator Obama voted against the cloture vote (which passed anyway and was never in danger of failing), there was no real filibuster of Alito's nomination (in the sense of actually holding up the Senate's business by holding the floor), and his votes against Alito on cloture and final confirmation were thus more akin to protest votes--again, "this guy isn't liberal enough for my taste and I want people to know it."  Ultimately, Alito's nomination was approved in just three months, so Democratic opposition to Alito didn't really impact his timeline. 

In other words, you can describe those votes as theater because they weren't consequential due to the nominations never being in doubt.  Had either nomination been in serious question, with Democrats having a substantial majority in the Senate at the time, it would be interesting to see whether that would cause a change in voting pattern.  Because a failed Supreme Court nomination is so rare, I think many of the Senators voting no on Roberts or Alito would have reluctantly voted to confirm them if Democrats had held the majority, particularly with Roberts.  An academic question at this point, sure, but it would be an interesting question to ask President Obama (once he's out of office and in a more reflective frame of mind) whether he regrets voting against Chief Justice Roberts and/or Justice Alito.