Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-06-2018, 04:07 PM
Chad Sudan Chad Sudan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 30
If a future Senate ever again ignores a Supreme Court nominee - what could be done?

In 2016, the Republican Senate majority leader refused to even consider the Supreme Court nominee of the Democratic president.

If something similar happens in the future - obstructionist Senate ignores president's Supreme Court nominee - does that president have any recourse?

I'm not talking about any blatantly illegal or unconstitutional action - but it could be one that bends the norms.

Simply put - could a future president do something that Obama didn't do?
  #2  
Old 10-06-2018, 04:26 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Sudan View Post
... If something similar happens in the future - obstructionist Senate ignores president's Supreme Court nominee - does that president have any recourse? ...
He could withdraw the nominee and nominate someone the Senate is willing to consider. That would be, at this point, norm-breaking I think.
  #3  
Old 10-06-2018, 04:58 PM
enipla enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 12,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He could withdraw the nominee and nominate someone the Senate is willing to consider. That would be, at this point, norm-breaking I think.
Didn't they refuse to even VOTE on it?
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #4  
Old 10-06-2018, 05:01 PM
OldGuy OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 4,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Didn't they refuse to even VOTE on it?
They refused to even debate on it or otherwise consider it.
  #5  
Old 10-06-2018, 05:03 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He could withdraw the nominee and nominate someone the Senate is willing to consider. That would be, at this point, norm-breaking I think.
Of course, you could have a Senate Majority Leader who says "One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, 'You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy." Republicans didn't give a flying fuck who Obama nominated. They simply didn't want to let him nominate anybody at all.

But thanks for the rallying cry, Republicans. For insisting on a drunken perjuring rapist, you've given the Democrats both houses of Congress next month.
  #6  
Old 10-06-2018, 05:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,883
Without an utterly massive change in political climate, we'll never again see a Senate of the opposite party confirm a President's SCOTUS nominee. McConnell proved that there are no consequences for it.
  #7  
Old 10-06-2018, 05:19 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He could withdraw the nominee and nominate someone the Senate is willing to consider. That would be, at this point, norm-breaking I think.
The Senate did not consider Merrick Garland. Not only was his nomination not devated or voted on, it didn’t even get a fucking hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of deliberate administrative inaction by Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell. Do not sit there and try to pretend like this was business as normal; it was historically irregular and nearly unprecedented. Even Robert Bork got a hearing and vote even though he was wildly unpopular both in the Senate and population at large.

All the people bitching about how this hearing and how allowing Ford to testify (even though she is one of three women with allegations of improper sexual behavior or assault against Kavanaugh) has somehow “ruined his life” by jeopardizing his chance of being on the Supreme Court need to apply the same logic to Garland and see how that plays. Garland was literally denied the chance to even be heard and have hos credentials and temperment examined. Kavanaugh got to have a hearing and make his statement, and all that did was make him sound like more of a partisan, entitled, raging asshole.

Stranger
  #8  
Old 10-06-2018, 05:23 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
... Do not sit there and try to pretend like this was business as normal...
Get a grip. I'm not 'pretending like' anything. The OP asked "could a future president do something that Obama didn't do?" and I answered. If Obama had nominated someone like Gorsuch, McConnell and Grassley would have been racing so hard to the floor to give the nominee an up-or-down vote that they would have likely tripped over themselves.
  #9  
Old 10-06-2018, 05:25 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
They refused to even debate on it or otherwise consider it.
I'm aware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Didn't they refuse to even VOTE on it?
Yes.
  #10  
Old 10-06-2018, 05:34 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Get a grip. I'm not 'pretending like' anything. The OP asked "could a future president do something that Obama didn't do?" and I answered. If Obama had nominated someone like Gorsuch, McConnell and Grassley would have been racing so hard to the floor to give the nominee an up-or-down vote that they would have likely tripped over themselves.
”If you’d only given me a blowjob when I put my penis in your face I wouldn’t have had to rape you.” This is the most disingenuous, offensive horseshit you’ve served up in a long line of roadapples. The Republicans could have at least given Garland a hearing and vote as has been the standed practice without exception for over a century and shot him down on a guaranteed party-line vote instead of manufacturing a bullshit excuse as to why it was unfair to even consider a nomination by a president in his last term. But instead, they are so afreaid of being seen as what they are, they actually brought in a “female prosecutor” to ask questions becuase they were too afraid to confront Ford themselves, and then dismissed their functionary when she behaved like a real prosecutor instead of theit collective hand puppet.

As for the o.p., there is nothing the president can do about this, and that is by design so that the executive does not wield excessive power. There is, howver, plenty voters can do about it by removing hyperpartisan legislators and replacing them with prinicipled, reasonable representatives, and also encouraging to amend the Constitution so that appointment to the Supreme Court is not a lifetime appointment worthy of pulling the temple down in order topack with one’s preferred political appointee.

Stranger
  #11  
Old 10-06-2018, 05:40 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,956
Obama was a failure as a Founding Father. To be fair, he never realized that he would be one, but he was: There have been times in our nation's history when it became clear that there was something that just wasn't covered in the Constitution, and so someone just made something up, and that became the precedent. Obama could have done something, but didn't, and now that's the precedent going forward.

To pick two examples: He could have declared that the consent of the Senate was the default position, and that therefore not voting against a nominee constituted consent. Or he could have asked the President of the Senate to call the matter to a vote, instead of just sitting around doing nothing.
  #12  
Old 10-06-2018, 06:02 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
To pick two examples: He could have declared that the consent of the Senate was the default position, and that therefore not voting against a nominee constituted consent. Or he could have asked the President of the Senate to call the matter to a vote, instead of just sitting around doing nothing.
I assume you mean the Senate Majority Leader (the President of the Senate during Obama’s Presidency was Vice President Joe Biden) but it was clear that McConnell and Grassley were never going to let Obama appoint any more justices to the Supreme Court regardless. Yes, he could hve picked someone eminently amenable to the Republican leadership and maybe gotten them confirmed (although McConnell was so opposed to giving Obama any kind of success he migt have even opposed that put of “principle”, HurricaneDitka’s claim notwithstanding) but it is the privilege of the President to nominate who he or she wishes with the expectation of getting a fair hearing unless the nominee is unsuited on the face, e.g. wholly unqualified or with an unacceptible record of widely unacceptable decisions.

The Senate does have the role to “advise and consent” on nominations. What McConnell and Grassley did was not illegitimate or outside their authority; just grossly unethical and aggressively partisan.

Stranger
  #13  
Old 10-06-2018, 06:07 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
But thanks for the rallying cry, Republicans. For insisting on a drunken perjuring rapist, you've given the Democrats both houses of Congress next month.
Bookmarking this post...
  #14  
Old 10-06-2018, 06:34 PM
Smapti Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,244
A future Democratic Senate must alter the Senate's rules to require a vote within 180 days of the president nominating a justice. That's the easiest fix I can think of.

Well, after we pack the Court to neutralize Kavanaugh, that is.
  #15  
Old 10-06-2018, 06:39 PM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,233
A president could use such a situation as a rallying cry for coming elections more effectively than Obama did. Presidents have the bully pulpit.

But since Obama was unable to run for reelection in 2016 his was not the lead Democratic voice in the 2016 race. And though Hillary obviously held the Senate's intransigence in disdain she did not use it effectively to drive critical turnout.
  #16  
Old 10-06-2018, 06:41 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
A future Democratic Senate must alter the Senate's rules to require a vote within 180 days of the president nominating a justice. That's the easiest fix I can think of. ...
Nothing at all prevents subsequent Senates from changing the rules back to the way they were before.
  #17  
Old 10-06-2018, 06:42 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,856
By the way, the situation is not unprecedented. Millard Fillmore made three nominations, all of which were ignored by the Senate until Fillmore was replaced by Pierce.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #18  
Old 10-06-2018, 06:43 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Get a grip. I'm not 'pretending like' anything. The OP asked "could a future president do something that Obama didn't do?" and I answered. If Obama had nominated someone like Gorsuch, McConnell and Grassley would have been racing so hard to the floor to give the nominee an up-or-down vote that they would have likely tripped over themselves.
You technically answered, but you totally circumvented the intent of the question. The OP clearly wanted to know what a President could do to counter what they did to Obama's candidate, and your "answer" was for the President not to do anything.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 10-06-2018 at 06:43 PM.
  #19  
Old 10-06-2018, 07:04 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
By the way, the situation is not unprecedented. Millard Fillmore made three nominations, all of which were ignored by the Senate until Fillmore was replaced by Pierce.
That was in 1852, on the threshold of the Civil War. There was no excuse for not giving Garland, who had the ABA’s highest rating and was widely regarded across party lines as a centrist with a solid record of politically neutral judgments despite his personal liberal beliefs, a hearing other than the GOP being openly obstructionist.

Again, even Robert Bork, a nominee that even many then-Republicans thought to be unsuitable, was given a hearing and got a Senate vote (42-58 against). The idea that Garland didn’t merit a hearing and vote had nothing to do, even ostensibly, with his qualifications; it was McConnell and Grassley violating the norms of giving a nominee a hearing at all and keeping a vacancy open for over a year over nothing more than bald partisanship. Whatever bullshit rationale HurricaneDitka and his ilk want to toss out to cover up the real agenda, the GOP leadership in the Senate was plain about their reasons.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 10-06-2018 at 07:04 PM.
  #20  
Old 10-06-2018, 07:16 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Bookmarking this post...
i have never seen BobLibDem concerned or contrite over his many inaccurate predictions.

I don’t believe this will be the first time he cares.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #21  
Old 10-06-2018, 08:50 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
By the way, the situation is not unprecedented. Millard Fillmore made three nominations, all of which were ignored by the Senate until Fillmore was replaced by Pierce.
Another interestingly non-unprecedented situation: In 1866, Congress passed a law stating that no SCOTUS Justices to die or retire could be replaced until after the next President was inaugurated. I'm just sayin'.
  #22  
Old 10-06-2018, 08:53 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Another interestingly non-unprecedented situation: In 1866, Congress passed a law stating that no SCOTUS Justices to die or retire could be replaced until after the next President was inaugurated. I'm just sayin'.
That's not such a bad idea, at least as compared to present circumstances, by my initial thinking. Then, every single Presidential election would be a referendum on who should be nominated to the SCOTUS, and thus every nomination and confirmation would come relatively shortly after a national election, gaining a lot more legitimacy.
  #23  
Old 10-06-2018, 08:54 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Or he could have asked the President of the Senate to call the matter to a vote, instead of just sitting around doing nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
I assume you mean the Senate Majority Leader (the President of the Senate during Obama’s Presidency was Vice President Joe Biden) but it was clear that McConnell and Grassley were never going to let Obama appoint any more justices to the Supreme Court regardless
In any case, I believe the Rules do not provide for the Majority Leader or Vice President to just call the matter to a vote on their say-so, if the matter was referred to Grassley's committee and he was just sitting on it; it would take approving a discharge petition. Which requires at least part of the majority to cooperate.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 10-06-2018 at 08:56 PM.
  #24  
Old 10-06-2018, 09:55 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,304
If a future Senate ever again ignores a Supreme Court nominee - what could be done?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He could withdraw the nominee and nominate someone the Senate is willing to consider. That would be, at this point, norm-breaking I think.

Or, before ever putting forward a nominee, the Prez could listen to what the Senators are saying about who they would like to see.

Maybe pay close attention to what a respected senator like Orrin Hatch, former chair of the Judiciary committee, and still a member of it, said before the Prez sent his nominee to the Senate:

Quote:
A Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Thursday he would help moderate jurist Merrick Garland win Senate confirmation if President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Senator Oregon Hatch said he had known the federal appeals court judge, seen as a leading contender for the Supreme Court, for years and that he would be a "consensus nominee".

Asked if Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support, Hatch told Reuters "no question."

"I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes. And I will do my best to help him get them," added Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman.
So really, Obama should have just listened to a clear signal like that, and in a spirit of bipartisanship, nominated the clear consensus candidate. Right, Hurricane Ditka?

Last edited by Northern Piper; 10-06-2018 at 09:56 PM.
  #25  
Old 10-06-2018, 10:18 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He could withdraw the nominee and nominate someone the Senate is willing to consider. That would be, at this point, norm-breaking I think.
Bullshit. Obama nominated the guy that Orrin Hatch had asked for. And the Republicans still refused to even hold a hearing. Obama didn't just meet the Republicans halfway; he went nine-tenths of the way.

But there's a solution to this problem. It's the same thing that will solve a lot of problems in American politics. Vote the Republicans out of office. Get rid of the Republicans and the American system of government works just fine.
  #26  
Old 10-06-2018, 10:46 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Of course, you could have a Senate Majority Leader who says "One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, 'You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy." Republicans didn't give a flying fuck who Obama nominated. They simply didn't want to let him nominate anybody at all.

But thanks for the rallying cry, Republicans. For insisting on a drunken perjuring rapist, you've given the Democrats both houses of Congress next month.
Would you like to wager on that?
  #27  
Old 10-06-2018, 11:36 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,867
It would have been far-fetched anyways, but I think the NLRB recess appointments case from 2014 probably slammed the door on any kind of legal remedy. The Senate alone decides if it is in session, so I assume that the Senate alone also decides if it has consented.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 10-06-2018 at 11:39 PM.
  #28  
Old 10-07-2018, 12:35 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,433
The President might if his party controls the House of Representatives, get a recess appointment by dismissing Congress.

If the House and Senate disagree on adjournment under Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 the President can adjourn them to a time it thinks proper.

So if the Presidents party controls the lower House (not the case with Garland(, then he would be able to get a recess appointment through.

Last edited by AK84; 10-07-2018 at 12:35 AM.
  #29  
Old 10-07-2018, 09:34 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Or, before ever putting forward a nominee, the Prez could listen to what the Senators are saying about who they would like to see.

Maybe pay close attention to what a respected senator like Orrin Hatch, former chair of the Judiciary committee, and still a member of it, said before the Prez sent his nominee to the Senate
I don't know why people keep trotting out that stale quote over and over again. For better or worse, the Senate is highly sensitive to changes in the so-called balance of the Supreme Court. If you look at the date of that quote (2010), you'll see that it was made in the context of replacing Souter. And Obama didn't listen to Hatch at the time. He nominate Kagen.

Garland, of course, was nominated by Obama to replace Scalia. Different ball game.

Now, you might argue that Senators should not pay attention to the so-called balance of the court, but of course they do. If you thought the nomination of Kavanaugh was contentious, just wait until a Republican President gets to nominate someone to replace Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagen or Sotomayor.

To answer the OP, what could be done is the same thing that was or wasn't done in the other times when the Senate did the same thing. Because we all know (or should know) that Garland was not the first SCOTUS nominee to be ignored by the Senate.
  #30  
Old 10-07-2018, 09:39 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The President might ... by dismissing Congress.
No such authority exists. This isn't a parliamentary system and he's not a Prime Minister.
  #31  
Old 10-07-2018, 09:41 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He could withdraw the nominee and nominate someone the Senate is willing to consider.
Who would McConnell have been willing to consider?

Once again, btw, it wasn't "the Senate", as you damn well ought to understand by now, after having it explained to you so many times. You're not the only one solemnly repeating that same nonsense, of course, just the most persistent.

As for what can be done, other than electing a permanent Adults Party majority in the Senate, it would take a Constitutional amendment allowing appointments to take effect after a certain period if the Senate leadership refuses to do its duty. Having a Democratic majority adopt the McConnell Rule for Republican appointments might also get the idea across.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 10-07-2018 at 09:45 AM.
  #32  
Old 10-07-2018, 10:26 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
No such authority exists. This isn't a parliamentary system and he's not a Prime Minister.
Our distinguished foreign counsel did provide a cite (not for dismissal however, but for adjourning and reconvening), however this faculty only works if there is a standoff between the houses as to when to call adjournment:

Quote:
Constitution of the United States, Article II Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
If OTOH both houses arrange to remain in pro-forma session, there is no recurring to this power. Again, a case where there is a tool but it cannot be used freely at personal discretion.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 10-07-2018 at 10:29 AM.
  #33  
Old 10-07-2018, 10:30 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
No such authority exists.
Yes it does actually. Specifically, Article II Section 3, in case of disagreement between the Houses on time of adjournment
Quote:
and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;
Dismiss here means, send them home adjourned.
Quote:
This isn't a parliamentary system and he's not a Prime Minister.
The term you are looking for is not dismiss its dissolution of Parliament and obviously, that does not exist in the US where the life of a Congress is set by the Constitution and is fixed and incidentally the power (where it exists) usually rests with the Head of State not the Prime Minister.
  #34  
Old 10-07-2018, 10:41 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Our distinguished foreign counsel did provide a cite (not for dismissal however, but for adjourning and reconvening), however this faculty only works if there is a standoff between the houses as to when to call adjournment:



If OTOH both houses arrange to remain in pro-forma session, there is no recurring to this power. Again, a case where there is a tool but it cannot be used freely at personal discretion.

Ninjad!
As I said I used dismissed in the sense of sending home not disestablishing.
This section got some talk as a fall back for Obama during the Garland saga, I think SCOTUSBlog wrote on it.
In addition, the President can also convene one or both houses on extraordinary occasions, and there was an argument that Obama could convene the Senate arguing a vacancy in the SC mattered with agenda of confirming.
  #35  
Old 10-07-2018, 10:59 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The term you are looking for is not dismiss its dissolution of Parliament and obviously, that does not exist in the US where the life of a Congress is set by the Constitution and is fixed and incidentally the power (where it exists) usually rests with the Head of State not the Prime Minister.
This whole situation couldn't have occurred in a country with a parliamentary government. In such a system, the Prime Minister has to have a majority supporting him in the legislature; it's how you get the job. If for some reason, the Prime Minister loses the support of their party, they hold an election to vote in a new parliament.
  #36  
Old 10-07-2018, 11:09 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,956
Actually, I did mean the President of the Senate, since Obama asking the (Republican) President Pro Tem to do anything was fruitless.
Quote:
Quoth JRDelerious:

In any case, I believe the Rules do not provide for the Majority Leader or Vice President to just call the matter to a vote on their say-so, if the matter was referred to Grassley's committee and he was just sitting on it; it would take approving a discharge petition. Which requires at least part of the majority to cooperate.
The rules do provide for it. The Senate's power to determine its own rules does not negate what's laid out in the Constitution, and what's laid out in the Constitution says that the Vice President of the United States is the President of the Senate. Therefore, the VP can preside, whether the rest of the Senate likes it or not.
  #37  
Old 10-07-2018, 12:18 PM
drad dog's Avatar
drad dog drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I don't know why people keep trotting out that stale quote over and over again. For better or worse, the Senate is highly sensitive to changes in the so-called balance of the Supreme Court. If you look at the date of that quote (2010), you'll see that it was made in the context of replacing Souter. And Obama didn't listen to Hatch at the time. He nominate Kagen.

Garland, of course, was nominated by Obama to replace Scalia. Different ball game.

Now, you might argue that Senators should not pay attention to the so-called balance of the court, but of course they do. If you thought the nomination of Kavanaugh was contentious, just wait until a Republican President gets to nominate someone to replace Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagen or Sotomayor.

To answer the OP, what could be done is the same thing that was or wasn't done in the other times when the Senate did the same thing. Because we all know (or should know) that Garland was not the first SCOTUS nominee to be ignored by the Senate.
The "Senate" is polarized. At least one party will do anything to gain advantage. That's about the only thing you can say of them as a whole body.

Whatever you are talking about with respect to "balance," if it ever existed, expired when Mcconnell "ignored" garland. Mcconnell was not seeking balance. He was seeking total victory and hence, imbalance.

I have to add that he protected russian incursion during the election by threats against lawmakers.
  #38  
Old 10-07-2018, 12:56 PM
drad dog's Avatar
drad dog drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,667
Sorry I have to clarify that last thing:

Mcconnell was told about Russian incursions to help trump win, during the campaign, and his response was to threaten the FBI and his fellow lawmakers that he would loudly complain publicly that this was a hoax by the democratic party. He got his way and they let him.
  #39  
Old 10-07-2018, 01:37 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He could withdraw the nominee and nominate someone the Senate is willing to consider. That would be, at this point, norm-breaking I think.
If they're not going to wait for the body to be cold to proclaim that no nomination the President puts forth will be considered, who could be put forth? Maybe someone suggested by a Senator in an interview, perhaps?
  #40  
Old 10-07-2018, 01:51 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
... who could be put forth? ...
I've already answered this. If Obama had nominated someone like Gorsuch, I'm confident McConnell would have reversed himself and the Senate would have voted on the nominee.
  #41  
Old 10-07-2018, 02:04 PM
drad dog's Avatar
drad dog drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,667
When they did the first "Ignoration" it should have been on the dems agenda to press harder on the other side than they were used to historically.

Very specifically this would have meant that when kavanaugh says, in his confirmation hearing that there was a conspiracy from "the clintons and outside left wing groups" for a "political hit" etc etc. he should have been asked to explain fully his world view. Everyone watching knew that it would be wrong to put someone who said that on the court. Yet we all just watched it happen.

Whitehouse did not do that. It was out of the wheelhouse of a senator of either party to do this, except for maybe mcconnell who is the source of antidemocracy in the senate. K thought he was toast and went on a suicidal rant. But Graham picked up the football and ran with it. And in a post truth post democracy reality this stuff actually flies.

I think that kavanaugh is tainted by that statment and will never be able to change that. It was up to dem senators to make that the issue when they could.

I do believe that the republicans are going to be regretting this.
  #42  
Old 10-07-2018, 02:12 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I've already answered this. If Obama had nominated someone like Gorsuch, I'm confident McConnell would have reversed himself and the Senate would have voted on the nominee.
Absolute bullshit-Obama's nomination wasn't rejected because of who the candidate was-the candidate was rejected because he was nominated by Obama. It is far to late in the game to put forth the tired argument that it was the candidate that was rejected in this case.
  #43  
Old 10-07-2018, 02:38 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,071
Honestly, the only thing that can be done would be a constitutional amendment to force the Senate to act upon a nomination that has been made either within a given time limit. A president has no genuine power over the amendment process, but if he's running against what seems to enough people to be a do-nothing/too-partisan Congress, he might be able to use his bully pulpit to get the ball rolling.
  #44  
Old 10-07-2018, 02:38 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,009
He is something of a centrist. Mamma don't allow no centrists around here.
  #45  
Old 10-07-2018, 03:00 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I've already answered this. If Obama had nominated someone like Gorsuch, I'm confident McConnell would have reversed himself and the Senate would have voted on the nominee.
I think you are probably right, but I certainly wouldn't say I was "confident" about it. Had Obama nominated someone who is perceived to be as conservative a Gorsuch, it would have been a ridiculous gamble for the Republicans to hope Clinton would lose the presidency. But I thought it was a pretty crazy gamble on Garland, too. However, the hypothetical is ridiculous since there would be no point in Obama nominating someone a Republican president would nominate. From Obama's perspective, it's better to have an 8-justice SCOTUS than to have Gorsuch make it 9.

Last edited by John Mace; 10-07-2018 at 03:00 PM.
  #46  
Old 10-07-2018, 03:15 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Absolute bullshit-Obama's nomination wasn't rejected because of who the candidate was-the candidate was rejected because he was nominated by Obama. It is far to late in the game to put forth the tired argument that it was the candidate that was rejected in this case.
You really believe that if Obama had nominate a Scalia clone, McConnell would have stuck to his guns and not confirmed him, just to keep Obama from getting a "win"? I don't, and I don't see how any knowledgeable person could sincerely believe that.
  #47  
Old 10-07-2018, 03:16 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
... However, the hypothetical is ridiculous since there would be no point in Obama nominating someone a Republican president would nominate. From Obama's perspective, it's better to have an 8-justice SCOTUS than to have Gorsuch make it 9.
Agreed. Obama could not have stomached the thought of nominating someone that conservative to the court.
  #48  
Old 10-07-2018, 03:33 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You really believe that if Obama had nominate a Scalia clone, McConnell would have stuck to his guns and not confirmed him, just to keep Obama from getting a "win"? I don't, and I don't see how any knowledgeable person could sincerely believe that.
Yes, because attacking Obama was Mitch McConnell's avowed political goal. Mitch McConnell is a spiteful, corrupt caricature of a politician who isn't even very popular in his home state. As obnoxiously partisan and attention whoring Democrats like Chuck Schumer are, McConnell consistently takes the cake in how fast he'll lower the bar on ethical compromise. The exercise in denying Merrick Garland even a Judiciary Committee hearing--not even a forum to question Garland even though there was a clear Senate majority to shut him out if we was truly unsuitable to Republican voters--was one of the most openly politically abnormal acts of the decade, if not of the last forty years, even surpassing the Iran-Contra affair and subsequent pardoning of all responsible parties.

There is no denying that it is standard form to give a Supreme Court nominee a hearing, even one as unpopular as Robert Bork, and that McConnell and Grassley conspired to defy that norm for purely partisan reasons unrelated to anything about Garland's competence, experience, or basic fitness to serve on the court. You can disagree with that statement but then you're going to have to back it up with a more substantive argument beyond, "Huh-uh!" or "If only Obama had nominated ____..."

Stranger
  #49  
Old 10-07-2018, 04:34 PM
drad dog's Avatar
drad dog drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I think you are probably right, but I certainly wouldn't say I was "confident" about it. Had Obama nominated someone who is perceived to be as conservative a Gorsuch, it would have been a ridiculous gamble for the Republicans to hope Clinton would lose the presidency. But I thought it was a pretty crazy gamble on Garland, too. However, the hypothetical is ridiculous since there would be no point in Obama nominating someone a Republican president would nominate. From Obama's perspective, it's better to have an 8-justice SCOTUS than to have Gorsuch make it 9.
He nominated a middle of the road compromise and it was ignored. He demonstrated his allegiance to the 9 member court. Why are you making stuff up?
  #50  
Old 10-07-2018, 04:36 PM
drad dog's Avatar
drad dog drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Agreed. Obama could not have stomached the thought of nominating someone that conservative to the court.
What does this even mean? Why are you now in the mind of barrack obama, attributing disgust to him for no reason?

Last edited by drad dog; 10-07-2018 at 04:37 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017