Except the majority leader doesn’t have to schedule hearings or votes. One senator is enough, provided he or she is in the right position.
Wouldn’t they just need one vote (whoever is the new chair of the judiciary committee)? IIRC this is how the Republicans stopped Garland, with Grassley refusing to even hold hearings. The flip side is that Leahy, or whichever Democrat wins the chair of the senate judiciary committee, could do the same. The only way that would translate into needing 55 is if the red state Dems decide to vote out Leahy from his position as chair of the judiciary committee and install a Republican (Grassley again?), since I doubt that the whole Republican caucus would vote for a Dem for that position, even if it is a Joe Manchin or Claire McCaskill.
It being one-sided just makes it worse. And yes, we do need a return to sanity in Supreme Court nominations, but at this point, the only way that’s happening is a Constitutional amendment.
No, they won’t. The one surefire consequence of the Garland seat theft is that the Senate will never again confirm an opposing president’s SCOTUS nominee.
C’mon, now.
Y’know, Twitter had a 10-character limit back in those days. It called for brevity.
Looking over the history of impeachment trials, Senators take their responsibility very seriously. Take Andrew Johnson’s trial. The Radical Republicans did everything to castrate his political power but it was clear that enough of them felt that “disparaging Congress” was not a high crime or misdemeanor and that the Tenure of Office Act did not apply to Johnson since his term started at Lincoln’s death and not March 4, 1865 that he was never in danger of being convicted. While it is true that he escaped conviction by one vote, there were quite a few that were willing to cast that deciding vote. Edmund Ross just happened to be the one fate picked to do it.
The worst violators of not performing their duty were (IMO) the Senate Democrats that voted to acquit Bill Clinton claiming perjury is not an impeachable offense considering most of them voted to convict Judge Claiborne for perjury. That was pure politics.*
*FTR: I am not including those who distinguished Claiborne’s perjury for filing false income taxes was different than perjury for lying under oath and consider the first a crime and the second not a crime for the purposes of impeachment. I disagree but I can see how they made that judgement independent of political party.
I see no reason why the Democrats shouldn’t oppose every Republican nominee. There’s no hope the Republicans will ever consider a Democratic nominee in the near or medium term – it’d be incredibly foolish to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. Especially when McConnell has shown that there are no consequences to not even considering a nominee.
I think some of you guys are confusing what you’d like the Democrats to do with what they will do. I could be wrong, but I don’t think they’ll declare all out war as some here are saying.
You might be right, but it’d be incredibly foolish not to. Nothing to gain, and lots to lose, by considering any Trump nominee for SCOTUS, from a Democratic perspective.
Without some dramatic change, I don’t see either party ever confirming a nominee from the opposite party ever again.
I said I could be wrong, so please don’t contradict me. 
And just to be clear, I thought the Republicans were making a political mistake by not holding a vote on Garland, so I admit to not being such a good prognosticator in this area.
I do agree that if RBG retires or has to resign next year the Dems will be up against a rock and a hard place allowing that seat to be filled by a Trump appointee. If that comes to pass, there will be fireworks!!
I think we’re past any possibility, at least in the medium term, for collegiality or bipartisanship for anything significant. Largely due to the actions of Republicans and conservatives, IMO, but of course most of them would say the opposite. Either way, the Democrats in the Senate have nothing to gain by giving the benefit of the doubt to Republicans on any significant issue, and a ton to lose.
OK, but do you actually think they will have the spine to do it? I’m talking more about what will happen, not what should happen.
Although, full disclosure, I don’t think 2 wrongs make a right.
Can’t a spine by donated and transplanted? By hammering it upwards into position and then repairing the damaged Nixon?
I don’t know. I hope so. It would be the right thing to do.
I don’t think two wrongs make a right, but is it wrong to take back something someone stole from you? I suspect that’s how many of the Democratic Senators will see it. I’m sure the Republicans will call them hypocrites, but I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent about the Democrats saying “Garland should have gotten a confirmation vote, but in light of the fact that he didn’t, we should be able to block one of yours.”
Of course, the Republicans will use that as an excuse to block the next one, but who’s to say they wouldn’t do that regardless?
There is no taking back the seat that Scalia vacated. But be that as it may, is it OK to prevent 1 Trump appointee from getting a vote, but not 2? The Dems can block the first appointee when they have a majority in the Senate, but not the second?
They’ll do it anyway.
What you’re missing is that the Republican Party as it presently exists is fundamentally hostile to Constitutional democracy. It has to be, because its fundamental principles --racism and plutocracy – are deeply unpopular. If this party continues to exist as a major party in its current form, there is no “long run” to consider, because there won’t be any more elections.
Which is why the SCOTUS confirmation battles don’t really matter, even if the Pubs manage to hold the Senate this year and Trump gets to appoint replacements for RBG and Breyer. It doesn’t matter because in 2021, Congress can pass by simple majority vote a law allowing President Sanders to appoint a half dozen new Justices.
Yes, court packing is an extreme measure. It’s not something that happens in a healthy, functioning democracy, but sadly we don’t currently have one of those. It has happened before in American history, during the Federalist-Jeffersonian era and again during Reconstruction.
Hopefully someday soon we can again live in a country where neither major political party poses an existential threat to democracy, and SCOTUS nominees can be evaluated on qualities other than partisan affiliation. We’re not there now, and wishfully pretending that we are is the worst course imaginable.