# A hypothetical scenario to deescalate SCOTUS nominations. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 13, 2018, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265 "2018-09-13T12:15:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265/41 "2018-09-13T21:49:30Z")
Well, that’s one. If you can find a liberal poster who thought the OP’s plan was good, then you could properly use the plural form and say that “liberals” are preoccupied with this. But I don’t think Garland is really the OP’s point. He could just as well have written “some well-qualified moderate”. Also, to the OP: If Democrats were really that preoccupied with getting Garland onto the court in the OP’s hypothetical, they could just demand that Trump appoint Garland to the first available vacancy created by the departure of a conservative, and then pledge to confirm any reasonably qualified nominee for subsequent vacancies, rather than going through these weird machinations and calling on Gorsuch to resign. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265/42 "2018-09-13T22:25:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The OP’s proposal. > In the OP The OP is interested in “healing” and is making what they consider a bipartisan compromise. It has nothing to do with the world outside this thread. Outside you can bring up Garland and it will be recognized as a compromise that was refused in favor of weakening democracy for the short term gain of a politician or two on the right wing, but at the peril of the loss of their party. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265/43 "2018-09-13T22:36:19Z")
As long as we’re talking about possible amendments here, I’d like to see one that says that if a president wins via the Electoral College but without benefit of the popular vote, ALL of his appointments must have a sixty vote (or sixty percent to allow for the possibility of additional states joining the union) to be confirmed. And I do mean ALL, SCOTUS, Cabinet, lower courts, etc. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2018, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265/44 "2018-09-14T04:09:19Z")
And if the Senate refuses to act on such a nomination it becomes effective in 90 days without confirmation to prevent McConnell-style foot-dragging. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2018, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265/45 "2018-09-14T04:54:17Z")
The solution is to ban the Republican party and all its current sitting members from ever holding elected office again. That’s the only way were ever going to rescue functional government in this country. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2018, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265/46 "2018-09-14T06:57:13Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The solution is to ban the Republican party and all its current sitting members from ever holding elected office again. > > That’s the only way were ever going to rescue functional government in this country. Sounds very fascist. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2018, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265/47 "2018-09-14T07:40:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Sounds very fascist. Was West Germany being “fascist” when they banned the Nazi Party? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2018, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265/48 "2018-09-14T09:10:31Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > All that would mean is that as long as there are 40+ Republicans, no Democrat could ever pick a Supreme Court justice again. People don’t understand the thug mentality of Republicans. One alternative would be to do it the other way: Change the rules so that only, say, 40 Senators are required to _confirm_ a nominee. Now someone might say, “But then this means that the next time there’s a Republican president, he could nominate someone like Palin, Arpaio or Roy Moore to SCOTUS!” Sure he could - but if there ever is another Republican president in the future, chances are the GOP will already have 45-55 seats in the Senate anyway (it’s hard to get elected president but simultaneously have your party perform so poorly nationwide that you don’t get 45 Senators), and so the GOP could approve such a nominee anyway. But by reducing the floor threshold to only 40 Senators required for confirmation, it would make it far more difficult for the Republicans or Democrats to obstruct a SCOTUS nominee when in opposition role. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2018, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265/49 "2018-09-14T22:30:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So an “overwhelming” majority of the Senate wanted Garland, but McConnell stopped them single-handed? Can you explain how that works? > > Regards, > Shodan Garland would have been convincingly confirmed with a bipartisan vote. I’m sure some Republican dead-enders would have voted against him, but it wouldn’t have been close. Note that plenty of other Obama nominees pretty much sailed through confirmation. It’s only fairly recently that it became expected that Republicans would vote against anything and everything a Democratic president proposed. Sotomayor was confirmed 68-31. Kagan was confirmed 63-37. Garland was much more of a centrist than either of them, the notion that they would have voted against him because he was a Liberal is nonsensical. It’s comical. It’s laughable. Maybe he would have failed if something came out, like that he raped a few people. But he wouldn’t have failed because of his judicial record, or his Liberal views, because he wasn’t a liberal. In any case, Garland isn’t going on the Supreme Court from some sort of Grand Bargain to de-escalate partisanship. Trump is going to nominate right-wing candidates to all open positions as long as he remains president, and those people will be confirmed or rejected by the Senate as they see fit. Sometimes even right-wing candidates can’t get confirmed by a 51-49 party line vote, sometimes Trump’s picks are so bad that not even the Republicans can stomach them. And if we get a Democratic president, don’t expect Garland to be nominated either. I guess it could happen, but why would it? Nominate a liberal, not a centrist, and the Senate will vote to confirm them, or not. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265/50 "2018-09-15T04:03:07Z")
The difference between Sotomayor and Kagan, and Garland, was that the first two were liberals replacing liberals. Garland was a centrist appointed to replace a conservative - he represented a potential shift in the court’s balance. I do think he might have been confirmed in a Senate vote but it would have been much closer and more bitterly opposed. It would be like appointing a centrist to replace Ginsburg. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-hypothetical-scenario-to-deescalate-scotus-nominations/821265.md?page=2)