I think that’s a reasonable position, but I don’t see then why my posts, or the positions of Harris or Booker, would then be singled out. Chances are, most senators made up their mind before the hearing. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to ask questions of the nominee, or wrong to scrutinize the answers.
It would be wrong *not *to. How does keeping a nominee’s past and viewpoints and agenda secret help *not *weaken democracy?
I would single out anyone who stakes out a position that the nominee is disqualified as a result of accepting the nomination, as you have done. Harris and Booker, who both stated they would vote against Kavanaugh before the hearings, were identified because they got a higher amount of press than other senators. I never said it was right or wrong (I think), but that any comments should be heavily discounted or even disregarded because it’s primarily theater and not substantive.
**RTF **was obviously referring to the time since Scalia’s death threatened the frustration of the regressive-activist agenda on the Court, and McConnell’s announcement that no hearings would be held regardless of whom Obama nominated.
You remember that, don’t you?
You said:
By specifying the letter of the Constitution, and including the word “perhaps,” you suggested that PERHAPS the letter of the Constitution was violated, and PERHAPS it was not.
And by mentioning the letter of the Constitution, you further suggested that PERHAPS there was some spirit of the Constitution, clearly visible to your keen eye but awash in obscurity to the readers in 1844 and 1828.
But you didn’t actually say those things. My post puts you in the position of either disclaiming such sentiments, or defending them.
So, now we know that the Constitution does in fact permit the Senate to exercise their power of providing advice and consent by refusing to even vote on a nominee. This is true in 2016, 1844, and 1828.
What we’re left with is you wish they hadn’t, and that you have a deep reverence for the Founder’s intentions, when they happen to coincide with your desired outcome.
I didn’t think I needed to spell out ‘in the case of the 2016 vacancy’ or ‘once the GOP had a Senate majority.’
The cite from ol’ Publius did mention ‘discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature.’ Did we see anything in the Senate (non)response to Obama’s nomination of Garland that ‘looked like’ that? Fuck, no!
Yeah, and perhaps your username means you’re a bricklayer rather than a lawyer.
But taking a bit of common English-language usage, and turning its meaning totally inside out in the hopes of scoring an extremely tangential rhetorical point, suggests to me that yes, you are in fact a lawyer.
Then explain what happened to John Crittenden. That was in 1828.
Then please quote the rule requiring the Senate to vote on a nominee.
Been over that already. Spirit vs. letter, strengthening vs. weakening democracy, excuse-making and weaseling vs. respecting the process and the principles, all of that.
This is apparently as close as he can get to acknowledging that there isn’t a rule.
What needs an explanation, exactly? Please clarify.
Tell us what you think the *spirit *of the advice and consent clause is. Then tell us *why *it’s not only okay, but admirable to excuse weaseling around it. If, as you say, there is no rule, why has the routine dismissal of nominations by opposition-led Congresses not been the standard practice for our history?
Some of us think our democracy is worth protecting and strengthening and respecting, and some of us obviously don’t. You’ve already told us clearly enough which of those you are.
No, there’s not a rule. However, a functioning government only exists if people are willing to work together with others who don’t agree with them. There is nothing in the rules to stop a Senate preventing a President from appointing anyone, to any position that technically requires their Advice and Consent. No rule requiring that this choice actually have a legitimate reason, none at all, they can do it simply because they don’t agree with the President’s views. That’s clearly not what the rule is for, because it’s inherently dysfunctional.
If a rule, or lack thereof, can be applied broadly in a way that destroys the concept of functioning government, re-stating the fact that the rule does or doesn’t exist doesn’t create legitimacy.
The first Supreme Court nominee to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925. The Judiciary Committee was created in 1816. Were all of the Supreme Court nominations between 1816 and 1925 somehow illegitimate?
Refusal to hold *hearings *isn’t quite the issue, friend.
Why was his nomination not voted on and the Founding Fathers still alive didn’t all cry out “You have to vote on it!”
Pretty much everything in politics (or at least everything public and on camera) is “primarily theater”. I don’t see how this is special in that regard. It’s just as likely to reveal something substantive as, say, a televised debate, or town hall, or a million other political events.
I think it would be better if both parties could exercise some detente and return to earlier times when there was a bit more acceptance of political adversaries having some power. We’re not heading that direction though, so I don’t particularly want my side clinging to some Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side is acting like it’s a no-holds-barred streetfight.
When Obama voted to filibuster Justice Alito, did you denounce him? Or are you on the “obviously don’t” side?
There is no requirement to hold hearings, pal.