So it is inherently dysfunctional when the Senate rejects a Supreme Court nominee simply because they don’t agree with the President’s views? So the rejection of Bork was dysfunctional, as were the Democratic votes against Gorsuch. And, to be fair, the votes against Sotomayor and Kagan as well.
In what way did the Senate rejection of Merrick Garland destroy the functioning of the US government? Gorsuch was confirmed, and soon Kavanaugh will be. The Supreme Court has its full complement of justices, so I see no impediment to its functioning.
A debate between candidates is substantively different than a SCOTUS nomination hearing. At the debate, the expectation is that candidates will offer commentary regarding policy positions, their intentions, etc. They are campaigning, making promises, signaling support, etc. That is not the case during a confirmation hearing. During a confirmation hearing, it is the practice of the nominee to not offer any commentary regarding any potential issue that may come before the court. The hearings are not intended to suss out intentions on future treatment, and even commentary about previous cases is limited to the extent it may relate to potential future cases.
So the hearings are special because they aren’t intended to reveal information in the way you describe. Not the same at all.
In this case, I believe you have assumed correctly. Just to clarify:
I think it’s hard to argue that someone who gets a unanimous “well qualified” rating from the ABA is somehow not qualified. Similarly, I think it’s hard to argue that someone who gets a unanimous “not qualified” ratings is somehow qualified.
As for Garland, I’m on record in several places on this MB, including this thread, as saying he should have had a full vote in the Senate. I do not at all like what the Republicans did to him even if I recognize they are allowed to do so under both the constitution and the rules of the Senate. Further, I personally think he would have made an excellent SCOTUS justice. It’s a shame that opportunity was denied to him. I add that to the long list of why I won’t vote for Republicans for federal office anymore.
The lack of a rule allows for completely dysfunctional behavior, such as saying “we will not seat any justice or cabinet member nominated by President X”.
Advice and Counsel has been weaponized. The concept of Checks and Balances is supposed to rein in abuses, not BE abused itself.
Or, the intent of hearings is to reveal information, but the practice changes according to the candidate’s desire to keep such information out of the wrong hands. Ours.
We were originally told that a open release of all documents might pose a threat to national security. We might have hoped that the Pubbies would not stoop so low. Wrong again.
I disagree that it’s substantially different. Relevant information sometimes comes out of the hearings, whatever their reason for existence. Just like debates. And like debates, most of us, and most senators, have already made up our minds.
You are referring of course to the Apocalypse that occurred after Bernard Kerik and Linda Chavez had their nominations returned without a vote. I an shocked we survived those times but we Americans always come together when times are the toughest. <crys a little thinking about making it through. are they tears of sadness or tears of hope?>
So, if hearings aren’t necessary could the Democrats, during the Garland confirmation process (I call it that for lack of a better term) have simply requested a vote of the entire Senate on the nomination? And grind everything else to a halt if they didn’t get one?
No. The House has a discharge petition procedure but the Senate does not. There is no way to bring a matter to a vote if the committee chairman doesn’t want it.
You haven’t explained how it is dysfunctional, or how it’s been weaponized. In what way has the functioning of the Supreme Court been impaired?
Nor have you mentioned how the Senate advising the President that a nominee will not be seated is an abuse. That’s what they do - it says so right in the Constitution.
As I have said before, if Obama had nominated a genuine conservative like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, the Senate would have fallen all over itself confirming him. But he didn’t.
Are you saying that the Biden/Obama rule of not considering a nomination before a mid-term election is inherently dysfunctional?
In that it is made to represent only a faction, not the country. Earlier you’ve stated that simply having every seat filled made it “functional” - so why not just have a random drawing out of the census returns?
Have you completely missed the part where it wasn’t “the Senate” that did so?
Wow, that’s a lot of words. I’ll try to be pithier:
I have no idea and I’ll go out on a limb and say that you don’t know either.
Furthermore, I have no idea why that even matters. Presidents are not required to nominate the absolutely most qualified candidate they can find, nor have they typically done so in the past. Speaking of the past, and speaking of questions being begged (yes, I know), has it generally been the rule that past presidents even solicited that input from the ABA, much less followed it if it was available?
PS: Since when am I “centrist”? If you average out radical views from the left and the right, you don’t get a centrist. Call me non-partisan if you like, but centrist? It is to laugh.