1844 is the exception that proves the rule. You have to go back 175 years to find an example of this behavior, and it was perpetrated by a Whig controlled Senate against a President so hated, they expelled him from their own party.
Is this a recent development? Let’s agree that it happened once, a very long time ago, under unusual circumstances that did not remotely exist when it was repeated.
The Senate wasn’t “festooned with liberals”? If something was stupid and wrong, it improves with age? Tradition, is it?
Read the damn thing you quoted. The rule allows the Senate to utterly hamstring a President they don’t like, with nothing more than a simple majority. Generally speaking, they don’t do this because the government needs to run, but the Constitution, as written, lets them. Therefore “it’s allowed by the Constitution” isn’t very persuasive to me as justification for doing it.
The important thing to remember is that *both *sides do it. :rolleyes:
Pretty much only thing left to call you is “libertarian”, and I don’t want to be rude. Not without good cause, at any rate.
No, that’s not the same thing. They stopped having the ABA vet their nominees, but that’s different from asking the ABA for any type of list in the first place.
Don’t make it a capital “L”, and we’ll still be friends. 
Alternative, we could dispense with labels altogether.
Hmm, I missed this little gem. I’ve made quite a few posts in this thread, but let’s concentrate on just the ones I made today, prior to the post I just quoted from you. Not so many, and presumably you’ve read them. Looking back, I can see that there was, in fact, only one other such post-- #513. And you responded to it, so you did read it. Good.
Is it your contention that post #513 is fairly and accurately summarized or paraphrased as “nothing more substantive than ‘Nuh Nuh!’”?
I don’t want to misread what you wrote, but it sure looks like that is what you’re saying.
Gee, that sounds nice. Trouble is, these things tend to boil down to a tug of war, and the rope only has two ends. Nothing gets done without aligning with some other people. I’m on the conservative wing of the extreme left but I pull the same end of the rope as the liberal centrist, so I effectively am one. (Except that liberal centrism is totally gay, and I’m not. But, other than that, yeah.)
Perhaps I was less than clear. “Alternatively, we could dispense with assigning labels to other people altogether.” I haven’t found it necessary to do so in order to know with whom I’m aligned.
Careful. You are teetering close to an invitation to re-education camp.
What makes you think it was addressed to you?
Bork was digested and eliminated by a functioning system. But Garland wasn’t. The difference is the dysfunction by definition.
Some of us see Bork as the beginning of the dysfunction.
Ah, my mistake. Your post came immediately after mine, but I see now that it has the same time stamp, so probably a simulpost. Assuming it was addressed to HD, I let the two of you work out the details, if he has any interest in doing so.
I think the argument you were making could also be applied to my posts, but I also suspect that ElvisL1ves doesn’t have a substantive response to it, and I’m not interested in pursuing it with him. I respectfully decline.
They’re afraid of me.
Yes. Although the branches are “co-equal,” each is supreme in its bailiwick. Congress (and the Senate, specifically) can indeed hamstring a President they don’t like, with nothing more than a simple majority. That’s the way the system is set up.
Now, the President has options as well, like recess appointments, but they too can be frustrated by a Senate that does not recess long enough to trigger the Recess Appointments Clause, and in any event such appointments would terminate at the end of the next Senate session.
But that’s the way the system is set up. I gather you’re not a fan of this system, but your dislike to the outcome doesn’t change the existence of the system.
Wait, what? Do you mean to say that however much I despise anthrax, Scientology and Coors, those things exist nonetheless? And now you tell me?
Jumping into the fray…
I haven’t kept up with the whole thread, but has the subject of Kavanaugh’s gambling addiction come up yet?
I read somewhere else (don’t have the cite at my fingertips) that Kavanaugh’s latest gambling debts were paid off right after he was nominated. Has anyone else come across that? (Or is it fake news and rumor-mongering?)
I believe I already mentioned John Jordan Crittenden, nominated by John Quincy Adams on December 17, 1828.
That’s two.
So would you like to agree it happened only twice, a very long time ago, but never since repeated?
Before we shake hands on that, perhaps we should consider Edward A. Bradford. He was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1852 by President Millard Fillmore. But the Senate did not give him a vote, up or down. They ignored their supposed obvious-to-all duty and permitted the nomination to expire, and then voted in John Archibald Campbell, nominated by new President Franklin Pierce. In other words: just exactly what happened here with Garland and Gorsuch and Obama and Trump.
So would you like to agree it happened only three times, a very long time ago, but never since repeated?
We could do that . . . but then we’d have to ignore Reuben Walworth and Edward King. They were both nominated by John Tyler, and the Senate refused to act on either nomination for a year. After James K. Polk became President-Elect, beating Henry Clay, Tyler withdrew the two nominations the Senate did not act on and substituted Samuel Nelson, who the Senate did confirm before Polk came in, and POlk filled the empty spot with Robert Grier.
So now we’re up to only FIVE times, but never since repeated.
Right?
Six: George E. Badger.
Seven: William Micou.
Both of those were nominees of Fillmore, and the Senate didn’t reject them. But they didn’t consent to them either. They just refused to vote.
I’ll even give you an eight: Henry Stanbery. This one deserves an asterisk, though. Stanbery’s nomination was in fact never acted upon by the Senate, true enough, but the Senate did take the affirmative step of voting to reduce the size of the Court from ten to seven justices, and disposed of Stanbery’s nomination that way. So while he technically fits the bill, we can’t really say the Senate did nothing.
Still, I have to say that insisting this never happened, or happened “once, a very long time ago, under unusual circumstances that did not remotely exist when it was repeated,” is pretty damn humorously, and dramatically, wrong as a matter of historical fact.
What’s the evidence that these were gambling debts?