That’s correct, the Senate abrogated their duty to decide whether to consent to the President’s nomination.
And yes, I said “duty”: The relevant passage of the Constitution says “shall”, not “may”.
I just heard Chuck Grassley say that this is being handled like all the other nominations for the Supreme Court… just now… in shutting down for the day…no I’m not kidding.
That’s some extra-careful wording there. It’s the President that “shall nominate”. There’s no Constitutional duty for the Senate to hold a hearing. It doesn’t say anything like “the Senate shall give each nominee an up-or-down vote”, which is fortunate because if it did a whole bunch of Democrats abrogated that non-existent duty when they voted to filibuster Justice Gorusch.
In a lot of ways it is. I suppose there was less screeching in past SCOTUS nomination hearings. In which ways do you think it represents a significant departure from previous nominations?
I’d answer, but it seems we’ve been asked to drop that hijack by one of those, you know, “moderators”. 
Walking out achieves that purpose too.
If you’re going to be a font of wisdom for progressives you got to decide on a lane first, and not the breakdown, one that goes somewhere.
There was no hearings at all for the last legitimate one. So there’s that.
But, at the same time, it does say “the Senate”, not “Mitch McConnell”.
The senate was never consulted, McConnell overrode that.
Do you feel that Mitch McConnell is the only senator who’s opinion on justices matter?
In filibustering Gorsuch, the individual senators were able to make their feelings known on the nomination. Was there anything even slightly similar to the non-vote on Garland?
I’m pretty sure that was about the “hot chick in blue” (hence the subtle “gentlemen” rebuke), not the callbacks to Gorsuch & Garland (I remembered his name this time :))
ETA: I would hope that discussion around the most recent successful (Garland) and failed (Gorsuch) attempts to stop a SCOTUS nominee would be on-topic for a thread titled “Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?”
I thought that moderation was in reference to the “hot chick” comments.
If I am off on that assumption, mods, please correct me.
You and I probably have diametrically-opposed worldviews if you don’t consider Justice Gorsuch’s nomination “legitimate”.
Well we can disagree. But what happened to Merrick Garland, and why is he not counted?
Do you really think it’s a good stand intellectually to deny what happened to Obamas 2016 nominee? Does “Advantage conservative!!!” matter in any other context besides anonymous threads? There is a real country to run, in the real world.
In the legitimate timeline, there was no vacancy for Gorsuch to fill, because Garland was already sitting in that seat.
If the majority of the Senate wanted a vote on Garland, they could have scheduled one.
I believe they had ample opportunity to make their feelings known on the subject, even though they didn’t get to / have to formally go on the record of the Senate with an up-or-down vote. I’m not sure there’s much value in that, as I can accurately guess at what about 90% of the Senate’s votes would have been anyways.
He didn’t receive the consent of the Senate, that’s what happened. What wasn’t he “counted” for?
Now it’s not just the nomination that was not legitimate, but the entire timeline we’re living in? This sounds a lot like ‘reality is not legitimate’. It sounds silly.
Didn’t see those. You could be right, but I still think it is a hijack, and that ground is so well trodden I don’t really see the need to tread on it again. Hence the deja vu comment.
It is (well trodden), I suspect from now on we’ll spend almost as long beating the Garland dead-horse as we have historically the Bork one.
Yeah, I know the rules, but there is a big difference between demanding to change the rules because your majority leader is refusing a vote, and actually voting when it comes to the floor, do you not think?
The same as with the filibuster. There were some senators who would vote for a bill, but wouldn’t vote to nuke the filibuster. By your logic, the filibuster should have been nuked the very first time anyone used it to thwart the will of the majority.
It’s that 10% you can’t guess that is interesting.
In any case, no, you may believe that them going to new outlets and talking is some sort of formal procedure to poll the senators on their positions, but that is not the case. They vote. That is how things happen. It doesn’t matter how long an interview a senator gives, if there is no vote, then it’s not polling their position. A formally recorded up or down vote is something that I personally do place much value in, as that is how things are supposed to actually get done, YMOV.
There’s some difference, sure.
Why? I said “about” because I was feeling a little lazy. There is some small number of swing senators whose votes I don’t know that I could accurately predict. For most of the rest of them, I wouldn’t expect much difficulty.
I don’t believe it is a "formal " procedure, but it’s certainly a procedure to make their opinions on the matter known.
An “up-or-down” vote is the final vote for passage. When the Dem Senators filibustered Gorsuch, they were trying to prevent an up-or-down vote. How much value did you place in it in that case?