# Democratic strategy regarding Supreme Court justices **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297 "2016-11-28T17:25:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/321 "2016-12-05T21:44:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > [http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/26/us/new-views-emerge-of-bork-s-role-in-watergate-dismissals.html?pagewanted=3](http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/26/us/new-views-emerge-of-bork-s-role-in-watergate-dismissals.html?pagewanted=3) > > "Mr. Bork’s dismissal of the special prosecutor was challenged in a suit filed by Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, among others. On Nov. 14, 1973, Federal District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell ruled that the dismissal of Mr. Cox, in the absence of a finding of extraordinary impropriety as specified in the regulation establishing the special prosecutor’s office, was illegal. " > > So yeah, the firing of Cox was illegal. I don’t know if the ruling would have stood up on appeal (I think it probably would have) but at the only court to consider the issue decided it was illegal. Really? The parties to that suit were the US government and Nader, neither of which defended the firing. That ruling means nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/322 "2016-12-05T21:49:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I agree. I thought wrongly. > > Still not sure what constitutes “for cause” in that context. My understanding was that “for cause” did not include failure to accede to the demands of the subject of the investigation, even if he IS your bosses boss. I thought it included things like “misconduct” and “incompetence”, not things like “getting too close to the truth” Did it include insubordination? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/323 "2016-12-05T21:59:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No, the Constitution decides what their job is. The entire point of a constitutional form of government is that the constitution includes their job description. The senate works for the American people. They are our employees, we hire them at the ballot box and we fire them at the ballot box. Senators (like most employees) have duties. Those duties include giving advice and consent to the president when they nominate judges. The senate might not get fired for dereliction of its duties but they are derelict all the same when they fail to provide advice and consent. > > It doesn’t have to be hearings, hearings are just a media spectacle. A useful one in the case of supreme court confirmations because it gives us an opportunity to get acquainted with a federal appointee for life who wields more power than any single senator or congressman. It doesn’t have to be hearings, it has to be advice and consent. It can be just about anything but it ought to end with a vote. The Senate gave Obama their advice. It was “shove it”. You just don’t like the advice, which is a completely different matter. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/324 "2016-12-05T22:53:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No, the Constitution decides what their job is. The entire point of a constitutional form of government is that the constitution includes their job description. The senate works for the American people. They are our employees, we hire them at the ballot box and we fire them at the ballot box. Senators (like most employees) have duties. Those duties include giving advice and consent to the president when they nominate judges. The senate might not get fired for dereliction of its duties but they are derelict all the same when they fail to provide advice and consent. > > It doesn’t have to be hearings, hearings are just a media spectacle. A useful one in the case of supreme court confirmations because it gives us an opportunity to get acquainted with a federal appointee for life who wields more power than any single senator or congressman. It doesn’t have to be hearings, it has to be advice and consent. It can be just about anything but it ought to end with a vote. Yes the constitution decides what their job is - can you point to a place in that document that says that holding a hearing or having a vote on a judicial nominee is part of their job? I bet you a quadrillion dollars that you can’t. Now there are in fact other duties that are specifically mentioned in the constitution - like choosing certain officers and having a President pro tempore. If you’re talking about those duties, then sure. If they fail to have a President pro tempore then go forth and accuse them of not doing their job. That would have constitutional basis. Saying that the Senate didn’t do its job with Garland does not. You recognize this when you say that they don’t have to have hearings and that it can be just about anything, then switch to the “ought to” phrasing when talking about a vote. Sure, they ought to. They ought to do a lot of things. They are not required to do this thing. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/325 "2016-12-05T23:25:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The Senate gave Obama their advice. It was “shove it”. You just don’t like the advice, which is a completely different matter. What “The Senate”? Was a vote held? No it was just the GOP leadership acting on their own. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/326 "2016-12-05T23:52:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The Senate gave Obama their advice. It was “shove it”. The Senate did that? How do you know - was there a vote? No, as you surely know, it wasn’t “the Senate”. It was two guys acting out their spite. > [@](#): > > You just don’t like the advice, which is a completely different matter. Their “advice” was that no nominee from \*this \*President would get the time of day. How you can defend that is something for you to explain. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/327 "2016-12-05T23:53:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Saying the senate didn’t do its job with Garland is simply wrong. The senate decides what its job is. There’s this thing called The Constitution that you may have heard something about. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/328 "2016-12-05T23:59:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > There’s this thing called The Constitution that you may have heard something about. Let’s go with that. Can you quote the part of the constitution that requires the senate to have a vote or a hearing? I assert you cannot. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/329 "2016-12-06T00:01:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > My reason for thinking it is that Democrats would be furious if he did. They see the Garland non-hearing as a dirty Republican trick, and would push him to do the same to Trump, if they could. This very thread started out with this: > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Democrats should say Trump shouldn’t nominate anyone in his last year of office, on the assumption that his impeachment is in a perpetual state of imminence. I’m not a Democrat. Related to my observation, though, if Trump doesn’t want to live in the White House, Pence should, because when Trump gets impeached or removed under the terms of the 25th Amendment, it’ll save on moving expenses. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/330 "2016-12-06T00:45:50Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m not a Democrat. Sorry, I didn’t mean to besmirch your reputation like that. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/331 "2016-12-06T01:01:41Z")
Were I a U.S. citizen, I’m sure I’d be _voting_ Democrat, as they seem to have a greater handle on rationality and sanity than their rivals. ---
**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:** [December 6, 2016, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/332 "2016-12-06T01:15:44Z")
The GOP has an extremely slim majority in the Senate; likely to be 52-48. The Democrats may try to pick off as many moderate GOP votes as possible in the event that Trump nominates someone like William Pryor. Would only require 3 Republican defectors in the confirmation vote. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/333 "2016-12-06T01:16:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The GOP has an extremely slim majority in the Senate; likely to be 52-48. The Democrats may try to pick off as many moderate GOP votes as possible in the event that Trump nominates someone like William Pryor. Would only require 3 Republican defectors in the confirmation vote. There are 10 Senate Democrats up for election in 2018 in states won by Trump. I think the more likely defections will be Democrats voting for a Trump nominee rather than Republicans voting against it. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/334 "2016-12-06T01:29:34Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I think Iggy did a wonderful job in post #123 showing that you’re wrong on this point. > > Didn’t that judge get a vote? Isn’t that different than what we have here? No. Unless you consider a Senate voting to defer considering a nomination a “vote”. There was no consideration of the candidate on his merits. There was no vote to grant or refuse advice and consent. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/335 "2016-12-06T03:27:08Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Let’s go with that. Can you quote the part of the constitution that requires the senate to have a vote or a hearing? I assert you cannot. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states: \*[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. - They are required to _advise and consent_. **The Senate** did neither. The Senate didnt hold a vote, or a hearing or give advice. Two Senate leaders simply said the Senate would not act. More or less Just one guy, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell . Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is not the Senate. _The Senate_ did not advise and consent. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/336 "2016-12-06T03:28:46Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > No. Unless you consider a Senate voting to defer considering a nomination a “vote”. There was no consideration of the candidate on his merits. There was no vote to grant or refuse advice and consent. Still a vote. Of some sort. Held by the Senate, not just one guy. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/337 "2016-12-06T03:53:24Z")
Dr. Deth, you’re still wrong. Article I Section V states that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Hearings are not required. ---
**Author:** ![Randvek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Randvek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randvek)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/338 "2016-12-06T04:11:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The Senate gave Obama their advice. It was “shove it”. You just don’t like the advice, which is a completely different matter. Non-sense. When the President does something, and the Senate has the power to stop it but doesn’t even attempt a vote, that sure looks a lot like “consent” to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/339 "2016-12-06T04:18:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > They are required to _advise and consent_. **The Senate** did neither. > > The Senate didnt hold a vote, or a hearing or give advice. Two Senate leaders simply said the Senate would not act. More or less Just one guy, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell . Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is not the Senate. _The Senate_ did not advise and consent. Is it your contention that the advise and consent clause requires a vote, or a hearing? If that it is your contention then you are wrong. There is no basis to construe or define that phrase in the way you are attempting. All of the statements you written are not at all relevant to the duties of the senate. I would think by now where we are with the Garland nomination that this was apparent. If there was any way to compel a vote on Garland I imagine it would have happened by now - that it has not renders your statement that they are required to do such and such hollow. It’s simply not true and there is no reputable cite that will say it is. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/340 "2016-12-06T05:08:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > What “The Senate”? Was a vote held? No it was just the GOP leadership acting on their own. Why does there have to be a vote? The constitution says nothing about a vote. But the Constitution does say the Senate gets to set its own rules. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297.md?page=18)