# Forget Trump: Impeach Mitch McConnell **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 31, 2019, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833 "2019-05-31T15:32:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/181 "2019-06-05T13:24:58Z")
But they still have to make that decision. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/182 "2019-06-05T13:42:22Z")
The Senate decides their own procedural rules and those rules says the Senate majority leader sets the legislature’s agenda. So whether you like it or not, they made a decision by refusing to hold hearings. It was pretty cowardly and done on a flimsy excuse but it was not outside the rules. ---
**Author:** ![not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_what_you_d_expect/32/3246_2.png) [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_what_you_d_expect)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/183 "2019-06-05T14:22:03Z")
House passes new Dream Act. I doubt Mitch will let it come up for a vote. > **[House passes latest DREAM Act, hoping to place millions of immigrants on path...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dream-and-promise-act-2019-passes-house-approves-bill-that-would-place-millions-of-immigrants-on-path-to-citizenship/)** > > In addition to young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers, the legislation would also cover immigrants with temporary protected status ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/184 "2019-06-05T14:33:09Z")
Another good candidate for “if you hold no vote, it passes.” If you don’t like any specific legislation, then vote it down. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/185 "2019-06-05T14:47:39Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Another good candidate for “if you hold no vote, it passes.” If you don’t like any specific legislation, then vote it down. You simply can’t do that with your system. The Senate doesn’t vote on the House bill, they create their own parallel bill to pass. Youre demanding that the Senate let the House set their agenda. And if you take a step back you’ll realize that there is a shit tonne of stupid stuff the House passes that AREN’T good candidates for “if you hold no vote, it passes.” ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/186 "2019-06-05T15:02:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I never claimed it “has the same political cost”, merely that if they had for some reason wanted to vote on Garland, Senator McConnell, by himself, could not have prevented that from happening. He had the consent / support of the majority to do what he did. Just so long as you are not under the impression that you are making a reasonable request of those who may have supported the nomination. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > This seems breathtakingly wrong. Nice hyperbole in your adjective choice. Gives your objection more gravitas, don’t you tink? > [@](#): > > Clearly the Senate isn’t “required by the Constitution” to provide consent; even you seem fine with the idea of the Senate voting down a nominee. Of course, that’s why they have a vote. > [@](#): > > But if you grant that the Senate _isn’t_ required to provide consent, then why would you think the Senate would be required to provide advice and consent? I think that the senate should be asked, and in this case, the senate was not. > [@](#): > > Near as I can tell, it’s the President who was “required by the Constitution” to get that consent, if he wanted to do X; that doesn’t mean the Senate is required to provide him with it, the whole _point_ is that they might not provide that consent. Of course they can vote against the nominee, that’s the whole point. > [@CarnalK](#): > > The Senate decides their own procedural rules and those rules says the Senate majority leader sets the legislature’s agenda. So whether you like it or not, they made a decision by refusing to hold hearings. It was pretty cowardly and done on a flimsy excuse but it was not outside the rules. Authoritarianism\* is\* usually established according to the rules. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/187 "2019-06-05T15:08:50Z")
Is the point of that post that you agree Mitch followed the rules but you really wish he’d held a vote? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/188 "2019-06-05T15:11:04Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You simply can’t do that with your system. The Senate doesn’t vote on the House bill, they create their own parallel bill to pass. Youre demanding that the Senate let the House set their agenda. I’m not sure that’s how it works. The can create a new bill, or they can modify a bill, but they can also vote on the house bill Funding bills can only originate in the house, so if you are correct, then how can the senate vote on a funding bill? In any case, can go both ways and require the house to vote on bills sent to it be the Senate. > [@](#): > > And if you take a step back you’ll realize that there is a shit tonne of stupid stuff the House passes that AREN’T good candidates for “if you hold no vote, it passes.” And how is that determined? Is that the determination of one person as to what is “stupid stuff”? Why not ask the senators what they think? If holding no vote means it passes, then that wold encourage senators to vote against things that they think are stupid, rather than avoiding taking a position on it. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/189 "2019-06-05T15:18:38Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Is the point of that post that you agree Mitch followed the rules but you really wish he’d held a vote? No, my point is that creative interpretations of the rules, which even if technically justifiable with a motivated reasoning, but is against the spirit of the law and against the interests of democracy is how fascists take power. We can let this happen, because they didn’t technically break any rules, or we can hold them to account for damaging our institutions and the public’s faith in them. Even if you liked the results, you should be horrified by the process that got them. Just like a SovCit is technically right that the President that presided over the imposition of income tax was not born in a state that was at the time fully and officially entered into the union, and thinks that that technicality means that they don’t have to pay taxes. Their argument seems silly, until they are in a position to actually enforce it. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/190 "2019-06-05T15:32:34Z")
I don’t know if it’s technically a different bill but any complex legislation often has to go through a Conference Committee to hash out differences between what the House passed and what the Senate passed. I think he should have let a vote happen but what he did was not a novel new creative way to interpret the rules. Legislation and nominations have been allowed to expire without a vote for the entire history of the country. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/191 "2019-06-05T21:37:55Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > A "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; " “Resolving it,” in this case, would consist of _interpreting the Constitution_. IOW, the power the Supreme Court has asserted since _Marbury_. It’s kinda their _day job_. But as always, thanks for playing. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/192 "2019-06-05T22:14:42Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > “Resolving it,” in this case, would consist of _interpreting the Constitution_. IOW, the power the Supreme Court has asserted since _Marbury_. It’s kinda their _day job_. > > But as always, thanks for playing. Boy, such confidence. It’s almost like you think you’re an authority. You’re free to believe the court would order the Senate to convene and have a vote. I’ll be sitting over there in reality, let me know how it goes. ---
**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:** [June 5, 2019, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/193 "2019-06-05T22:23:59Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > “Resolving it,” in this case, would consist of _interpreting the Constitution_. IOW, the power the Supreme Court has asserted since _Marbury_. It’s kinda their _day job_. > > But as always, thanks for playing. At this district court level, but attempts have been dismissed for lack of standing [here](https://casetext.com/case/michel-v-mcconnell)and [here](https://casetext.com/case/kimberlin-v-mcconnell). ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/194 "2019-06-06T00:27:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > At this district court level, but attempts have been dismissed for lack of standing [here](https://casetext.com/case/michel-v-mcconnell)and [here](https://casetext.com/case/kimberlin-v-mcconnell). On which ground? We’re arguing about the one that **CarnalK** gave. > [@CarnalK](#): > > Boy, such confidence. It’s almost like you think you’re an authority. You’re free to believe the court would order the Senate to convene and have a vote. I’ll be sitting over there in reality, let me know how it goes. Wow, what a rebuttal! I’m floored. We’ll see if **Bone** has something in those cases that backs you up, depending on whether he’s got the energy to do more than link to a couple of court cases. I swear, I’m gonna start claiming victory by linking to the front page of Wikipedia. ---
**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:** [June 6, 2019, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/195 "2019-06-06T01:13:48Z")
I’m not sure what you think is not responsive. Two individuals filed suit to attempt to compete McConnell to hold a vote and the court said they don’t have standing. It was district level, so not a final adjudication, but it seems to speak to your idea that the court could resolve the lack of holding a vote issue. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/196 "2019-06-06T02:45:48Z")
I think RTFirefly’s plan is that the President would file the lawsuit, who I assume would take different legal reasoning to show he has no standing. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/197 "2019-06-06T11:20:00Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not sure what you think is not responsive. Two individuals filed suit to attempt to compete McConnell to hold a vote and the court said they don’t have standing. It was district level, so not a final adjudication, but it seems to speak to your idea that the court could resolve the lack of holding a vote issue. > [@CarnalK](#): > > I think RTFirefly’s plan is that the President would file the lawsuit, who I assume would take different legal reasoning to show he has no standing. This is correct. In many (most?) cases involving actions by branches of the government, it takes more than just being a citizen to have standing. And dismissing a suit over standing means that none of the issues raised by the suit were addressed by the court. No court has found a “lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” such a case, which is what **CarnalK** claims is the reason it would be dismissed as a political question. > [@CarnalK](#): > > Boy, such confidence. It’s almost like you think you’re an authority. You’re free to believe the court would order the Senate to convene and have a vote. I’ll be sitting over there in reality, let me know how it goes. Well, you’ve claimed that in the wake of the Senate refusing to consider the Garland nomination, the courts would have rejected a Presidential challenge based on the ‘advise and consent’ language because it was a political question per the “lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” standard, one of several standards for a question being a political question per _Baker v. Carr_. I’ve disagreed, and I’ve given straightforward reasons that this is your rebuttal to. Now it may be that a court would dismiss such a case as a political question under some _other_ standard set out in _Baker v. Carr._ That’s outside the scope of what we’re debating here. Neither one of us is an authority, but I’ve made at least a brief argument, and you’ve made none. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/198 "2019-06-06T13:01:14Z")
I think your suggestion that the court would order the Senate to vote is rather obviously unconstitutional. As I said earlier, the Senate has a Constitutional right to set its procedures and those procedures include the Senate majority leader setting the agenda. The Supreme Court can’t tell them to do it a different way so there is no remedy the court can apply. And if you want substantial responses, maybe don’t end your posts with “thanks for playing”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/199 "2019-06-06T13:04:49Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I think your suggestion that the court would order the Senate to vote is rather obviously unconstitutional. As I said earlier, the Senate has a Constitutional right to set its procedures and those procedures include the Senate majority leader setting the agenda. The Supreme Court can’t tell them to do it a different way so there is no remedy the court can apply. If McConnell tries this again, we may see this tested in court. Along with other potential attempts at a solution. It doesn’t seem likely to me that McConnell would be able to hold up a nomination for 2-4 years, but we’ll see (or hopefully we won’t!). ---
**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:** [June 6, 2019, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/200 "2019-06-06T15:06:50Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > This is correct. In many (most?) cases involving actions by branches of the government, it takes more than just being a citizen to have standing. And dismissing a suit over standing means that none of the issues raised by the suit were addressed by the court. > > No court has found a “lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” such a case, which is what **CarnalK** claims is the reason it would be dismissed as a political question. > Well, you’ve claimed that in the wake of the Senate refusing to consider the Garland nomination, the courts would have rejected a Presidential challenge based on the ‘advise and consent’ language because it was a political question per the “lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” standard, one of several standards for a question being a political question per _Baker v. Carr_. > > I’ve disagreed, and I’ve given straightforward reasons that this is your rebuttal to. > > Now it may be that a court would dismiss such a case as a political question under some _other_ standard set out in _Baker v. Carr._ That’s outside the scope of what we’re debating here. Neither one of us is an authority, but I’ve made at least a brief argument, and you’ve made none. Baker v. Carr was about redistricting wrt voter representation. How do you think Senate non-action on judicial nominees applies? Or is it that you’re taking the political question standards from Baker? I mean, it seems clear that compelling the Senate to formally act would run afoul of the 4th criteria laid out in Baker, _“impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government”_. There’s probably other facets that would push towards non-judiciability, but that one would be sufficient. Independent of the political question judiciability, I think standing would also be a tremendous hurdle. I’m not sure that such a suit, even brought by the President, wouldn’t also be dismissed for lack of standing in the same way the other two cases I linked to did. From Michel linked above (my bold): > [@](#): > > Article III standing requires a “concrete and particularized injury” that is “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” … The injury must be “of individual concern;” it is not enough for a party to show an undifferentiated, “general interest common to all members of the public.” … **The proper recourse for persons who have a generalized grievance is through the political process, not the courts.** … For a court to rule on the constitutionality of the activities of another branch without a uniquely injured individual “would be, not to decide a judicial controversy, but to assume a position of authority over the governmental acts of another and coequal department, an authority which plainly we do not possess.” > > … > > The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff did not have standing as a citizen and member of the Supreme Court bar because for “a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained … a direct injury as the result of that action and [not just] that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.” The claim about vote dilution or seventeenth amendment violation may be different if coming from the President. What actual claim do you think the President could make that would yield a different reasoning? What particularized individual injury would the President allege? Due process maybe? I really don’t see any path a Presidential claim could take. These are opinion pieces,[but were published in the NYT:](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/26/us/politics/battle-for-the-supreme-court-reader-questions-answered.html) > [@](#): > > Adam Liptak [SCOTUS correspondent for the NYT] > Q. Can the Supreme Court make orders in relation to Senate procedure or conduct? > > A. I cannot imagine a situation in which the Supreme Court would tell the Senate how to conduct its affairs in these circumstances. > > … > > Michael D. Shear [White House correspondent for the NYT] > Q. Can the president sue the Senate for unconstitutional dereliction of duty? > > A. There are really two questions here: Does a president have some legal standing to sue Congress for failing to do something, and would President Obama ever consider doing so if he could? > > Anyone can sue anyone in the United States. But the answer to the first part is almost certainly no. The Constitution is very clear about the divisions of authority, and there is every reason to believe that any such case would never get heard by the courts. And Mr. Obama is unlikely to try anyway. If he cannot get a nominee through, he will be far more interested in the court of public opinion, especially in an election year. There’s also the matter of consistency. The framers understood how to require formal action if they wanted to. Article I, section 7 describing presentment, says that any bill not returned by the President within 10 days shall become law. They don’t do this in any other place, including in the appointments clause. It would not be consistent to interpret a requirement to act by implication given there are explicit requirements to act in other places in the document. Omission of this should be taken as intentional. And the appointments clause doesn’t have unique application to SCOTUS nominees. It applies to all Article III judges. And in looking at that pool, it’s fairly common for nominees to languish with no action taken by the Senate. For SCOTUS to read some requirement of formal action, they would be doing so for all Article III nominees. The President is entitled to nominate, and it is up to the Senate to confirm. This separation of powers is pervasive throughout the constitution, and it would be an usurpation of one branch by another if they were to be compelled to act. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833.md?page=11)