# 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:** 7
**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 4, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/121 "2019-06-04T16:59:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Bone** : > > This is so absurd it’s, well, absurd. Assuming 100 senators, two senators could not satisfy Article II advice and consent any more than 49 could. A quorum of the senate is defined as a majority, and without a quorum the senate could not conduct business. Assuming two senators constitute a quorum is at least less absurd than the Republican position that one senator is a quorum. ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/122 "2019-06-04T17:04:25Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Assuming two senators constitute a quorum is at least less absurd than the Republican position that one senator is a quorum. I’m guessing this has something to do with the way Republicans were denying recess appointments? I don’t remember them calling one Senator a quorum. What are you talking 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:** [June 4, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/123 "2019-06-04T17:04:46Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > ‘The way I interpret the Constitution is the right way, everyone else is wrong.’ > > This is the Dope, not some bullshit place where you can simply assert something like that. My interpretation is also consistent with the entire history of the country, and basically everything that’s ever been done. Your assertion was that it was debatable whether the Senate was obligated to vote on Garland. If you want to hang your hat on the fact that people can debate it, sure that’s an out. That’s on par with saying the earth is flat is debatable. I mean, sure people can debate it. All we need do is look at Garland - the assertion is that the senate was obligated to take a vote. They didn’t. What was consequence of not meeting that obligation? They don’t seem too obligated to me. But feel free to present any semblance of evidence that suggests the Senate bears such an obligation. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There’s no history of SCOTUS nominations with no action by the Senate for a year (at least according to my googling). A year seems arbitrary. But yes, none for greater than a year. There still isn’t any history of any SCOTUS nominations with no action by the Senate for a year, including Garland. His nomination stalled for 293 days. No matter - the substantive point is that the Senate is not required to have a vote, have a hearing, or take any action whatsoever with regard to judicial nominations. For lower courts, the Senate has also blocked a vote on Miguel Estrada, whose nomination lasted 848 days before Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration. So yeah, the Senate doesn’t need to vote on judges, ever. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/124 "2019-06-04T17:04:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I do so love reading “Elections have consequences” solemnly invoked in posts explaining why a Democrat’s election as President did _not_, but an election that hadn’t even been held yet _did_. > > Don’t kid yourself, guys. You cheated and got away with it, and we all know it, including you. Might as well admit it. I agree with this sentiment. It’s shady to not even hold the vote. Governing and social life in general requires abiding by norms written and unwritten. ---
**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:** [June 4, 2019, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/125 "2019-06-04T17:05:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Another option would have been for the President of the Senate to override McConnell and hold the vote anyway. And yet another option would have been for Obama to declare that he was interpreting the lack of any vote against Garland as consent. Is there an actual mechanism for the President of the Senate to override anything? It is my understanding that he gets to break a tie, but that’s pretty much it. > **[President of the Senate | United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Senate#United_States)** > > The vice president of the United States is assigned the responsibility of presiding over the Senate and designated as its president by the United States Constitution. The vice president, as president of the Senate, has the authority (ex officio, as they are not an elected member of the Senate) to cast a tie-breaking vote. Other than this, the rules of the Senate grant its president very little power (in contrast to the powerful office of speaker of the House of Representatives). > While vice presi... ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/126 "2019-06-04T17:07:39Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > A year seems arbitrary. But yes, none for greater than a year. There still isn’t any history of any SCOTUS nominations with no action by the Senate for a year, including Garland. His nomination stalled for 293 days. No matter - the substantive point is that the Senate is not required to have a vote, have a hearing, or take any action whatsoever with regard to judicial nominations. Perhaps some “unserious” action could force SCOTUS to rule on this. Maybe even SCOTUS would rule that the Senate needs to hold a vote. “Unserious” has been working for the Republicans… maybe the Democrats should try it too. At least when the alternative is total capitulation. ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/127 "2019-06-04T17:14:52Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Perhaps some “unserious” action could force SCOTUS to rule on this. Maybe even SCOTUS would rule that the Senate needs to hold a vote. > > “Unserious” has been working for the Republicans… maybe the Democrats should try it too. At least when the alternative is total capitulation. Unserious is also bathing in unicorn tears. There’s things that are unlikely, and there are things that are super unlikely. Both can be unserious, but not the same. Suggesting that nude jumping jack dance offs would be persuasive is unserious too. And the alternative isn’t total capitulation. The alternative is changing the rules to reflect the will of the people. I laid out multiple viable ways this can be done. It’s like saying, I don’t like the Mayor in my city, I really want a different person instead. Then someone says, how about you persuade enough people to vote for your desired candidate. And the reply is, no, I’m just going to put a giraffe there instead and maybe people will go along with it. I guess that’s an option, but it won’t work and there are other viable options that will. You know, win elections. ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/128 "2019-06-04T17:18:24Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Perhaps some “unserious” action could force SCOTUS to rule on this. Maybe even SCOTUS would rule that the Senate needs to hold a vote. > > “Unserious” has been working for the Republicans… maybe the Democrats should try it too. At least when the alternative is total capitulation. Please tell us how you imagine SCOTUS being forced to make a ruling. I guess step (a) is getting an experienced judge to just show up and start grabbing a seat on the bench. What’s step (b)? ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/129 "2019-06-04T17:20:11Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Unserious is also bathing in unicorn tears. There’s things that are unlikely, and there are things that are super unlikely. Both can be unserious, but not the same. Suggesting that nude jumping jack dance offs would be persuasive is unserious too. > > And the alternative isn’t total capitulation. The alternative is changing the rules to reflect the will of the people. I laid out multiple viable ways this can be done. It’s like saying, I don’t like the Mayor in my city, I really want a different person instead. Then someone says, how about you persuade enough people to vote for your desired candidate. And the reply is, no, I’m just going to put a giraffe there instead and maybe people will go along with it. I guess that’s an option, but it won’t work and there are other viable options that will. > > You know, win elections. I’m in favor of that tactic as well. That doesn’t rule out trying the “unserious” routes, ala Trump and McConnell, as well. If the Democrats win the Presidency in 2020 but not the Senate, and there’s a SCOTUS vacancy in year 1, and the Senate refuses to consider it, then realistically something will happen. Something will give. I don’t know what that will be, but it’s not realistic to expect that the vacancy will sit for 4 years or more. It may involve something similar to these “unserious” suggestions that forces something to change. Do you think the vacancy will sit, or something will force the Senate to action? ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/130 "2019-06-04T17:21:41Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Please tell us how you imagine SCOTUS being forced to make a ruling. I guess step (a) is getting an experienced judge to just show up and start grabbing a seat on the bench. What’s step (b)? Presumably filing a lawsuit (maybe that would even be step (a)). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/131 "2019-06-04T17:22:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You know, win elections. How’d that work for Obama? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/132 "2019-06-04T17:22:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > My interpretation is also consistent with the entire history of the country, and basically everything that’s ever been done. Oh goody, more of the same. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/133 "2019-06-04T17:24:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How’d that work for Obama? After the first year, the Dems lost a Senate race in MA, and the GOP had a 41-59 Senate majority. Which definitely gets us back to the point about Dems needing to play hardball with respect to procedure. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/134 "2019-06-04T17:24:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > A better-crafted system would make it harder or impossible for bad people to do this kind of thing. The rules could clearly state that the Senate is required to vote on nominees, for example, within 60 days, or something like that, and a lack of a vote = implied consent. The system also permits, even encourages, amendment when such troubles with unworthy trustees appear. It isn’t broken. ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/135 "2019-06-04T17:26:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The system also permits, even encourages, amendment when such troubles with unworthy trustees appear. It isn’t broken. I disagree. Amendments are pretty much impossible in the present. If the broken-ness can’t be fixed, then it’s still broken. Even if hypothetically it could be fixed… but hypothetical ain’t reality. IMO, of course. ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/136 "2019-06-04T17:40:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Presumably filing a lawsuit (maybe that would even be step (a)). Have a read: > **[Political question](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question)** > > In United States constitutional law, the political question doctrine holds that a constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily refuse to address such matters. The idea of a political question is closely linked to the concept of ju... ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/137 "2019-06-04T17:43:27Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Have a read: > [Political question - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question) So then maybe a lawsuit would end up being ruled as “nonjusticiable”. Or maybe not. There’s nothing lost when the alternative is McConnell still wins. I’m sure McConnell hopes that the Democrats do nothing should this happen again, but hopefully the Democrats won’t do what McConnell wants them to do. Maybe there’s even some way for the Democrats to win. We won’t know unless they actually, you know, fight. ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/138 "2019-06-04T17:54:26Z")
This isn’t “maybe”. It would be ruled that way. It’s almost the definition of a political question. Your “try anything” suggestions would probably be more useful if you accept the basic reality of the situation. ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/139 "2019-06-04T17:57:01Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > This isn’t “maybe”. It would be ruled that way. It’s almost the definition of a political question. Your “try anything” suggestions would probably be more useful if you accept the basic reality of the situation. So says **CarnalK** , but maybe creative lawyers could fashion an argument that could get past that hurdle. Or maybe not. In any case, there’s nothing to lose by trying this (along with many other strategies), should this scenario come up. Even if you’re right, we lose nothing by trying different strategies. ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/140 "2019-06-04T17:59:26Z")
All of this also presumes justices (SCOTUS and otherwise) are honest and well-meaning arbiters of the Constitution and law. I don’t make that presumption any more. The judicial branch is another political branch. This is a bad thing, but it’s still true (IMO), and it should be considered when making political strategy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833.md?page=8)