I also pondered whether the 4th criteria was a better fit.
This really doesn’t seem like a remotely plausible strategy and besides if a court decision like that came down then I have very little doubt that the Republicans wouldn’t need much whipping to vote against the nominee even if it was King Solomon.
Ok, sorry, geez, I take a day off and five pages of answers go by. But I had to come back to this. Do you already not recall what happened to the House in 2010, when the Republicans picked up 63 seats? Or in the Senate, where the Republicans picked up 6 seats?
I live in one of the swing Congressional districts from that day: South Carolina 6 (now 5), which went from being represented by John Spratt - D (who had represented the district for 18 years) to being represented by Mick Mulvaney - R. Trust me when I say that the real motivator for many people in the district was the ACA, which Rep. Spratt, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, had moved on the floor to final vote. Mulvaney hung that around his neck like the proverbial albatross, and it cost him, despite the fact that he was arguably one of the most conservative Democrats in the House.
Do you think the flip side is worthwhile?
The OP and much of the thread is complaining because McConnell is flip-flopping on nominations in an election year. If Ginsberg retires tomorrow morning and Trump nominates someone to fill her seat, do you think the Dems would succeed in a lawsuit to block the vote on the nomination?
Regards,
Shodan
That’s not really “the flip side”, it’s completely different. The people who wanted a lawsuit over Garland hang their hat on thinking the Constitution demands the Senate formally act on a Supreme nominee. What is this supposed “flip side” based on?
As for the rest of the thread:
What McConnell did wasn’t unprecedented.
If a majority of senators objected to what he decided to do about the nomination, they could have over-ridden his decision. They didn’t, because the Republican senators were content to let McConnell lead them on the issue. So to say this was just McConnell’s decision is to ignore the complicity of the rest of the GOP caucus. It was done by the caucus, not just McConnell.
The Supreme Court is not going to change anything in such disputes between a President and Congress (or one house thereof). First of all, as noted before, it’s a political question, one they simply refuse to inject themselves into; precedent on that is pretty consistent from the time of the founding. But secondly, the Constitution doesn’t require a vote. PERIOD. So even if the Supreme Court took up the question, what could they do?? If they were to require the Senate to hold a vote, they would be engaging in precisely the sort of extra-judicial action that BOTH sides of the political spectrum get completely upset about. That’s simply not going to happen.
Contrary to what some are asserting here, McConnell never said that he was refusing to hold hearings simply because it was the last year of the President’s term. He made it clear at the time that he was doing so because it was the last year, AND the President’s party was the other party from the party holding control in the Senate. Now, I’m not sure that makes what he did any less objectionable (indeed, I certainly don’t think so). But it doesn’t make him a hypocrite for saying that he’d hold hearings on a nominee next year from President Trump.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The decision to ignore President Obama’s nomination of Garland was a bad idea. It was inconsistent with the normal process of the last roughly 100 years, and it invites a further escalation of non-normal behaviors if/when the Democrats end up in control of the Senate (see: court-packing schemes). But it’s not like it was something that was completely out of the blue; Harry Reid had been playing with the rules himself as Majority Leader during the period the Democrats had control of the Senate, and McConnell (and others) had warned at the time that doing so would result in even more bad things down the road. At some point, someone is going to have to step up and say, “enough!” to this slow but certain breakdown of the normal political process in the Senate. Quite possibly, it will come over a nomination to the Court in a year that the White House and the Senate are in the control of different parties early in that President’s term. Crisis tends to breed resolution.
I don’t understand how this is “the flip side”, but I’d have no expectation that the Democrats would succeed in any such lawsuit.
I share the same expectation of a lawsuit attempting to force a vote, and for the same reason - the Court does not set Senate rules. That’s what I meant by the flip side - the Court can’t tell the Senate they have to vote, the Court can’t tell the Senate they cannot vote.
Regards,
Shodan
It wouldn’t have to force a vote, necessarily - it could say that the nomination goes through if the senate does nothing, or many other possibilities.
Maybe a long shot, but long shots are worth a try if the alternative is losing.
The obstructionists in the senate already understand that not voting means the nominee doesn’t get the job. There’s 2 ways to get that. Vote the candidate down, and refuse to do your job. Give the bastards only one way to get that. You want to vote the candidate down? That’s fine. Have the integrity to do it.
LOL! Dog and pony show sham hearings are now a mark of “integrity” :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Doing the job one gets paid by the taxpayer to do is a display of the smallest modicum of integrity.
Kinda makes you wonder what McConnell thought would happen if he held the vote, don’tcha? :rolleyes:
HurricaneDitka, we’re not talking about dog-and-pony shows. We’re talking about voting. Which, yes, is relevant for integrity of our government.
The only alternatives are not, 1) doing nothing, or 2) losing.
There is also, 3) asking the Court to rule that the Constitution doesn’t say what it says, and does say what it doesn’t, again, and winding up looking stupid.
Regards,
Shodan
And maybe even a 4 and a 5, and who knows, even a 6! There could be lots of things they could try, and maybe even one of them could work!
How does that support your claim? Yes, there were people who were mad. There are always people who are mad. Was there higher-than-average Republican turnout in 2010? Or was it just lower-than-average Dem turnout?
I don’t know the answer, but you’re the one who’s making the claim; you can do the work. But if what really screwed the Dems in 2010 was reduced Dem turnout, then your claim fails.
The Dems didn’t feel voting was “relevant for integrity of our government” when it was Miguel Estrada being nominated (or any of the other various judges they filibustered / otherwise stonewalled). Any rational reason for their flip-flop? Or is this just another case of “it depends on whose ox is getting gored”?
I like that technique! Cite one example and then imply that you have many others right at your fingertips, but move along briskly to declaring your point established. Saves time, I suppose.
Mr Estrada, as you know or should know, had no experience as a judge, nor any academic writings to review. His primary qualification would seem to be a membership in the Federalist Society. Known for ideological diversity, running from firmly conservative to extremely so.
Does ideology matter? Well, of course it does, it is precisely why honest conservatives, that most endangered of species, can justify cooperating with Il Douche. Ramming through conservative judges is the mayonnaise on the Trump shit sandwich that allows them to choke down one more bite. Against whatever shred of conscience remains. Mmmm, mmmm, good! Yummy!
Mr. Garland had experience on the bench, and the respect of his peers. A pity that he is such an extreme radical lefty firebrand. You know, like Obama.
It’s at least a step forward for a Republican partisan to denounce filibustering. Maybe that’s something we can build on.