Oops, I was wrong about that – I guess “quorum” is defined in the Constitution. Still worth a try, since the alternative is losing without a fight.
“Try anything” without violence, IMO. And I see no reason to believe that your view of “the rules” is any better than mine or anyone else’s, at least based on this argument-free paragraph. Trying stuff like this (assuming a similar scenario to the Garland nomination) could result in nothing worse than McConnell winning. When the worst-case scenario is the status quo, then that sounds like something worth considering, when the alternative is losing without a fight.
Yes, it would have less bad, because then there would have been irrefutable evidence that the GOP’s motives had nothing to do with the good of the country and everything to do with saying “fuck you” to Obama. Not there was ever much doubt about that.
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.
How do you say this when you just acknowledged that bit about a quorum? You were suggesting acting in direct contradiction to the constitution - I’d say my view of the rules is better than yours in that regard. Your suggestion of trying stuff was to violate the constitution. Now if you’re withdrawing that suggestion, then I’d look at any other suggestion on the merits. But that one, that one is absurd and proscribed.
Your understanding of a quorum was better than mine, but I just fixed that.
But Senators meeting isn’t in violation of the Constitution. Neither are “shadow hearings” or “shadow votes”. If silence can constitute “advice”, then clearly the commonly understood meanings of words aren’t quite enough to interpret the Constitution. I’m suggesting trying anything non-violent that just might force any possible change to the status quo, because the status quo (in this specific scenario) is broken. Force the SCOTUS to get involved and take a position – even up to having Garland walk into the SCOTUS building and assume that the Senate’s silence constituted “consent” (if silence can be “advice”, then why can’t it be “consent”, when in all other cases lack of consent has required a vote).
The alternative is McConnell wins and wins again with no struggle.
You seem to be operating under an assumption that our system actually is working. I am not operating under that assumption. Our system is broken in many ways. Stuff like this is what happens in broken systems, and stuff like this is what motivates broken systems to be fixed.
History tells us that broken systems like this are eventually fixed or destroyed. History tells us that the status quo doesn’t last for broken systems. Hopefully this broken system will be fixed without violence.
This bit is wrong. it’s been detailed on this site elsewhere, but not all SCOTUS nominees have had a vote, and that non-vote has not been understood as the Senate consenting to the President’s nominee.
That’s true. Constitutional democracies work because and *only *because the people have wanted them to. They have historically begun to collapse when people no longer respected the principles the constitutions stood for, or put party or personal interest above them without consequence often enough. We now have a party, and its leadership, and its supporters, who do not respect our Constitutional principles. Examples can be found in this very thread.
First - it’s not true that all other cases lack of consent has required a vote. There is a well established history of the Senate not voting on SCOTUS and lower court nominees.
Second - you seem to be under the impression that silence or not holding a vote is being construed as Article II advice and consent. It’s not. Therefore, your whole line of argument falls. SCOTUS judges get confirmed with advice and consent of senate, but if the senate does nothing, then they don’t get confirmed. Doing nothing doesn’t mean advice and consent, it just means doing nothing.
Third - If Garland tried to seat himself, it would be only slightly different than another random person trying to seat themselves. I would expect ejection due to trespass. I could equally assume the Congress and President’s silence as abdication and crowning me Super Duper King for Life. Both of those assumptions would be on equal footing.
Fourth - SCOTUS only takes a position when a matter is brought before them and they have jurisdiction to opine. I’m not sure what the true conflict would be, or who would have standing, or even what the question presented could be. But if those things are resolved, then having SCOTUS weigh in is a potential, if not unlikely path.
But to actually “fix” what you consider broken, it’s not that difficult and can be done within the existing framework of rules that currently exist. The Senate can adopt rules that control how nominees are handled, time frames, votes, etc. Of course, they can change their own rules fairly easily so while that would be a fix, it would only be operative for as long as the Senate wants it to be so. And if they wanted it to be so, they don’t need rules to force it. Another fix is for the Congress to pass a law that illustrates a specific process. They can do that and it would be slightly more binding than a self adopted rule. Another fix is a constitutional amendment which would be even more binding. Those are real changes that could transpire. The other stuff, Garland seating himself, a few senators getting together and pretending they have a quorum - those are fundamentally unserious.
Plenty of SCOTUS nominees have withdrawn, or had their nominations withdrawn by the POTUS, and plenty have been voted down. No nominees have been nominated (and not withdrawn) with no Senate action for ~ 1 year.
It was an intentional move to leverage the political power that Sen. McConnell thought the GOP had in the situation. Remember: had the election gone differently, it might thoroughly have backfired on him; Garland was, after all, a relatively moderate pick. Had Clinton won, she could easily have nominated someone else more “liberal” and had the Senate not staying in Republican control, then the GOP’s power to control the pick would have evaporated. Again, I say that it simply wasn’t worth collective outrage over. My objections to it have more to do with the fact that it invites the Democratic Party to escalate the battle further, as I indicated.
Well, yeah, we sure saw all that outrage just pour itself all over the Senatorial elections in the last cycle, didn’t we? I mean, it’s just revenge and retribution everywhere you go! :rolleyes:
The Senate has no such Constitutional obligation. Point to me where you think it does? The Constitution merely requires that the President appoint Supreme Court judges “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”. So, he cannot appoint a judge without getting “Advice” and “Consent” from the Senate. But there is no requirement that “Advice and Consent” include a vote.
In the last 20 years? Easy answer coming in a minute. But in my lifetime? Goodness, let’s start with Watergate? And if you want something that got a really really large number of Americans horked off enough to go to the polls and vote for change, within the last 20 years, let’s look at the 2010 midterms and the energizing effect of the ACA. So, yeah, it’s quite possible for the American public to get all politically energized about stuff. Contrary to the opinion of the more “liberal” members of this board, the Garland nomination simply isn’t one of them.
So when someone points out your suggestion is directly unconstitutional, you “fix” the problem by ignoring it and say it’s a “shadow vote” or something?
You can’t force the SCOTUS to take a position. Garland would never have agreed to the stunt you’re suggesting. Even in a “try everything” situation, there are dumb ideas.
There’s no history of SCOTUS nominations with no action by the Senate for a year (at least according to my googling).
According to one possible interpretation, perhaps. Maybe even the “correct” one. Has the SCOTUS ruled on this? If not, then it should be forced.
Perhaps on paper, but in reality it could work out differently. Especially with a supporting DoJ opinion. Perhaps, anyway. At worst McConnell wins, which happens anyway.
“Unserious” stuff actually happens in reality sometimes. Trump was an unserious candidate, and he is an unserious president. Doing nothing for a reasonable SCOTUS nominee is “unserious”. Lots of things are unserious. The Democrats should consider some “unserious” options, when the alternative is losing without a fight. Especially when the Republicans have gotten some wins by doing “unserious” things.
This is the kind of thing that happens in a broken system. It’s actually pretty benign compared to the other options for broken systems.
It isn’t the *system *that’s failed, but the people to whom it is currently entrusted. We have a party that is devoted to finding clever ways around the system for what they perceive to be their own interest, and who perceives the other party as the actual enemy rather than fellow citizens with somewhat different but still valid priorities. That party has supporters who are happy to cherry-pick the Constitution or even lie to themselves about what it says and means, congratulating themselves on solving a puzzle, rather than respecting and abiding by the principles of democracy that underlie it. They often even call themselves “law abiding citizens”, just like the loyal subjects of an autocracy do.
No, the problem is not the system, it’s worked for centuries. The problem, as usual, is people lying to themselves.
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.
