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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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?
Presumably filing a lawsuit (maybe that would even be step (a)).
How’d that work for Obama?
Oh goody, more of the same.
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.
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.
Have a read:
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.
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.
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.