You can do that; you’re a voter. Helping to choose the president is your job.
But deciding who shall be president is not a senator’s job, except in fairly limited circumstances. And having a hissy-fit because you wish the people hadn’t chosen the current president, and deciding that you’ll behave as if they actually didn’t, is somewhere between childish and anti-democratic.
The Solution
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
But the first step, before the 20% swing voters get to swing, is to win the primary. That’s where the hard core Republicans call the shots. And rest assured that your opponent in the Republican primary is going to run ads saying “Senator Smith. He supported Barack Hussein Obama’s radical policy to change America by letting the him pack the Supreme Court with his cronies.”
And also consider that while 20% of the country as a whole might consist of centrist swing voters, in deep red states that is not the case, and senators are elected on a state-by-state basis.
I’m not an expert on Senate parliamentary rules, but my guess is that the presiding officer could ignore their motion to adjourn and just declare the recess as usual.
One factor to consider if they really make this a long term strategy is that it diminishes the power and prestige of the Supreme Court, which would give the justices themselves unusual stake in preventing it. I don’t think they would go so far as to rule the strategy unconstitutional, when (as the consensus here shows) it pretty clearly isn’t. But I could see at least some of the judges deciding that it is worth sacrificing their traditional facade of political neutrality and silence in order to publicly condemn the senate, which would put enormous political pressure on senators. I could even see a conservative justice or two threatening to retire and give the SC a liberal majority until the situation is resolved (though they wouldn’t likely put it that forthrightly).
Most SCOTUS conservatives would be perfectly happy to see the power of the Supreme Court reduced. There are certainly exceptions, but the Court has historically functioned as a a check on conservative legislation far more than liberal legislation.
That’s a good point. There’s a big difference between listening to the evidence to make a decision vs announcing ahead of time that what your decision will be before you’ve even heard the evidence.
Getting back to the OP, the only legal remedies I can think of to get the vacancy filled despite having an obstructionist Senate are (1) recess appointment (which may or may not work, and is only a temporary solution) or (2) recall or impeachment of the Senators who are obstructing, or (3) a lawsuit of some kind (Obama v McConnell? United States v GOP?) which would almost certainly lose because there’s ample precedent for obstructionist having gotten away with it in the past.
That’s exactly what happened last time the Senate had a sham session to prevent the president from making any recess appointments. Three times a week, the Senate would officially open for the day. Ignoring the yelling for “point of order” from the opposition, the President Pro Tem closed the day’s session for the day a few seconds later. Technically, a point of order cannot be ignored, but that’s what happened.
The Vice President is the President of the Senate. However Senate rules make the President of the Senate a rather toothless position. The VP can cast a tie breaking vote, but that is about it.
The presiding officer in the Senate is usually a designated junior Senator from the majority party. It is the presiding officer who would have to recognize such a point of order.
I would say that a Senate that refuses to even have hearings or a vote on a particular candidate within a reasonable timeframe is not doing its job.
A Senate that schedules a vote and rejects every candidate offered is doing its job, and perhaps in precisely the way its constituents would like it to.
No. The Vice President of the United States (aka President of the Senate) “shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided” (Article I, section 3).
I would say that a Senate which refuses to even have hearings, or a vote, on a Presidential nominee within a reasonable timeframe is doing its job. The bottom line is that the Senate either confirms or doesn’t confirm the nominee.
I don’t think Obama needs to push it anyway. With Trump looking to be sailing towards the Republican nomination odds are that the next President will be a Democrat. Also lame-duck Presidents can easily come unstuck in getting their chosen candidate into SCOTUS, as witness LBJ’s failure in his final year of office to get Abe Fortas past the Senate.