# Garland should just sit down and judge? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757 "2016-03-31T17:04:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/61 "2016-04-01T13:37:30Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Personally, I still don’t see why Biden can’t just show up and call for an up-or-down vote. He is, after all, the person that the Constitution says should preside over the Senate, whenever he’s present. He has to abide by Senate rules, and the GOP has 54 votes in the Senate. You only need 41 votes to continue a debate. The President of the Senate can’t just shut off debate on a nomination. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/62 "2016-04-01T14:30:31Z")
> [@Arrogantly\_Ignorant](#): > > The Democrats filibustered nominees (so have Republicans, I believe) that they didn’t approve. That’s been an accepted (if annoying) political option for centuries. In fact, it’s an **important** one. The Senate should/does play a \*\*vital \*\*part in Supreme Court nominations and part of that is opposition, argument, and, ultimately, **compromise**. That highlighted portion is an interesting take on things, considering that the Senate Democrats used the ‘nuclear option’ and removed the centuries-old “accepted political option” of filibustering nominees just a few years ago. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/63 "2016-04-01T14:33:19Z")
Discussion, argument, and compromise are the key words there. Reflexive, absolute opposition on purely partisan grounds is not a “vital part” of any political process. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2016, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/64 "2016-04-01T15:10:49Z")
And the Senate rules have to abide by the Constitution. The Constitution says that Biden presides, and so any Senate rule that says otherwise is null and void. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/65 "2016-04-01T15:35:38Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And the Senate rules have to abide by the Constitution. The Constitution says that Biden presides, and so any Senate rule that says otherwise is null and void. So the President of the Senate does not have to abide by the rules of the Senate? That’s an interesting take on the Constitution. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/66 "2016-04-01T15:48:18Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That highlighted portion is an interesting take on things, considering that the Senate Democrats used the ‘nuclear option’ and removed the centuries-old “accepted political option” of filibustering nominees just a few years ago. Cite where they have done this for nominees **to the Supreme Court** , which is the subject we’re discussing here? ---
**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:** [April 1, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/67 "2016-04-01T15:50:45Z")
These are not the droids you are looking for. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/68 "2016-04-01T16:04:25Z")
> **[Supreme Court](https://xkcd.com/1607/)** > > Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy called the man's arguments that he could be either Alito or Ginsburg "surprisingly compelling, but ultimately unconvincing." ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/69 "2016-04-01T16:07:18Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > Cite where they have done this for nominees **to the Supreme Court** , which is the subject we’re discussing here? If you were to go back and read posts #62, #59, #56, & #55, I think it’s pretty obvious that we were discussing judicial nominees generally and not just SCOTUS nominees. Is that clear to you now? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/70 "2016-04-01T16:11:46Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > And just because Joe Biden once said something stupid that doesn’t mean you should follow his stupid ideas. Orrin Hatch said that if Obama nominated Garland that would be acceptable, but Obama wouldn’t do that, so there would be no nomination. Then Obama nominated Garland. Follow the Hatch rule! Or, if Hatch was an idiot for saying that, don’t follow the Hatch rule. Let’s dispel with the notion that Joe Biden said something stupid about SCOTUS nominations. He didn’t, and the rest of his comments fully supports a Senate doing their job: > [@](#): > > “I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” Joe Biden, past and present, has always fully supported the President, whoever he is, making a nomination and the Senate doing their job to consider that person. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/71 "2016-04-01T16:29:03Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If you were to go back and read posts #62, #59, #56, & #55, I think it’s pretty obvious that we were discussing judicial nominees generally and not just SCOTUS nominees. Is that clear to you now? If you were to go back and read post #62, the quote you included and were responding to explicitly specified “Supreme Court nominations”, to which you responded with that non sequitur that did not apply to SCOTUS nominees at all. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/72 "2016-04-01T16:29:35Z")
No doubt if Obama were to cooperate with the present Senate, or moderate his selections (in the sense that Biden was talking about) then the Senate could reconsider its position. But “moderate his selections” means the same thing now as it did for Biden - pick someone who agrees with me. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/73 "2016-04-01T16:41:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There’s a way around that, too: if no one asks for a quorum call. So what? That’s irrelevant to the scenario you suggested. Do you agree that the scenario you suggested in post #30 in which a handful of Democratic Senators show up and hold a vote is not ever going to happen? This response makes me think that you’re just throwing out parliamentary rules without actually thinking about your argument. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/74 "2016-04-01T16:45:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No doubt if Obama were to cooperate with the present Senate, or moderate his selections (in the sense that Biden was talking about) then the Senate could reconsider its position. They’ve said exactly the opposite, though. They refuse to consider any nominee. You think that that statement is a bluff, and that actually if he nominated someone they approved of, they’d confirm? How do we differentiate the cases where they’re saying they won’t consider anyone, but really would, and aren’t offering any suggestions for someone they’d consider from the cases where they’re saying they won’t consider anyone and are actually not going to consider anyone, either out of spite, or a hope that people will see the lack of progress on basic matters of government as a failure of Obama? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/75 "2016-04-01T16:51:52Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > If you were to go back and read post #62, the quote you included and were responding to explicitly specified “Supreme Court nominations”, to which you responded with that non sequitur that did not apply to SCOTUS nominees at all. Arrogantly Ignorant said, “The Democrats filibustered nominees (so have Republicans, I believe) that they didn’t approve. That’s been an accepted (if annoying) political option for centuries. In fact, it’s an important one.” I thought it was pretty clear that we were discussing more than just SCOTUS nominees. My reply was in that vein. Sorry you saw it differently. ---
**Author:** ![Arrogantly\_Ignorant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Arrogantly\_Ignorant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arrogantly_Ignorant)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/76 "2016-04-01T16:54:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That highlighted portion is an interesting take on things, considering that the Senate Democrats used the ‘nuclear option’ and removed the centuries-old “accepted political option” of filibustering nominees just a few years ago. Not sure how that’s relevant in this thread given that the “nuclear optiion” specifically excluded the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/77 "2016-04-01T16:57:48Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > They’ve said exactly the opposite, though. They refuse to consider any nominee. > > You think that that statement is a bluff, and that actually if he nominated someone they approved of, they’d confirm? Yes, I think if Obama nominated some staunch conservative, the Senate would reconsider. The Dems would vote against the nominee, and Obama won’t nominate anyone like that, but yes, the Senate would reconsider. > [@](#): > > How do we differentiate the cases where they’re saying they won’t consider anyone, but really would, and aren’t offering any suggestions for someone they’d consider from the cases where they’re saying they won’t consider anyone and are actually not going to consider anyone, either out of spite, or a hope that people will see the lack of progress on basic matters of government as a failure of Obama? Nominate a conservative and see what they do. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [April 1, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/78 "2016-04-01T17:00:51Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > They’ve said exactly the opposite, though. They refuse to consider any nominee. > > You think that that statement is a bluff, and that actually if he nominated someone they approved of, they’d confirm? Of course. If Obama nominated a Scalia-like person, I think they would be confirmed very quickly. Of course that is fantasy land so here we are. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/79 "2016-04-01T17:01:03Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And the Senate rules have to abide by the Constitution. The Constitution says that Biden presides, and so any Senate rule that says otherwise is null and void. The Dude abides and the Biden presides - 🆒 But I digress, what specifically does Vice President Biden preside over? Every day matters? Ties? Quorum calls? Recess appointments? ---
**Author:** ![Arrogantly\_Ignorant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Arrogantly\_Ignorant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arrogantly_Ignorant)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/80 "2016-04-01T17:29:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Arrogantly Ignorant said, “The Democrats filibustered nominees (so have Republicans, I believe) that they didn’t approve. That’s been an accepted (if annoying) political option for centuries. In fact, it’s an important one.” I thought it was pretty clear that we were discussing more than just SCOTUS nominees. My reply was in that vein. Sorry you saw it differently. Not trying to stir trouble, but in the next sentence I did state, “The Senate should/does play a vital part in **Supreme Court nominations**.” I could have made that clearer though, since the quote I posted was talking about judicial nominees, instead of just Supreme Court ones. I apologize for the confusion. So, just to clarify, my enitre post was about Supreme Court nominations, not just judicial ones. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757.md?page=5)