# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 7
**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 4, 2016, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/121 "2016-04-04T06:34:44Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > There is precedent. It’s been more than 100 years, but there is precedent. > > John Tyler had an awful time getting SCOTUS nominees approved due to Senate intransigence. A nomination would get stonewalled and so Tyler would withdraw a name and submit another. When that nominee ran into the same roadblock he withdrew name #2 and resubmitted name #1. The Senate refused to vote on nominee #1 because a Senator objected that the Senate, despite not voting on nominee #1 the first time, had already done its duty by rejecting said nominee. The Wikipedia article just doesn’t do it full justice. > > Nominations for candidates #3 and #4 were tabled, never to be acted on again. No vote to reject. > > Tyler had nine such nominations fail, counting repeated nominations of the same candidate. His two successful nominations followed vacancies of 424 and 835 days, respectively. Do you have a cite for this? I was under the impression that Tyler’s first nomination did get a vote; he was just rejected. I know he withdrew several nominations, I do know that the Senate refused to vote on the nomination on Walworth, but that might have been because Tyler has already nominated and withdrawn his name that same day. As for tabling his nominations, the 2016 Senate is going even further; they’re refusing to even acknowledge Garland’s nomination. They’re being so obstructionist that they won’t even table Obama’s nomination. They’re just sticking their fingers in their ear and shouting “NO!” Also, as you mentioned, this was done over 150 years ago. The political landscape was much different than it is today (for example, the tradition of having 9 Justices had only been implemented less than 10 years ago, Senators weren’t elected by popular vote, etc.). Hell, even the nomination process was different (for starters, there was no Judiciary Committee until, I believe, 1866). Nevertheless, it is precedent, just not very strong precedent. So, I should clarify my statement to state that there isn’t any recent precedent. At the very least, it look like the Senate Tyler was up against did **something** for the majority of his nominations. Motions for their nominations were at least heard. The Senate’s actions (or inaction) could also be explained by the fact that Tyler continually nominated the same people. He nominated King and Spencer twice and Walworth three times, while others like John Read were rejected because of their stance on slavery. It’s interesting to note though that Tyler, despite being almost universally hated by Congress, was still able to get a nominee through even though he was a lame duck president. Primarily because he was a safe, non-controversial choice, which sounds a lot like Garland. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/122 "2016-04-04T15:34:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The logic goes like this - > [ul][li]Scalia was a conservative[/li][li]Scalia should be replaced by a conservative[/li][li]Obama isn’t going to nominate a conservative[/li][li]Therefore there aren’t going to be any hearings.[/ul][/li]Regards, > Shodan I’m sure you’re on record with your protests when liberal justice Thurgood Marshall was replaced by conservative justice Clarence Thomas. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/123 "2016-04-04T15:38:24Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > **YogSothoth** praised the Democrats in relation to Scalia’s confirmation because > “even if we don’t like him, we’ll give him a fair hearing”. Point of fact, the Democrats in the Senate at the time had zero option to give him a hearing or not - it was entirely up to the majority Republicans. > > And though the Democrats could have theoretically filibustered the Scalia nomination, they had backed themselves into a bit of a corner by attempting to filibuster the Rehnquist elevation to Chief Justice which was occurring at the same time. They burned their political capital on the CJ nomination and couldn’t muster the support to do the same to Scalia. To me, that the Dems were unanimous in voting for him shows that even had they been in control, they would have done their jobs. They could have even had a few dozen protest votes, but at least for them, they both understood their role and how the Senate isn’t there to force their own candidate through by whatever means necessary, but by determining the competency of the president’s choice. That was done by every member of the Democratic party in the Senate. > [@Bone](#): > > You’re not getting it. The absence of a hearing on Garland is the method by which they are fulfilling their legislative responsibilities. They are denying Obama the ability to confirm a left leaning SCOTUS justice, which is probably what their constituents want them to do when they were elected. There are more ways of doing their job than sitting in a chamber and voting. Tell me the difference between denying a hearing and having a hearing and voting down the nominee > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You mean like you did with Robert Bork? I’m shocked it took this long to mention his name. Bork was an extremist who did not deserve to be on the SCOTUS. The Dems did their job by having hearings and voting him down. That happens. What you are trying to justify Mitch McConnell and the rest of his turtle squad is doing is absolutely unprecedented and a dereliction of duty. I’ll ask you too: what’s the difference between not holding hearings and holding them and voting him down? Again, who do you think you people are fooling? Nobody here is falling for your games. Just accept that what the GOP is doing is completely without precedent and obstructionist and just run with that. Spin it however you want, patriotic duty, what your voters want, etc., but this fiction that the Dems have done it too or that there is a history of this stuff is laughable ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/124 "2016-04-04T15:43:00Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Tell me the difference between denying a hearing and having a hearing and voting down the nominee 1. Having a hearing is a way of figuring out whether this particular nominee is qualified to sit not he court. 2. Denying a hearing is a way of telling Obama that he should not be nominating anyone at this time. That is, #1 is about the nominee, and #2 is not. ---
**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 4, 2016, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/125 "2016-04-04T15:56:32Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Tell me the difference between denying a hearing and having a hearing and voting down the nominee One is denying a hearing, and the other is having a hearing and voting the down the nominee. Was this supposed to be a trick? But you must have misunderstood. I’m highlighting the hypocrisy of praising legislators literally running away to deny a quorum with your claim that Democrats will do their jobs and give a fair hearing. Did you miss that part? Here’s what you said when the Democrats _ran away and hid:_ > [@Wisconsin orders arrest of missing Democrats. Legal?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-orders-arrest-of-missing-democrats-legal/573396/51): > > You’re not getting it. Their absence is the method by which they are fulfilling their legislative responsibilities. They are denying the Republicans the ability to pass an anti-union bill, which is probably what their constituents want them to do when they were elected. There are more ways of legislating than sitting in a chamber and voting. Any attempt from you to criticize a filibuster or even denying a hearing is comical when you praise folks who run away and hide in an attempt to deny a quorum. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/126 "2016-04-04T18:31:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m sure you’re on record with your protests when liberal justice Thurgood Marshall was replaced by conservative justice Clarence Thomas. Why would I protest that? Scalia should be replaced with a conservative. So should all the liberals. So should all the moderates. I have no interest in maintaining the present balance of the Court. I want a conservative Court. That is, IMO, in the best interests of the country. “Conservative” in this case means I want a Court that decides based on a textual interpretation of the Constitution. Just like Scalia did, and just like all the other justices should. I am no different from any of the rest of the SDMB. I am just more upfront about it. If Obama thought he could get a liberal thru the process, he would appoint a liberal. I assume that is because he believes liberals are more likely correctly to decide the cases that come before the Supreme Court. But he is wrong, and I am right. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/127 "2016-04-04T18:41:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The essay seems to be saying that a Justice can be seated without the consent of the Senate. That’s interesting - does he or she need to be nominated by the President? > > Regards, > Shodan If not, I’m showing up for work tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/128 "2016-04-04T18:48:56Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Unfortunately, this would be litigated up to the SCOTUS where they’ll probably deadlock 4-4 and get nothing done. > … Wouldn’t Garland get to break the tie? If he votes yes, then it’s 5-4, if he votes no, then it’s tied… ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/129 "2016-04-04T20:15:07Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > If not, I’m showing up for work tomorrow. As I understand it, as long as Obama doesn’t say he didn’t nominate you, he is tacitly consenting to your nomination. Congratulations. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/130 "2016-04-04T20:38:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > As I understand it, as long as Obama doesn’t say he didn’t nominate you, he is tacitly consenting to your nomination. Congratulations. > > Regards, > Shodan As far as I know, he’s never even heard of me, so I guess I can safely assume he’s never explicitly denied the position to me, so… Although, come to think of it, I am on his Christmas card list. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/131 "2016-04-12T11:28:53Z")
The Biden trick might be interesting. Suppose Biden and 10 Dem Senators show up prior to a pro forma session. Biden grabs the gavel and calls the session to order: Biden: The vote is on the nomination of Garland to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. All in favor say “aye.” Two GOP Senators: Objection! Suggest absence of a quorum! Ten Dem Senators: Aye. Biden: Those opposed? Two GOP Senators: Objection! Point of Order! No quorum! Biden: In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The nomination is agreed to. It would be unprecedented, but would it be legal? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/132 "2016-04-12T12:08:47Z")
GOP Senator: “Mr. President, request a Roll Call Vote” Biden: “The clerk shall call the roll” \ Biden: “A majority not voting aye, the vote fails to pass, and the nomination is not confirmed…” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757/133 "2016-04-12T13:44:42Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > If no vote has been taken, the nomination will be withdrawn sometime around election day. Actually, Obama is now on record that he will not withdraw the nomination (interview with Chris Wallace this weekend). Now, that doesn’t mean he can’t change his mind, but it seems unlikely he will. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/garland-should-just-sit-down-and-judge/750757.md?page=6)