Obama has already cooporated with the Senate, Orrin Hatch even signed off on the nominee before he knew who he was. Garland is a completely qualified moderate who has some liberal leanings, which is exactly the perfect type of candidate the GOP should accept since they don’t control the presidency.
Bush Sr. nominee was voted on and he passed. I recall guys like Scalia also passed, and unanimously too. Democrats know that if you don’t control the presidency, you can’t simply block a nominee because he’s not liberal. We do our jobs unlike the extremist GOP. And even if we don’t like him, we’ll give him a fair hearing, again unlike the extremist GOP.
Just accept that the GOP has created this unprecedented noting of extremists trying to get 100% of what they want passed without compromising. I mean, who are you fooling at this point? Anyone who agrees with you like adaher or Starving Artist or Clotha will never see reason. Nobody else is fooled. In fact, why don’t you just rename obstruction to “principled stance” and go with that? That you continuously deny that the GOP is extreme and doing unprecedented stuff proves that some tiny part of you still cares that liberals see you as reasonable, and you would say anything to try to keep that reputation. Believe me, nobody here thinks that.
Obama couldn’t possibly have “moderated his selections” any further. Garland is closer to being apolitical as any nominee in the last 25 years. That’s why the only conservative objection to him has been conjecture based on a single vote to rehear a gun case.
You’re spouting bullshit here, Shodan. You know better than this. Have you been paying attention?
The Senate Republicans have refused to consider any nominee. Remember when Hatch said he’d support Garland, but Obama would never nominate Garland? You remember that, right?
They aren’t refusing to consider Garland because he’s a flaming socialist. They’re refusing to consider him because he was nominated by Obama. He was acceptable to them, he’s the moderate candidate they’d vote for, except they won’t vote for anyone.
Note that they aren’t saying “Nominate another Scalia and we’ll confirm him”. They’re refusing to consider anyone. Because why? Because they hate America’s President, and can’t stand the idea that he might name another Supreme Court Justice.
This is the sort of stunt that, if you’d listen to the argument instead of playing sophist, undermines the public’s support of our democratic institutions. It increases public support of emergency measures by the executive just to keep the country running. Congress won’t pass a budget. They won’t confirm or reject nominees. They won’t do their job. And why? Because they’d have declared a line in the sand, and then backed down. So it doesn’t matter that doing their job and holding a vote on Garland (who would be confirmed easily) is the right thing to do. In the party of Trump it is more important to stick by your story, no matter how outlandish.
Of course Garland is not going to take a seat on the Supreme Court, on the theory that since they didn’t vote to stop him, they must have approved him. That’s not going to happen. This time. But what about next time? You think Trump is going to win and appoint another Scalia? Maybe, but it’s more likely that Hillary is going to win. And should the Senate refuse to even consider her nominees?
This is not about whether Garland is a good choice for the Supreme Court. He is, but that’s irrelevant. If he’s a bad choice, they should vote against him, they’ve got the votes. But they won’t vote against him, because he’s a good choice, and therefore they can’t hold the vote.
This is another nail in the coffin of the Republican party as an institution. They used to fantasize they were the party of grown ups. Remember back then?
You completely refuse to answer whether Garland would or would not be a good nominee, because you know he’d be approved easily if they held a vote. Since that’s the case, what’s the rationale behind not holding a vote? The Republican leadership would lose face, because they promised not to hold a vote for anyone, not even a highly qualified nominee. And you’re left parroting the party talking points, like a trained seal, to mix a metaphor.
I didn’t know about the quorum rule; that was ignorance, and has been fought.
Otherwise, I’m exploring the shadowy corners of the law and the rules, trying to outfox the system – just as the OP did, suggesting that Garland simply assume he’s been approved. I figure my hypothesis is about equally likely.
Meanwhile, there are examples of some very shadowy quorum dodging. Remember the Texas legislature, calling in a Federal emergency alert, when several legislators hid in Oklahoma to deny a quorum? Queer shit has already happened in real life. It’s hard to imagine anything weirder.
We the People elected the President to do this with the advice and consent of the Senate. The article in the OP is pushing the idea that we elected him to do this without.
No, I’m not.
They aren’t. I am.
The whole reason they won’t consider an Obama nominee is because they are hoping for a GOP President who will nominate someone more conservative. If Obama nominates someone conservative, they will consider him, no matter what they say.
Obama isn’t going to nominate someone like that, obviously, which is why they said they wouldn’t consider anyone Obama nominates. And it would be dumb for him to do so, since Obama wants a liberal to replace a conservative Justice and the GOP wants a conservative to replace a conservative.
But really - given all the hysterics about how dishonest and lying and yadda yadda the Republicans are, and yet you can’t conceive that they might be jockeying for advantage here.
For some reason, you’re not getting that they’d oppose *anyone *he nominated. Anyone at all, no matter who. There is no one they’d advise and consent to as long as Obama nominated him, no one at all.
Yeah, which is why Republican senators should be jumping at the chance to nominate him. Yeah, there would be a nominally liberal court, but nothing that would significantly shake up the political landscape. The fact that the Republicans aren’t doing this displays the depths of their recalcitrance; purposefully leaving a branch of the government weakened because they don’t like the guy running the country. They’re on dangerous ground. Congress’ approval rating is atrocious right now (I think it was at least 9% last time I checked) and the longer this goes on, the more negativity the Senate will receive. If the Republicans aren’t careful they could lose both the House and the Senate.
Plus, I think if the Senate does wait and we get a Democrat President, any complaints will be seen by many to be more obfuscating bullshit by the Republicans and there will be cries for an expedient, painless nomination. The Republicans don’t want that if there’s a Democrat as President because Garland sure as hell wouldn’t be on the table anymore. A far more liberal person would.
My standard has nothing to do with it. Shodan said IF Obama were to nominate a staunch conservative, someone like Scalia, that he thinks the Senate would hold a confirmation hearing. You said, “You know how I know Obama would nominate someone like that? He did. He nominated Garland.” The “someone like that” referred to is someone like Scalia, a staunch conservative. Your post seems to suggest you think Garland is a Scalia-like staunch conservative. Is that really your view, or did I misunderstand your post?
None of these posters have participated in this thread.
Do not presume to declare what their opinions may be.
Do not invoke the names of other posters in a disparaging way when they have not even been parties to the discussion.
Uh… there was a Republican majority in the Senate in 1982 when Scalia was confirmed. The Democrats didn’t have a choice in whether to give him a hearing or not.
There’s every reason to doubt this is true. Because it’s essentially what happened. Obama went as far as to name a nominee that Orrin Hatch had previously named as an acceptable choice. And after Obama named him, Hatch turned around and said he wouldn’t support that nominee. This seems to prove that there is no amount of cooperation that Obama can give that the Senate Republicans will find to be sufficient.
It would be interesting and instructive – maybe not so helpful, but informative – if Garland did “just sit down and judge,” i.e., publish how he would have voted if he had been on the court, each Monday as the new decisions are issued.
Once everyone sees which way he would have broken the ties, it might be even harder for the Republicans to continue blocking him (but maybe harder for Democrats to vote for him!)
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.
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.
