Though the House and Senate can do a lot to set their own rules, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution does specify that “a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business”. That would seem to set 50%+1 = 51 Senators as a constitutionally defined as a quorum.
So Democrats could boycott but so long as the Republicans can get 51 of their members to show up then they could go ahead and confirm a nomination before them.
The Garland nomination is no longer before the Senate. Per Senate rules any nomination pending but not voted upon expires and is returned to the executive as unacted upon.
Anyone who needs to, which is usually nobody. As Thomas has explained, 95% the questions asked by SC have already been answered at some point in the appelate process, and the Justices are grandstanding for appearances.
Just curious, how would the filibuster rule work in that situation (I know it doesn’t apply to nominees)? Imagine a scenario where 47 Dem senators decided to boycott because the Ginsburg replacement nomination was coming to the floor for a vote, so they all fly / drive home for the weekend. Could McConnell and company pull a fast one and bring up the AHCA for a vote at that point? Would it still need 60 votes (not possible with only 53 Senators present) to proceed to a final vote, or since no one was around to demand a cloture vote could they go ahead and fix health care and taxes all in the same afternoon?
I have a question too, does the law require Congressional votes to take place at the Capitol building?
Suppose there are protesters who are surrounding the Capitol building to physically prevent a vote from taking place. Could McConnell say, “OK fellow Republican colleagues, there are enough of us to make quorum, I am renting a nearby gymnasium for a day, everybody go there to vote on this SCOTUS nominee/healthcare bill?”
I think it’s the other way around. I doubt Trump could tell you the names of all nine justices on the Supreme Court. Judicial theory is far beyond him.
What will happen is the Republicans in Congress will pick the diseased yak and then tell Trump who he should nominate. Of course, they’ll have to be subtle so he thinks he’s in charge. They’ll probably leak the name to Fox so Trump can see it on TV.
I think Justice Ginsburg is smart and honest and has done her level best to leave the judiciary, and the country, better than she found it. I have profound disagreement with her on the proper role of the judiciary, but I dislike spinning scenarios that call for her death. Can’t she hypothetically retire, which would serve the speculative discussion just as well, but avoid the unseemly aspect of accomplishing the seating of the next hypothetical justice as the result of a death?
PLEASE put an “If” at the beginning of your hypothetical titles from now on!! I about had a heart attack when I saw your thread title on the main board.
A cloture motion is a motion to end debate. My admittedly non-expert understanding is that if no one raises an objection to ending debate then there is no need for a cloture vote.
Further, even if there was one Democrat left to object to ending debate my understanding is that the 3/5 requirement is of those Senators present. So 53 Republicans and one lone Democrat would mean the Republicans could easily meet the 3/5 requirement.
So yes, if the Democrats hypothetically decided to run and hide that would open the opportunity for Republicans to ram through all sorts of legislation in the meanwhile. Even if there were existing rules in the Senate/House that would nominally prevent a measure from coming to a vote the Congressional members present could just vote to change the rules.
Just uphold everything when the Republicans are in power and overturn everything when the Democrats are in power. The Supreme Court will function as a third chamber of Congress. Which you apparently feel was the founders’ original intent.
Given that all the justices have access to top-notch medical care, and (by definition,) they have at least reasonably good genes, since they’ve survived this long in good health; it is theoretically possible that Trump might get only the one appointment.
That thread title needs a trigger warning, my heart skipped a beat when I first saw it.
So RBG dies, leaving her seat bare, what can be done? Nothing. As much as I would like 9 RBGs sitting on the Supreme Court, there is nothing nefarious about a president nominating a replacement that will swiftly be confirmed by a Senate held by the same party. Thems the breaks. Maybe RBG should have retired after her pancreatic cancer diagnosis, back when Obama could’ve filled the seat with a suitable replacement. Maybe the Dems should’ve nominated an at least mildly likable candidate for President, so the ideological makeup of SC wouldn’t be in jeopardy. Maybe the party should’ve stopped the rot at the state level years ago, so Senate Democrats would’ve at least held on to a slim majority & been able to wrangle a suitable SC judge out of Trump.
Lots of maybes. I think Trump gets at least 2 more judge to replace- unfortunate, but those are the cards we were dealt. The Democrats are powerless to do anything even if they wanted to, the Senate is out of reach until 2020 at the earliest.
What Little Nemo said. Republicans aren’t dumb; they have an agenda to pass, they are serious about getting that agenda passed, and they know what helps or obstructs that agenda.
Nominating a diseased yak to SCOTUS - or, OK, anyone other than a conservative justice - doesn’t help the conservative cause, and they know it. If, (realistically,) Trump had nominated a liberal to fill Scalia’s vacancy, no way Republicans would have “rolled over” for that one.
Fair enough, I could have put “retire” and it would have worked as well. But I think that, unlike Kennedy, it is very unlikely that Ginsburg would willingly retire in the knowledge that Trump would nominate her successor and the GOP-held Senate would ram it through. I think she’s determined to survive out the Trump presidency to the end.
What strategy? It didn’t prevent Neil Gorsuch from getting put into the court, although it did for Merrick Garland…but at that point of the nomination (it was 2016, bad timing considering the election and at that time, Republicans held the Senate. Merrick had no chance.)
I estimate that if they try the same strategy they did for Gorsuch in 2017 for Ginsburg’s future replacement, especially as the mid-term elections of 2018 come walking in, the democrats might lose some seats and be further labeled as obstructionists. People can resist bull for so long before someone gets fed up, and hence why Donald Trump was elected- people had enough of the system.
Considering the outlook for 2020 (if liberals keep on with their current policy of resist and refusal of collaboration and unity), liberals better hope Ginsburg lasts for the next 8 years, cause the executive branch will remain red until then.
Either way, the court is likely to get more conservative by that time cause I have my doubts she’ll keep working for the next 8 years. At best maybe 4 years, but I wouldn’t be working if I’m 88 years old.
At worse case, she’ll pass away before the 2018 elections and then there’s nothing Democrats can do. Especially if it can be used to harm Democrats during the 2018 elections.
Cloture is governed by Senate Rule XXII which specifies a cloture vote requires:
which is normally 60 of the 100 Senators unless there is a vacancy. So, at least initially, that one lone Democrat hanging around could object to ending debate and a cloture vote would not be successful. Until…
As we recently saw the Senate can decide to change the rules.
So it would require the willingness to change the Senate Rules. And should they choose to use the nuclear option to change the Senate Rules then it really only takes a simple majority of Senators present.
One additional step, easily accomplished IMHO, since in this hypothetical it it would allow the Republicans to steamroll through a their dream agenda.
Best option- use the possibility of impending deaths/retirements as election issues and retake the Senate. Should vacancies occur, leave them open until a Democrat takes office. We now have a precedent that vacancies may be filled only when the Senate and White House are controlled by the same party.