It is obstructing the executive’s work. It’s “shutting down” a gov’t function.
He could be Judge Judge.
If this was the first time the Republicans had done this you might have a point. But it’s been an ongoing policy.
Judicial Emergencies
Republican obstructionism is nothing new
Scalia’s Death and the Republican Party of Strict Obstructionism
Even Before Scalia Died, Obstructionism Was The Republican Plan
A Walk Down Memory Lane on Republican Obstruction
Judge not: GOP blocks dozens of Obama court picks
Yes, Republicans Really Are Unprecedented in Their Obstructionism
Democrats Slam GOP’s Secret Holds On Obama Nominees
Republicans Jeopardize National Security By Blocking Obama Diplomatic Nominees
Obstruction of the Senate and the Future of Rules Reform on Nominations
Iranian Hostages & GOP Obstructionism
Senate G.O.P. Leader Finds Weapon in Unity
The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama
Hoyer: GOP Obstructionism Damaging The Institution Of Congress
Amid Senate gridlock, ambassador positions remain unfilled
The Republicans’ Unprecedented Obstructionism By The Numbers
Senate GOP Set To Block Troop Funding Bill
Record-Breaking Republican Obstructionism
It’s not unknown to have appointments never come up even for a vote to be reported out of committee at all, though most often in those cases there’s a withdrawal of nomination, rather than it just dying with the term of Congress, and if the latter has happened with SCOTUS appointments it has been so rare and obscure most have never heard of it. Judiciary appointments have been held up in various permutation of POTUS/Senate political alignments, too, so it would not be a shock if this one did. The bit about in essence saying to POTUS “why bother to nominate anyone” ***is ***apparently different and IMO an entirely unnecessary grandstanding for the voters at home – ISTM you don’t even need to filibuster, all you have to do is sit on the nomination and not even put it on the committee calendar.
The POTUS however still has to send a nomination seriously, this is not the time or place for dick moves.
There’s a petition going around asking Obama to nominate OSU law prof Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Age of Colorblindness.
Golly, it seems she just wrote an essay for The Nation. “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote”. I wonder who might have started this petition? Somehow I doubt Obama is feeling the Bernm
Michelle Alexander is as close to a hero as we have in our broken world. Nominating her to the Court would be terrible politics, but she would be a great choice.
And I say that as someone decidedly not feeling the bern.
Hey I’m not putting her down in any way. But as you say, politically it’s a nonstarter and she’s trying to sandbag his preferred candidate.
Did it ever occur to the OP that the person being nominated might have some small input into the process?
Playing along with the OP:
Obama decides to play along & nominate Trump. Trump says “No”. Step 1 over.
Obama decides to play along & nominate Cruz. Cruz says “No”. Step 2 over.
Lather rinse repeat until even the moderates think Obama’s being a dumbass. We know the R echo chamber already thinks that, so there’s nothing to lose there.
In all IMO: funny to say in a grade school catch-22 prankish way. Not something worth grownups talking about. Although I and 27 other posters just did, so maybe the joke’s on me/us. :smack:
Blocking a SCOTUS nominee does not shut down the government, nor does it shut down “the country”. Doesn’t matter how many other things might do so.
Besides, it’s too abstract for most people to really care about. How many people think about how their daily lives are affected by the SCOTUS one way or another? Cut off SS checks, and that gets people mad as hell. Eight SCOTUS justices instead of nine? Meh.
Leave those to the Republicans…
As I wrote, and provided cites for, this is a lot more than one SCOTUS nominee. Do something once or twice and it might be a coincidence. Do it a couple hundred times and it forms a pattern.
And it’s not “business as usual”. The current Senate’s confirmation rate is the lowest it’s been in over fifty years.
As for arguing about whether it’s obstructionism or shutting down the country, who gives a damn? The issue is what’s being done not what whether it’s being called by the proper name.
Yeah, I think we’re well beyond Goldfinger’s ‘three times is enemy action.’
So when Congress passes a law and the President decides not to enforce it, what is that doing to Congress’ function?
If a President was doing it for no other reason than to obstruct Congress from doing its job, it would be wrong.
Oh, so doing it for political reasons, that’s okay.
As always, your analogy fails. If the President says flatly that he will not enforce any law that congress passes, no matter what that law is, then he is clearly abrogating his constitutional duty (assuming he actually goes through with it).
You mean like the Reagan/Bush undercutting of regulations in the 1980’s? Like that?
It’s a side effect of a strong executive. It can be seen as a failure or a needed restraint depending on the issue and the observer’s point of view.
I suppose Mitch figures that cuts to the EPA & the IRS and firing executive staff give him precedent for shrinking federal benches too. Like an intentional slippery slope.