Damn, I hate hearing things like that. I remember hearing favorable early returns one November back in 2004 as we drove towards an election night party hosted by our liberal friends, only to have the rug yanked out from under us soon after we arrived. The lesson I learned was to never underestimate the capability of the American electorate to fuck up a no-brainer!
I don’t think there’s any hope on that score, based on present trends.
The court itself inserted itself into a political role, in using its power to force social and political change on the nation. I think the biggest step was the Warren Court, though there may have other other instances which preceded it. Once the court became an instrument to advance political/ideological goals, it was inevitable that nominations and confirmations would be driven by these types of considerations. (Here, I think the Bork fight was probably the most dramatic instance, and one which set the tone for all that came after.)
Well, for one, your relationship with everyone else in the world is not defined in the US Constitution.
The argument is that “advice and consent” implies active participation. They could have a vote and vote no, and that’d be fine. But a lot of senators may well want to consent but are being denied the opportunity by the senate leadership. The “senate” in the constitution doesn’t refer to the Judiciary Committee.
No, the role of the President is, and the role of the Senate is: it defines the role of the President as Don’t Do This Without The Consent Of The Senate, and it defines the role of the Senate as – what?
By law, there are things you can’t do without my consent. By law, I don’t have to consent to such things; in fact, I am right now not so consenting. By law, there are things the President can’t do without the consent of the Senate. By law, the Senate doesn’t have to consent to such things. It seems you’re absolutely correct that one of those is defined by the Constitution. It also seems to be absolutely irrelevant.
That seems like a pretty weak use of legalese, but I’ll defer to any legal experts. Doesn’t the “shall” imply that the Senate must advise and consent (or advise and choose not to consent) to any nominations?
Doesn’t the Constitution specify that the Senate can set its own rules? Something about procedures or proceedings or whatever? Isn’t that pretty much why they unobjectionably do stuff in committees and subcommittees the rest of the time?
Well, look, I’ll of course defer to expert legal opinion likewise, but it strikes me as odd that you start off by arguing that it implies they must advise and consent – and then immediately say it’s okay if they advise and choose not to consent. If you’re willing to jettison the part where they must consent, why aren’t you just as willing to jettison the part where they must advise?
Again, it’s not the Senate that’s doing all of this- it’s one guy, a guy whose job didn’t even exist until 1899. You’re trying to hide behind a technicality in the Constitution, but technically, McConnell has no Constitutional right to do what he’s doing.
Like I said, though, isn’t there a The-Senate-Can-Set-Its-Own-Rules thing?
:rolleyes:
There is indeed a problem there, but it is not at all what you think it is.
You – and everyone else taking any slightest interest in this thread – really, really need to read this.
Yes and no. I’m not sure there’s a neutral criterion that would mark the Warren Court as a break with tradition in terms of the Supreme Court’s involvement in social and political change. Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has not shied away from ruling on hop-topic political issues. It was central to disputes over the First and Second Bank of the United States, which was probably the most important political issue other than slavery in the first century of the country. And Taney thought that Dred Scott might ward of civil war.
True Brown v. Board marked a change in its considering of social science evidence. But even that was more an evolution than a breakpoint, and if anything, the Rehnquist and Roberts courts have had a successful counter-revolution on that (McCleskey v. Kemp, for example).
That said, it is also obviously true that there is a trade-off between involvement in sensitive political topics and credibility as a neutral arbitrator. I think Roberts gets that, and it partly explains his role in King v. Burwell. After Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and D.C. v. Heller, Roberts might have been genuinely concerned about the court’s credibility capital.
I think Obama may feel some personal responsibility for making the situation worse. He certainly hasn’t shied away from making Supreme Court decisions into partisan political issues. That’s part of why I think he might feel some obligation to try to step back from the brink.
I don’t know- is there? Do you have the relevant passages in the Constitution I could peruse?
And do you think that the FF really wanted Senate to be able to indefinitely hold the judiciary hostage like this? Because according to your argument, the two parties could easily whittle down the judiciary to nothing, simply by refusing to ever even consider any future judges. Do you see a problem with this plan?
Personally I am just shaking my head that some of the GOP team (such as Hatch and Flake) are already giving up the absurd cover story that it is about letting the people decide with the Presidential election and openly discussing the option of approving in the lame duck session rather than risk who a President Clinton might put up.
If they do stay their course of let the people decide then I am not not so sure that they will have a Senate minority functionally cohesive enough to pull off a filibuster of a candidate younger than and slightly to the left of Gardner, obstructing what the people decided upon. No she wouldn’t put up Hippy Mcwhackadoodle.
They don’t have to consent to any particular pick, but the intent and expectation is obviously that appointments will eventually be made.
No, it isn’t obvious. It’s also possible that the number of Supremes could be reduced from 9 to 8 or to 7, before a Supreme is chosen. Key word being “possible”.
But as I pointed out, there’s no need to stop there. The GOP’s gambit could virtually abolish the SC. All it would take is for the Dems to say, “We’re not going to consider anyone *you *put up, either.”
I’m no Constitutional scholar, mind you, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what was intended.
No, I shan’t think of President Obama as steward, because he’s [checks that this isn’t the Pit] bloody-well not. There may be such an office in Gondor, but not under the Constitution of the United States. :rolleyes: Several clauses in the Constitution address someone not elected to be President (usually the Vice-President) acting as President. There are none about the duly-elected President merely acting as President. :smack:
When, do you suggest, did Obama cease being President and assume this fictional office of Steward? 
Did you forget the will of the voters? Did you forget that U.S. Senators and Presidents are elected? The FF didn’t. The voters can elect, reelect, or unelect a President and every member of the U.S. Congress. If they chose to play stupid games, they can win stupid prizes.
I know this is just conjecture, but I really don’t think this is a significant motivator for Obama. It’s not consistent with any other action and if he genuinely felt this way he could exhibit it in many many ways including a nominee that was right leaning (yeah right!) If he wanted to mark some shift this certainly isn’t it.