It could be.
Has A. Raymond Randolph been nominated for the Supremes? Is an in-depth discussion of Randolph’s previous rulings required to decide if Garland should be confirmed? Are people tired of hearing Garland’s name?
(post shortened)
The Senate Majority Leader is elected to the position. Anyone who is elected can be unelected. All you need is a majority.
Identifying factual errors in criticism of a given strategy is not the same as defending the strategy. Did you think it was?
When’s the next election?
Yeah, but as other folk have mentioned, both houses of Congress have adopted all kinds of rules and traditions which allow few people outsized influence - none of which is spelled out in the Const.
When U.S. Senator CarnalK calls for one. 
Sorry, you’re the one who’s always saying “them’s the rules” so I figured you’d know.
The Republican policy seems to be that Obama is merely a placeholder, and has never actually held the office of President of the United States.
Though, he wasn’t elected to his position by the voters; he was elected to it by his fellow Republican senators. A grand total of 54 people were involved in that election.
To steal McConnell’s own words:
Why aren’t the American people allowed to have a voice in who leads the majority in the U.S. Senate, Senator?
(Yes, I’m being facetious. Mostly.)
I expect Charles Schumer will be elected in late November.
Sorry, I’m not seeing the distinction. What “factual errors” are you talking about? And by “factual”, I mean “not personal opinion in support of a political goal”.
:dubious: Not even the most ambitious Democrats in Congress would expect a changeover in leadership to the opposing party prior to the seating of the new Congress on January 3, 2017.
A lot of what is being rehashed in this thread was well gone over in a couple threads after the death of Scalia.
1.Yes the Senate can refuse to vote. Most Dopers seem to think they should schedule a vote, but they are not Constitutionally required to do so.
-
The Senate refusing to vote is not unprecedented. It’s been a long time, but the Senate has refused a vote on a SCOTUS nominee before.
-
The whole Advice and Consent process was pulled from the Massachusetts state constitution of 1780. In MA the procedure was for the governor to make a nomination and nominee be appointed only after Advice and Consent of the Privy Council. If the Privy Council did not want the nominee appointed then their practice was to not take a formal vote at all on the nominee.
-
Obama cannot make a recess appointment unless the Senate says it is in recess. In other words, the Republicans would have to take action to let Obama make such an appointment. See NLRB v Canning
Wasn’t the Dems in charge of the Senate at that time? I don’t remember, I seem to recall it was Harry Reid calling the shots. In that case, its easier to beat back a tiring filibuster than it is to get the majority leader of the opposition party to acquiesce on a hearing
In reality? No, due to the Supreme Court ruling you gave, who decided to accept the procedural fiction that the Senate was still in session.
In original intent? Hell yes it was. The whole point is to make sure the position doesn’t get left open forever because the Senate doesn’t vote on it. It was a way to force them to have to vote on it, or get someone appointed.
Try this:
Person A: You have to register to vote because the law requires it.
Person B: There is no law that says you must register to vote.
Person A: Why are you supporting not registering to vote?
**
Person B** can support registering to vote while simultaneously identifying the factual error that a person is required to vote. Is that distinction more clear?
It’s in post #222:
The “this” bolded above refers to whether the Senate “must advise and consent”. The assumption is wrong.
No, but when you argue against one side, the default is to assume you support the other side, unless you say otherwise.
That’s why people include those disclaimers. For example, “I’d never vote for Trump in a million years, but I have to say he’s right about Planned Parenthood.”
Who says? Istm recess appointments were so important jobs could be temporarily filled while the Senators were travelling by horseback to the constituencies.
Sure. I think it’s kind of a pointless argument to make in a thread like this, but sure.
The actual Majority position couldn’t be assumed until the new Congress, but the ascendant party can certainly choose their leader, to step into that role, in the weeks following the election. As the Republicans did for Mitch McConnell in November 2014.
Then there is no remedy.
Tell me how he isn’t being both canny and a gentleman in this.