Then why are multiple pundits, columnists, Congress critters, and SDMB posters insisting that they must hold hearings?
That’s usually the first step. Then there’s a vote. What is something that doesn’t happen is blatant refusal to even look at it. The insistence is on doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, that shows even the slightest attempt at not being completely unprincipled assholes.
It is possible, even perfectly legal, for the Senate to vote without any pretense of consideration or thought. If, for instance, the Dems had a rock-solid majority in the Senate, and they were all in such a pissy mood that they would be willing to flip the bird at procedure and tradition, they could vote to approve the nominee without hearings at all.
They could. But they should not. I daresay such high-handed power politics would not meet with your approval. Nor mine.
The opposite childish refusal also does not meet with my approval. If they have valid reasons why this man should not be confirmed, let them speak. Let them clarify their reasoning, if they have any. They were elected, their job is “advise and consent”.
Because they should hold hearings. But just having a vote would still add legitimacy to the idea that they are even pretending to fulfill their advice and consent role.
They ARE advising. There’s no requirement that they consent.
That’s bullshit hairsplitting. Back to my original point…the Framers didn’t write that passage having in mind that the Senate would withhold even a pretense of advise and consent. (They aren’t even advising, they’ve done nothing except for a few show meetings with a few Pub Senators.)
There are judicial posts unconfirmed going back four years or more:
http://judicialnominations.org/judicial-vacancies
The ‘lame duck’ argument doesn’t wash.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the Framers intended that state of affairs to exist?
I watch her with the “mute” button on. I’m a fan. 
The Framers also never intended for the Senate to originate revenue bills, yet they do through legislative trickery. When the lawyers who we elect decided that the spirit of the law didn’t matter, but only the letter, and that all efforts to get around the law were fair, that brought us to this point.
It needs to end. We need real reform.
Well, gosh, when you put it like that…yes, for sure, refusing to address and resolve nominations are exactly like originating revenue bills! Good catch, adaher! Boy, nobody else saw that!
Truly an original thinker, you not only think outside the box, but outside the box the box came in!
IT’s not just a technical point. The only reason ACA exists is because Harry Reid violated the origination clause.
The country is necessarily heading in the only direction it can: toward Europe. Fortunately, Europe is heading in the direction of Asia at roughly the same rate (and Asia is heading in the direction of the United States). Otherwise, we would all crash into each other.
They’re not refusing to hold a vote because they don’t want to shoot him down. They’re refusing because they know he’ll pass.
Well someone better watch out, because Australia is speeding North at 7 cm a year and is going to get one of them in the side.
A retiring President can’t be anything but positive about the state of the country, if there’s any reasonable argument to be made for that position. This is simply a dilemma of a party seeking a third term in the WH if most of the public thinks doesn’t think things are going well, and they don’t now (~3/4 wrong track includes some people who think it’s all because of the Republicans, but not that many IMO). But there’s no way Obama is going to say things aren’t basically going well.
The question thus is how useful Obama is as a surrogate. At a much lower approval rating Bush was useless and hardly used by McCain. At a 50-ish% rating (though I think that’s flattered by the public’s disgust with the replacements, both the primary process and who was chosen) and much higher among Democrats, Obama is useful to galvanize Democrats. His value to persuadable voters (including even people who previously voted for him) is more questionable. A too positive and status-quo sounding message could damage Clinton among them. Few persuadable people think the state of things is all due to the Republicans Congress, and they don’t generally think the state of things is good. And Trump isn’t seen as particularly standing for the Republican status quo anyway (subject to the Democrats changing that perception, he was carried to the nomination on ‘anti-GOPe’ sentiment).
You must be joking. Obama’s approval rating is 52% as of a few days ago.
Still waiting for a cite that the Constitution, federal law, or case law REQUIRES the Senate to hold hearings. You don’t have one, because no such cite exists.
Sometimes, we REALLY DO need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
So what? What, exactly, is your argument here? That it’s alright for the Senate to hamstring the judicial system because the law doesn’t say it’s not?
All I see here is attempted justification for Republican obstructionism.
In the latter stages of the Bush admin the Dems were quite “gloomy” too. The right even said they were rooting for America to fail. Now it’s the exact opposite, only because the right is on the outside looking in.
Both parties are hypocrites. There’s no such thing as consistent rhetoric, nor would you expect there to be. Talking points flip when the parties switch positions. If you’re in the majority then filibusters are thwarting the people’s will. If you’re in the minority, they’re a critical safe guard. You can go on and on down the list.
To be fair, the whole collapsing world economy thing may have had something to do with it.