Preposterous yet True: Kavanaugh should enforce supermajority vote

Everyone in the country is more into the sports of politics than the welfare of the nation. When someone suggests lowering the standards for Judicial nomination, the response is not, “That would be horrible, and harmful for the longterm health and sanity of the country!” Instead, the response is, invariably, the other side did X before so now that’s just how the game is played. No one is calling for their side to restore the standards of sanity, when they come into power, it’s all just a merry race to the bottom.

The voters aren’t going to demand it and the politicians go with the tide of the masses. If taxes / health care / immigration / etc. are things that people are talking about and supermajority Senate advice and consent are not, then supermajority Senate consents won’t ever come back into being.

But all it would take is for one man, willing to stand above partisan politics and defend the health of the country, to restore at least one tiny bit of sanity to our government.

Kavanaugh, and anyone else appointed, should decline the nomination unless 60 senators approve.

A justice who does not do so, while not in conflict of the Constitution nor laws in any way, is regardless doing a grave disservice to the country.

Obviously, this is simply wishful thinking on my part, in the hope and wish for decency and wisdom among mankind, but it remains true that this is what should happen.

I’d suggest that an organized manipulation by these judicial candidates, where they make it known that every one of them will refuse if they receive less than 90, would make a positive difference.

What happens, Constitutionally, if a confirmed SCOTUS justice refuses to take his post?

I assume it would be the functional equivalent of resigning after having served for several years.

Congratulations, you have now actively selected for a justice who would do a grave disservice to the country. If Kavanaugh would do this, it indicates a fundamental decency on his part that is admirable. Then the senate goes on to nominate another guy who doesn’t have those scruples.

Possibly. Or it starts a movement towards reason.

If I was him, I’d rather flame out in the name of the country than perpetuate a known flaw, for what other reason than selfishness?

There is no chance if no one tries. There is at least some, if you do.

There is so little chance of this tactic doing anything positive that it’s functionally identical to “no chance.”

Why not? You’re always complaining about how the Democrats politicized SCOTUS nominations. Why can’t a Republican be the one to take politics out of it?

In a democracy people who win elections get to enact their agenda. Trump was elected and so were all the Senators who would vote to confirm Kavanaugh. On what basis should Kavanaugh substitute his judgement for the American people’s? Such arrogance would be awful in a justice.

Besides for being an incredibly silly idea generally for any number of other reasons to which other posters have already alluded, it would also be morally wrong for Kavanagh to do this to Trump and the Republicans.

If Kavanagh wanted to take this kind of idiotic stand, then the time to do that was when he was being interviewed by Trump. To wait until after Trump nominated him and after everyone is already geared up to make the fight on behalf of this nomination and then suddenly announce this type of stunt is morally wrong, IMO. The honest, ethical, and aboveboard way to approach these things is to be upfront about what you’re going to do, not to deceive people by accepting a nomination under false pretenses.

I propose that Kavanaugh, if confirmed with 51 votes, take his seat on the bench and donate every single penny of his salary for the rest of his lifetime to Democratic causes. That would be even better.

As I do not regard Senate rules as sacred and inviolable, I find this to be an incredibly stupid idea.

Now if he were willing to take a stand that a simple refusal to consider a Presidential nominee doesn’t constitute ‘advice’ on the Senate’s part and that he was going to do what Gorsuch should have done and recuse himself from every SCOTUS vote until a Dem became President, and then resign - I’d be OK with that.

Because the tactic wouldn’t work. Kavanaugh would withdraw and Trump would nominate Barrett. Who would also get confirmed with greater than 50 and less than 60 votes.

That’s hilarious. And amazingly, even less likely than the OP’s scenario.

But it’s great that the left is keeping focused on these kinds of speculations.

Some person on the internet asking a question on a messageboard is not “the left”.

RTFirefly is hardly alone with his daydreams of implausible “revenge for Gorsuch” scenarios.

Doesn’t make it an official position of “the left” though. We do too much of this in our society, on both sides. That’s all I’m saying.

I’m not sure that a 60 vote supermajority, voluntary or involuntary, is the way to end politicization of the nominating process. Merrick Garland had wide public acceptance by Republicans and yet was stil defeated, so it is hard to find a candidate that would be more acceptable to both sides than him. So if the written or unwritten rule is 60 votes, you’ll than have more gridlock because it’s easier to find 41 intransigent partisans than 51.

Uuh, does “the left” have an official website where I can look this stuff up?

Garland was not defeated, just prevented. The politicization of it is due to McConnell, not to “Congress”.