# Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement nomination fight **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2017, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020 "2017-03-25T19:15:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/121 "2017-03-29T01:42:00Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Yes I’m sure everyone attending the Woman’s March was only motivated by whatever issues personally affected them, and nobody gave a crap about anyone else that was there. That’s sure how it looked to me. From where I was standing it was a lot of men and women that were pissed that Hillary lost an election. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/122 "2017-03-29T01:46:12Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > In addition to the silly notion that women only care about themselves… I never said that. But I suppose its easier to debate someone that did. So proceed. > [@](#): > > _Roe_ isn’t just about abortion. It’s also about all kinds of other nonsense that men try to pull when they’re in office, like requiring spousal consent or requiring that **abortions** be regulated like brain surgery. All that other bullshit happens in blue states, too. Not California, I’ll grant you, but a majority of the country certainly. bolding mine. The majority of the country? Maybe if you count Wyoming and California equally but the vast majority of Americans will have reasonable access to abortion. > [@](#): > > And the earlier note about how Roe gets overturned is right. It’s actually sort of hard to see how it gets done without either imperiling substantive due process cases that do matter to Californians, or opening the door to claims that abortion itself is unconstitutional. AFAICT, you can just say that the penumbra does not include the right to an abortion and kick it back to the states to pass an amendment or leave it to the states. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/123 "2017-03-29T01:53:00Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > So - suppose that Republicans had given Garland a hearing, but voted him down - and always planned to vote him down no matter what. Obstructionism or not obstructionism? Not obstructionism IMHO. If their politics drive them to reject an otherwise qualified candidate then so be it. If the Democrats don’t vote against Gorsuch because they want to play nice or something, I’ve got no use for them anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/124 "2017-03-29T03:39:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Did you feel that it was a substantial shift when Bush 43’s judicial appointments were blocked? Really what you describe is just continuation of historical practice. It seems the modern Republicans were just more adroit at it. [You’ll have to excuse me for not quite following](https://web.archive.org/web/20100727153537/http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-282). > [@](#): > > As mentioned upthread, historically denying a presidential nominee has been happening since the founding. And if the criticism was, “We don’t like Garland, give us someone else”, then this would be a valid point. Then again, if that was the criticism, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place. We would, at most, be wondering why a middle-of-the-road moderate who everyone liked was being rejected. But that _wasn’t_ the criticism. The criticism was, “Obama doesn’t get to nominate another liberal to the court”. Followed by “Clinton doesn’t get to nominate another liberal to the court”, when it looked like Clinton was going to win. > [@](#): > > You say that by escalating ‘everything breaks’ or something along those lines. I don’t think so. Your assessment seems predicated on things happening that you don’t like. Thank you for continuing to give me no credit on this. No, it is not. If this continues, then the supreme court will be increasingly understaffed. Only allowing the supreme court to be filled when both the senate and the white house are run by the same party is a risky bet, and that’s assuming that the judges won’t be reflexively filibustered. And of course, [let’s not forget the lower courts](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/04/12/the-growing-specter-of-vacant-federal-judgeships/). > [@](#): > > I’m sure in the future the pendulum will swing and things will lean more towards your ideological preferences. Maybe sooner than later. I don’t rightly give a shit! If the democrats were pulling this, I’d be calling for primary challenges. Achieving your agenda through nullification and obstructionism is _bullshit_. It fundamentally undermines how democracies are supposed to work. And were it not for the fact that the democrats now _have_ to play that same game in order to be in any way relevant to the government (because, as previously pointed out, a norm that only one party follows only hurts the party that follows it), I would be calling for some heads to roll on this filibuster. > [@](#): > > If they believed it would be beneficial to the country and their goals, then it could be defended as a legitimate tactic. Dude… No. Just no. The debt ceiling standoff was basically the perfect example of why norms matter. You’re saying that if the republicans had gotten their way, the damage done to how governance actually _works_ in this country would have been justified by the ends? I can’t get behind that. It seems a patently absurd view of how good governance should work. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/125 "2017-03-29T04:33:14Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > [You’ll have to excuse me for not quite following](https://web.archive.org/web/20100727153537/http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-282). I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with a link and no context. Yes, many of Bush’s appointees were confirmed. Some were not. I raise the point to illustrate that playing politics with nominees is not new. It didn’t start w/ Bush, and it won’t end with Trump. From the[wiki about Miguel Estrada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada): > [@](#): > > Numerous judicial nominees prior to Estrada had been kept off the courts, when the Senate refused to let the nomination out of committee for a floor vote. A filibuster had been used in 1968 to extend debate regarding the elevation of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to Chief Justice of the United States, but the Estrada filibuster was different in multiple ways. Estrada’s was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a judicial nominee who had clear support of the majority in the Senate.[12] Estrada’s was the first filibuster of any court of appeals nominee. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > And if the criticism was, “We don’t like Garland, give us someone else”, then this would be a valid point. Then again, if that was the criticism, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place. We would, at most, be wondering why a middle-of-the-road moderate who everyone liked was being rejected. Really? If they voted, rejected, and then did the same with an assembly line of nominees you’d be satisfied? Why go through the motions? The end result would be the same only with added theater. At least they were clear - no nominee will get a hearing. Period. At last they were being forthright. > [@](#): > > Thank you for continuing to give me no credit on this. No, it is not. If this continues, then the supreme court will be increasingly understaffed. Understaffed in the sense their budget is being reduced? 9 members isn’t a requirement - it could be changed up or down through process. My comment is in regard to your argument that obstructionism and avoidance of norms breaks the government or courts, or both. I disagree. They seem to get along just fine, and to the extent the government is stymied, in general I’m glad. So it’s not about lack of credit, it’s just a fundamental difference on the proper role of government. And I’m aware of the number of judicial vacancies - I posted about it in #75. I’m not concerned. > [@](#): > > Dude… No. Just no. The debt ceiling standoff was basically the perfect example of why norms matter. You’re saying that if the republicans had gotten their way, the damage done to how governance actually _works_ in this country would have been justified by the ends? I can’t get behind that. It seems a patently absurd view of how good governance should work. I personally think it was a toss up on the previous debt ceiling standoff (one of them). Maybe it would have worked, maybe not, but the groups balked and we didn’t get to see if the party engineering the default would be penalized. Maybe it would have been the catalyst to eliminate the possibility of it happening again, eventually leading to a more stable system. In the short run, it would likely have been a poor outcome, but in the long run it could be a net positive. Because right now, the spectre of default still exists the next time a group gets it in their heads to play chicken with the debt ceiling. If we didn’t want that, shouldn’t we demand a law that prevents it from happening? It wouldn’t not be difficult to craft. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think a default is a good thing. But in principle, if the rules allow for one side to take advantage, they will. The proper way to mitigate that is to change the rules through the proper process. A less effective way is to shame the offending side. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/126 "2017-03-29T09:14:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with a link and no context. Yes, many of Bush’s appointees were confirmed. Some were not. I raise the point to illustrate that playing politics with nominees is not new. It didn’t start w/ Bush, and it won’t end with Trump. From the[wiki about Miguel Estrada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada): My point is that there’s simply no case to be made that what happened under Bush was unprecedented. Congress does not simply rubber-stamp judicial nominees. 95% of Bush’s district and circuit court nominees were approved. That’s a higher rate than Bush Sr., Clinton, or Reagan, and more total nominees confirmed than any of those as well. That was back in 2004, directly after the Estrada fight. How did things pan out by the end of Bush’s second term? [The third largest number of court nominees ever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_judicial_appointments), behind Clinton and Reagan, tied with Obama. But, I repeat myself _again_, the problem is not “nominees were rejected on political grounds”. The problem is effectively denying the president the right to nominate supreme court justices. > [@](#): > > I personally think it was a toss up on the previous debt ceiling standoff (one of them). Maybe it would have worked, maybe not, but the groups balked and we didn’t get to see if the party engineering the default would be penalized. Maybe it would have been the catalyst to eliminate the possibility of it happening again, eventually leading to a more stable system. In the short run, it would likely have been a poor outcome, but in the long run it could be a net positive. Because right now, the spectre of default still exists the next time a group gets it in their heads to play chicken with the debt ceiling. If we didn’t want that, shouldn’t we demand a law that prevents it from happening? It wouldn’t not be difficult to craft. …Is there _any_ breach of government norms that you would consider going too far if there isn’t explicitly a law against it? Just a “yes” or “no” would suffice. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/127 "2017-03-29T12:42:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I can’t imagine a more useless or misleading statistic than this, especially in a year where California’s general election Senate race was a choice between two Democrats. It surprises me that Democrats still naively parrot it. Because republicans keep claiming to have some sort of mandate, based on the will of the people. It is important to remind you that you have no mandate. You managed to win political power through political games, but you do not represent the will of the people. When you claim to represent the will of the people, it needs to pointed out that no, indeed, you do not. And it will be repeated every time you try to claim that you do. So, you don’t wish to hear that republicans do not represent the will of the people, then don’t try to claim that that do. Simple as that. Once you recognize that republicans have managed to seize power over the government not through a popular mandate, not through the will of the people, but simply at being better at playing a politics game, then you will no longer need to be reminded of the fact that the majority of americans rejected republicans at the ballot box. > [@Bone](#): > > Really? If they voted, rejected, and then did the same with an assembly line of nominees you’d be satisfied? Why go through the motions? The end result would be the same only with added theater. At least they were clear - no nominee will get a hearing. Period. At last they were being forthright. Then there would be at least a record of the republican senators voting down these candidates. When the Trump admin falls apart, and the republicans are scrambling, how many of the republicans are going to try to make nice with the voters and claim that they would have voted for garland, if given the chance? I don’t know the answer to that question, because the leader of the republicans in the senate was too afraid to find the answer out himself. If Garland had been voted down, then he would have been voted down, and there would be a record of who voted for and against. That is what McConnell was avoiding, he knows that many of the republican senators in more moderate states would have taken a political hit for voting against Garland, and so he kept it from ever coming up for a vote. If only a single republican senator brings up the idea that they would have voted for Garland in their next campaign, then McConnell’s plan has succeeded at the expense of the democratic process. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/128 "2017-03-29T12:49:48Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Because republicans keep claiming to have some sort of mandate, based on the will of the people. > > It is important to remind you that you have no mandate. You managed to win political power through political games, but you do not represent the will of the people. > > When you claim to represent the will of the people, it needs to pointed out that no, indeed, you do not. And it will be repeated every time you try to claim that you do. > > So, you don’t wish to hear that republicans do not represent the will of the people, then don’t try to claim that that do. Simple as that. Once you recognize that republicans have managed to seize power over the government not through a popular mandate, not through the will of the people, but simply at being better at playing a politics game, then you will no longer need to be reminded of the fact that the majority of americans rejected republicans at the ballot box. Can you remind us when the last time **HurricaneDitka** did that? But listen to yourself. You’re saying that in order to counter a bullshit claim by the right, you need to throw out a bullshit claim from the left. That might make you feel good, but it does no good to convince thinking people (your average poster here) that your argument is sound. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/129 "2017-03-29T12:53:37Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Followed by “Clinton doesn’t get to nominate another liberal to the court”, when it looked like Clinton was going to win. Not that I don’t believe you but do you have a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/130 "2017-03-29T13:02:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you remind us when the last time **HurricaneDitka** did that? > > But listen to yourself. You’re saying that in order to counter a bullshit claim by the right, you need to throw out a bullshit claim from the left. That might make you feel good, but it does no good to convince thinking people (your average poster here) that your argument is sound. Well, he could just decree that it’s unacceptable for anyone to believe that Republicans have a mandate. That’s sure to work. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/131 "2017-03-29T13:03:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Anyone who thinks that hasn’t read the many threads on that subject, on this very MB, where that idea was thoroughly debunked. Debunked in your mind, perhaps. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/132 "2017-03-29T13:04:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > When the Trump admin falls apart, and the republicans are scrambling, how many of the republicans are going to try to make nice with the voters and claim that they would have voted for garland, if given the chance? I don’t know the answer to that question… I don’t know the answer for certain, but I expect it would equal to the number of Republicans who tried to make nice in 2016 by saying they would have voted for Garland. Maybe the number is greater than zero, but I would expect it to be less than one. > [@](#): > > If only a single republican senator brings up the idea that they would have voted for Garland in their next campaign, then McConnell’s plan has succeeded at the expense of the democratic process. And if none of them did in 2016, then it failed? I’m not following you here. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/133 "2017-03-29T13:12:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you remind us when the last time **HurricaneDitka** did that? In the post I was replying to, it certainly seemed as the HD was proud of the republican’s elector wins. > [@](#): > > But listen to yourself. You’re saying that in order to counter a bullshit claim by the right, you need to throw out a bullshit claim from the left. That might make you feel good, but it does no good to convince thinking people (your average poster here) that your argument is sound. I do not consider it a bullshit claim. There were in fact more people voting for democrats to the senate than for republicans, this is simply a fact. The fact that california had 2 democrats just means that people really like democrats out there. I am not sure why california democrats don’t count. As there were 11 million more votes for dems than for republicans in the senate, even if you move all of loretta’s 4.7 million votes to the republican column, dems still come out pretty solidly in the lead, and that’s assuming that all of her voters would have gone “R”, a pretty doubtful assumption. So, the only bullshit claim is that republicans are representing the will of the voters. I grant that they have played the political game well. I grant that they have managed to acquire the political power to shape the direction of the country. I do not accept that because of that, that means that they actually represent what it is that the people of the country want. Eventually, that’s gonna bite them in the ass. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/134 "2017-03-29T13:15:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t know the answer for certain, but I expect it would equal to the number of Republicans who tried to make nice in 2016 by saying they would have voted for Garland. Maybe the number is greater than zero, but I would expect it to be less than one. > And if none of them did in 2016, then it failed? > > I’m not following you here. > > Regards, > Shodan Why would they in 2016? My point was that they may in future campaigns. In 2018, when everything that Trump has touched is scorched earth politically, and the republicans are distancing themselves from everything, that’s when I feel some, in more moderate states, will make the claim. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/135 "2017-03-29T13:20:56Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Sure, in both cases, both sides are technically within the bounds of the law. Both are technically “using the rule”. But typically, rules come attached to _norms_, which are just as important in a democracy. Would you say the use of the courts to discover a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, one that required every state to solemnize same-sex marriages was a norm? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/136 "2017-03-29T13:23:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, he could just decree that it’s unacceptable for anyone to believe that Republicans have a mandate. That’s sure to work. That would be a pretty silly decree. Almost as silly as thinking that republicans have a mandate. People believe what they want to believe. There were a lot of people that believed that Trump was going to bring their coal mining or manufacturing job back. I thought that was a pretty silly belief, but did you ever see me decree that such a belief was unacceptable? Unless you are saying that I am making the claim that unsupported and almost certainly wrong beliefs are decreed as “unacceptable”, which is not the claim I am making. They are silly. They can be harmful. They will cause you to make decisions that can negatively impact yourself and others. But that is not the same as “unacceptable”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/137 "2017-03-29T13:25:05Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I grant that they have played the political game well. I grant that they have managed to acquire the political power to shape the direction of the country. I do not accept that because of that, that means that they actually represent what it is that the people of the country want. Do you believe that “total number of senate votes for Democrats” is a useful metric for determining what the people of the country want? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/138 "2017-03-29T13:30:32Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > My point is that there’s simply no case to be made that what happened under Bush was unprecedented. Congress does not simply rubber-stamp judicial nominees. 95% of Bush’s district and circuit court nominees were approved. That’s a higher rate than Bush Sr., Clinton, or Reagan, and more total nominees confirmed than any of those as well. That was back in 2004, directly after the Estrada fight. How did things pan out by the end of Bush’s second term? [The third largest number of court nominees ever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_judicial_appointments), behind Clinton and Reagan, tied with Obama. But, I repeat myself _again_, the problem is not “nominees were rejected on political grounds”. The problem is effectively denying the president the right to nominate supreme court justices. The treatment of Estrada was unprecedented based on the wiki cite. But even still, I accept as true the rate that you describe. But that’s not the point I was making. My point is that the process is political and to illustrate that I raise the example of when that happened. I assume Reid recognized this when he engineered the nuking of the filibuster for all other appointees. I don’t believe he was unaware that the same process could be used for SCOTUS appointees, but that was not his target at the time. If he was taking a principled stand then he would have just done away with the filibuster all together. In the manner he did, it seems opportunistic, i.e. political. > [@](#): > > …Is there _any_ breach of government norms that you would consider going too far if there isn’t explicitly a law against it? Just a “yes” or “no” would suffice. Yes, if the government were to de-prioritize avoiding civilian casualties in military activity outside of war, I’d say that’s probably legal but should not happen. There are probably others. Crafting a law against that would be difficult. On the other hand, crafting a law that required a vote for judicial nominees would be trivially easy. Don’t get me wrong, I personally think that nominees should get a vote (stated this before) - I just recognize that’s not the landscape that we operate in and as long as that is the case people in power will use the power they have. My solution is to limit that power, not hope for our better angels to prevail and not use it in ways we don’t like. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > If only a single republican senator brings up the idea that they would have voted for Garland in their next campaign, then McConnell’s plan has succeeded at the expense of the democratic process. I would characterize it as succeeding using the democratic process. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/139 "2017-03-29T13:31:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe that “total number of senate votes for Democrats” is a useful metric for determining what the people of the country want? I believe it is one of many metrics that determine what a country wants. Popular vote for president being another one. The fact that strategically, it is better to have certain voters in certain geographic locations does not change how the people voted. People vote, people matter. Geographic locations are just where people are. In a democracy, the way to find out what people want is ultimately at the ballot box. The fact that there were far more votes for democratic ideals than republican ideals is something that should be considered. I am not saying that the majority of votes going to democrats in this race gives them a mandate, I am just saying that it does mean that the republicans can’t really claim a mandate either. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/140 "2017-03-29T13:36:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I would characterize it as succeeding using the democratic process. I can understand that characterization, though I disagree with it. Refusing to hold a vote so that senators can later claim to their constituency that if only McConnell had let them vote, they would have voted for Garland is using the rules, sure, but I argue that’s different from democracy. Abusing the rules so that you can later mislead your voters, in my opinion, is harmful to democracy. YMMV. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020.md?page=8)