That’s a remarkably narrowly tailored amendment.
IMO, if such an amendment had been in effect for Garland, the Republicans would have just voted Garland down, and any future such appointments.
Democrats have made the lack of hearings and a vote into a big deal, but they didn’t matter in any substantive way. The Republicans controlled the Senate, and there’s nothing the Democrats could have done to force them to accept an Obama nominee if they wanted to run out the clock.
They don’t. My wife volunteered at a place where Maureen Scalia volunteered as well, and her husband came by to pick her up once, driving himself.
So you want us to wait another 45 days for Justice Gorsuch? Or are you imagining that the cloture vote counts as “voted on by the full Senate”?
ETA: Actually, it was more than 45 days ago that Trump nominated Gorsuch, right? He’d already be a SCOTUS Justice if this amendment were in effect.
Can you point out when was the last time 41 senators voted against cloture on a Supreme Court Justice confirmation? I mean, it’s “often used” - you should be able to find an instance, no?
I would think the problem with this is plan is that there are currently 126 federal judicial vacancies. (There were 107 when Clinton took office; 81 when Bush took office; and 57 when Obama took office).
There are somewhere between 1,200 and 1,400 Senate confirmable positions in the administration. (I don’t vouch for any of these numbers)
Wouldn’t you just nominate hundreds of people at a time and figure there would be no way for the Senate to keep up?
You wouldn’t want him to waste his time “digging up obscure cites from Ye Olde English Lawe or something”, would you? His mind is made up.
If it was a fixed shorter term, like 9 years, then probably not, but 20 years is too long, IMO. Average tenure right now is probably 20-30 years, and I think it should be drastically reduced, such that filling vacancies is routine business, and each vacancy only means a few years rather than a few decades of a partisan advantage on the court.
… or increase the size to 12 justices and make it 12 year terms. With possible deaths in office bumping the terms, the average term will probably be 14-15 years, and each President will be able to appoint 4 justices in each of his terms in office.
The only negative I see is that two-term Presidents, by the end of their second term, will have 8 justices they appointed - 2/3 of the court. But the equilibrium (if the other party wins after that) could be restored within 2 years or so. Still a workable solution.
Increasing the size of the court is relatively simple. Introducing term or age limits is basically impossible.
It would need a Constitutional amendment, which is difficult. I’m not sure if increasing the size would be any easier (wasn’t FDR blocked by the courts when he tried?).
It would requite amending the Constitution. I don’t think it would be an extremely controversial amendment.
The size of the court is set by legislation. FDR was blocked by the Senate refusing to even vote on his court packing legislation.
The Democrats voted “no”, but at least they voted. Unlike a certain other, childish obstructionist party, when a vote was asked of them. Fuck 'em. Hard.
Your side doesn’t have the votes for that.
HurricaneDitka, you never answered my question in post #372.
I appreciate your not disputing my assertation that the Republicans in congress are childish obstructionists.
They were out of power for the Garland ‘fight’. Their actions were irrelevant. I suppose they could have suggested that Obama “change the nominee” like Schumer so helpfully did for Trump, but it probably would have mattered just as much as if Trump were to change the nominee today (which is to say: ‘not at all’). Republicans wouldn’t have held a vote for anyone on Obama’s shortlist and Democrats seem to be ready to filibuster anyone on Trump’s shortlist.
The “they would have acted … differently” in my post was a reference to Reid’s 2013 decision to go nuclear more than anything they did or didn’t do in 2016 with Garland. Reid and the 2013 Senate Democrats made McConnell’s decision to go nuclear a fairly easy one.
Does that answer your question?
It is blowing me away how many Dems here seem to think a filibuster/nuclear option is some great victory. Or even a meaningful moral victory in defeat.
I didn’t dispute it because it’s irrelevant, not because I agree with it, but you’re welcome I guess.
It’s a pretty bizarre perspective for me too, but it is exactly what the rank-and-file Democrats want. The Dem base is going to eat Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly alive for supporting Gorsuch, and probably kill any chance they had of retaking the Senate in 2018 in the process, but I won’t complain. I’ll just sit back and smile.