They get something. I ran into RBG in an airport once and she had two big dudes with earpieces. They might have been marshalls or something.
There were 54 senate Republicans in the 114th congress. At least half a dozen of them would have voted to confirm Merrick Garland.
We’ve been over this. This is the reason he wasn’t given hearings and a vote.
Sure, unless they wanted to maintain their majority. They had just achieved majority in the last election and they could have lost it just as easily in 2016 if they didn’t have the advantage of running against someone like Hillary.
They are entitled to protection from the Marshals Service when traveling outside DC.
Would he be sitting on Garland’s lap?
In other countries the leadership puts all their preferred candidates up in one vote and the undesirable candidates in another and do the really important ones separately.
If they get evenly spaced out the partisan advantage only exists so long as we keep electing president’s from the same party. Having one nomination in every congress seems better than letting a two term president obtain a majority of the court by the first year of his second term.
IIRC there was something called a “switch in time that saved nine”
When FDR won his third term as POTUS, congress was going to accede to his court packing plan when all of a sudden one of the justices on the court switched their vote on the New Deal and FDR no longer needed to pack the court.
I wouldn’t count cloture votes. From time of nomination to time of swearing in, any opposition to a nomination has 45 days (or whatever number is better, nothing sacred about 45) to put it to a vote in the full Senate or stop it.
That is a very good point. But somehow they find the time to confirm an entire cabinet within two months of nomination. Perhaps there could also be a limit on the number of appointments pending.
From where are you deriving this certainty? because if it was in fact certain, they would have held the vote, right? Or are there political consequences for voting against a qualified nominee that some senators wanted to avoid. Or are there at least a few senators with scruples that would have gone ahead and confirmed Garland and told McConnell to go fuck himself?
No, Mitch McConnell made it clear he was refusing consent. The senate did not speak.
They’re protected by the Supreme Court Police (not the U.S. Marshal Service), which got pretty broad nationwide powers after Byron White (I think) was attacked while giving a speech. (I think it was White because, as a former NFL player, he took the hit and laughed it off). They were also in the news when Breyer got mugged a few years back, but he was out of country somewhere.
I don’t know how it works on a day-to-day basis. The few times I’ve run into a justice it was at a speech or seminar and they had very visible security.
There are 24 people in the Trump Cabinet (at least two of whom are not senate confirmable). That’s easy to do in 2 months.
(There was also complaining about the Senate pushing people through too quickly, without time to review their disclosures. A 45 day limit would incentivize foot dragging).
Maybe some view it that way, but I presume others view it as a necessary tactic, i.e. the other team has decided that a good way to win is to hit your goalie, something that previously had been avoided by an unspoken agreement. If they aren’t penalized for it, they’ll just do it again in future, so the only effective response is to hit theirs.
You don’t have children, do you? Tantrums have a much higher chance of success. This is not a tantrum. This is almost purely symbolic but its important for Democrats to show resolve.
Did Obamacare motivate and energize Republican voters? Getting something shoved down your throat can leave a bad taste in your mouth.
I have kids, yes. I know a tantrum when I see one 
And although I am not 100% in it, I really try not to have their tantrums be successful.
Were they? The legislation was held in committee for months by the Democrat chairman. Many of his own party were uncomfortable with the obvious power grab.
I don’t know about generic “Republican voters” but those silly futile votes against Obamacare did not motivate or energize me in the least.
I’ve explained it many times – IMO, this is the best route (and the best possibility for electoral success) that the Democrats could hope for in these circumstances. But feel free to continue with the equivalent of “suck it, loser”, if you want.
Republican voters were pretty damn energized in 2010. Was that because they had had a string of successes? Or because they strongly disapproved of what was happening?
Because of strong disapproval, of course. But what does that have to do with futile gestures in Congress?