Schumer (and Kennedy) could of course vote however they please, but in the Bork case, the vote was put to the *entire *senate, and like any open vote, the results are hardly “pre-ordained”. The Democrat leadership was clearly opposed to Bork but this doesn’t mean every Democrat senator was (obviously, since some of them voted in Bork’s favour) and the Republican leadership was in favour of Bork (I assume) but that doesn’t mean every Republican senator was (obviously, since some of them voted against).
The Garland version is that the Republican leadership wasn’t interested in finding reasons to oppose his appointment, nor were they interested in letting the senate have a vote because they weren’t interested in taking the risk, however slight, that he might be approved. The nonsense about waiting until after the election “to let the voters decide” rings especially hollow when they were too afraid to even let the senate decide. It was cowardly. Unfortunately, American voters in 2016 were not in the mood to punish cowards.
Democrats pinned their hopes of getting what they wanted (SSM, transgender bathrooms, abortion) thru the Supreme Court rather than legislation. Because, in part, they assumed the White House was theirs for the foreseeable future, because Obama got re-elected and Hillary was going to sweep to victory on clouds of glory. Then Tim Kaine would be elected, or maybe Bernie Sanders, and eventually the Supreme Court would strike a happy mix of liberals and extreme liberals.
We are now seeing what happens when they realize that Supreme Court justices are not benevolent philosopher-kings who implement the self-evidently wise policies of whatever makes up the opinion pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times.
It’s been pointed out before that, while McConnell certainly said something to that effect, if Obama had nominated someone like Gorsuch, McConnell would have reversed himself and probably peed himself with delight in the process.
I agree that the Democrats handled the politicalization of the process much better than the Republicans expected - Reagan didn’t put his political weight behind the nomination until after the coordinated attacks of the Democratic leadership and People for the American Way and such lobbying groups had already gained traction.
But, as Bricker points out, since Bork the GOP realizes that it is a political and partisan affair, and plays the game that way. Now they hold a majority, so their politics will likely gain the day.
I keep waiting for the Dems to push someone into lying about Gorsuch sexually harassing her, or forging some documents and sending them to CBS.
That’s an amusing take on it, but it’s irrelevant to Republican Senate leadership deciding to simply not do their jobs. Unfortunately the voters were okay with it, so it worked out for them. I’m hoping your country will get over its spell of stupidity relatively soon.
Well, I guess we’ll never really know, though. After all, McConnell said Garland was acceptable, but then changed his mind.
They did do their job. They withheld consent, which they have every right to do. Perhaps they didn’t do their job in a manner you approve, but your approval isn’t determinative as to whether they have done their job or not.
Thing is, they’re not playing the game the same way. Republicans in 2016 decided the best way to play was to not play at all and just wait for more favourable circumstances. It forces Democrats to adopt the same strategy and ultimately the courts gets more extreme, not less, because the chances of compromise appointments like Garland (or for that matter, Anthony Kennedy, who was passed unanimously after Bork’s rejection, so even at the time the Bork matter didn’t create permanent partisanship) drop significantly.
Of course, it’s up to the American voters if congress is behaving in a way they find acceptable. It wasn’t even the first time the Senate did stuff like this (the precedent is definitely not Bork, though).
Wonderful story there, Steinbeck. Let me know how that Nobel Prize for Literature works out. Until then, those of us waiting for substantive discussion will be hanging out here.
So is SSM a liberal position, or an extreme liberal position?
Or just, y’know, equal treatment under the law as per the 14th Amendment?
I have to figure if Shodan believes liberal positions are bad for America and SSM is a liberal position, then he can easily point to some harm SSM has done to America.
This case looks like anther use (abuse?) of the filibuster, and I don’t mind admitting that the filibuster itself is an inherently abusive tool, i.e. in principle the members are supposed to take turns debating, but one deliberately runs long not to present more argument but just to run out the clock.
Indeed it seems the Democrats (then as now, the Senate minority) were using the filibuster quite regularly to oppose Bush43’s judicial appointments, Estrada being just one of ten so blocked. This prompted the so-called Gang of 14 compromise measure (after which five of the blocked ten were confirmed), which I understand in theory as a reasonable idea…
Just to cut to the chase here, my criticisms of Republicans in no way suggests I view Democrats as saints. They can be just as abusive of the process as their opponents when it suits them. The evolution of Senate procedures from 2001-2015 notwithstanding, for the majority party to simply ignore a nomination was an unusual step, at least in modern times.
As for Estrada personally, it looks like there were reasons to oppose or at least question his appointment, on the basis of potential bias as well as inexperience.
How do you figure? The poster made the statement that “the Garland nomination was made in order to show up the Republican obstructionism.”
How does the author of that opinion piece know the President’s motivation? Did she interview him? Did he say so in a speech or a press release? Did she talk to close aides of the President? Her article doesn’t say.
Yes but* you asked for cites*. He gave cites. Now, it’s your turn to show better cites that show your side. That’s how it works. Not just raise the bar on what you want for a cite.
The only person we have elected President in the last 32 years who didn’t doge the draft was Obama who was too young for the draft. We have elected 3 draft dodgers since HW Bush. Clinton, Bush Jr. and Trump.
This is worth addressing, though I see others already have:
The Senate didn’t reject Garland. The Republican leadership in the Senate denied them the opportunity to accept or reject him. The Senate did reject Bork.
Further, it’s not even fair to say Garland was rejected if that implies there was something unacceptable about Garland. The person who nominated him was deemed unacceptable (again, by Republican leadership, not the Senate overall) and there was a roll of the dice that a more acceptable nominator would be in place a year later. They didn’t care in the least if Garland was qualified or not.
You’re one of those are you? Believe it or not, it’s not always cowardice that keeps you from wanting to get dumped into a foreign jungle war to defend some fucked up government. Sometimes it’s because you aren’t a fucking idiot.
The Democrat should filibuster every thing they can. If the GOP is unable to pass a budget resolution, the Demos should offer to write their own budget resolution. I advocate that the Democrats in Congress adopt the following simple policy (not dissimilar to the policy GOP has followed for two decades) — Under no circumstances should the Democrats vote for any Republican nominee nor any Republican-written bill.
Will there be a backlash if the Demos are viewed as uncooperative? Events have proved that the public is oblivious to Congressional events. They may respond to FakeNews versions of it, but the Fake stories will exist whatever the Democrats do. If turtle-face “drops the nuclear bomb” and abolishes the filibuster rule, So what? It’s coming anyway — Just get it over with.
More extreme than Gorsuch? AFAICT, he’s already in the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-human category. Are you expecting David Duke to be the next candidate? Donald J. Trump, Jr.? Anne Coulter? We can afford four frothers before the Court becomes an utter turd-pile.
Yes. The “genteel traditions” of the Senate are a burnt-out husk that will collapse with a slight nudge. Accept two years of disaster and hope for some sanity to be restored in 2018. It’s delusional to keep pretending that the people in control of America are not psychopathic.
More extreme than Gorsuch? AFAICT, he’s already in the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-human category. Are you expecting David Duke to be the next candidate? Donald J. Trump, Jr.? Anne Coulter? We can afford four frothers before the Court becomes an utter turd-pile.