Damn Trilateral Commission.
This topic deserves a book length treatment, and I can’t be certain that I am correct. But consider the chart upthread. Cloture motions really did skyrocket during the age of McConnell. And that’s just one (highly measurable) component of obstructionism.
In the end I say that Gingrich was a bomb-thrower who pretended to be a strategist. McConnell was a strategic arsonist who pretended to be an institutionalist. McConnell’s great insight was that bipartisanship disproportionately benefits the party with the Presidency. So he dispensed with it. Kevin Drum:
McConnell also routinely refused to hold hearings to confirm judges. He would refuse to appoint Republican members to executive agencies, thus preventing a quorum and stopping the agency in its tracks. He held the debt ceiling hostage multiple times. He sometimes flatly refused to hold hearings for executive branch positions, hoping to hamstring Democratic presidents. And most famously, he refused to hold hearings to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court as long as a Democrat was in the White House.
McConnell was also an inspiration to others. Tommy Tuberville’s recent blockade of military promotions, for example, never would have happened in the pre-McConnell era. In the post-McConnell era it was just a routine annoyance.
I think McConnell legitimately grasped aspects of our political system that nobody else had in the past, other than certain political scientists who emphasized the importance of norms in functioning democracies. To some extent of course, he was just a man of his age: if the GOP had a broader and active political agenda, obstructionism wouldn’t be so attractive. But McConnell’s rule coincided with the decline of supply-side economics into punch-line material, and the subsequent policy collapse within the GOP. It’s all messaging now: Republican congressmen don’t care too much about the bills they push, which is why they routinely filibuster bills that they sponsored a couple of months ago. Who’s gonna stop them?
With the Garland fuckery Mcconnell did more than pull a shitty, dirty trick. He established a precedent. Without a Democratically controlled Senate, the days of Democratic presidents placing Supreme Court justices are long gone.
And vice versa. I expect many D Senators would be happy to pay the R’s back for McConnell’s shenanigans.
I do strongly predict that we will not see a Senate controlled by one party approve a Supreme Court nomination by an opposite-party President again in my lifetime. As it is, it’s been 33 years since that’s happened. We just don’t live in that world anymore.
I don’t see that. I mean, I hope I don’t. I like to believe that Democrats genuinely have more honor than Republicans.
Ok. I genuinely don’t know the answer to this question. Who was the last Democratic senate leader to refuse to act when a Republican president presented a SC nominee? Has that happened? If so, it’s shameful.
AFAIK, it has never happened. Nor, until McConnell, has the opposite happened.
The last nomination to meet the criteria as stated (Democratic Senate fails to act on SC nomination by Republican President) is Stanley Matthews who was nominated by Rutherford B. Hayes in the closing weeks of his Presidency in 1881. He was renominated by James Garfield and confirmed by the now-Republican Senate.
A full list of SC nominees and their fates can be found on Wikipedia at:
Thanks!
There’s speculation that Andy Beshear would challenge a Kentucky state law requiring him to appoint a senator of the same party as the previous senator in case of a vacancy.
That has to be playing a part in McConnell’s decision not to retire completely.
ETA. It would be ironic if he pulls a reverse RBG, surviving until just past the election and then being replaced by a Democrat.
They would just be playing by the now current norm as established by(and will continue under) the GOP.
And he should, because (IMO) he’s right that such schemes are unconstitutional.
One that could have easily been defeated if the Democrats had called their bluff forced them to actually filibuster.
No. A filibuster does not require talking. There have been silent filibusters since at least 1900. A shift to talking filibusters would involve some sort of reform and it’s probably not the right way to go about it.
Basically, one person needs to make repeated points of order, or calls for a quorum count. That’s it.
We’ve had several threads on the board regarding the procedural technicalities of the filibuster and options for reform. But the fundamental reason why “calling their bluff” and “forcing them to talk it out” wouldn’t work is because Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, et. al. would LOVE to have the cameras on them as they valiantly filibuster whatever piece of socialism a Democrat-controlled Senate is trying to foist on America. They will gladly eat up hours and days of floor time preening for the cameras, and in the meantime the Senate will be unable to do anything else.
It’s not doing all that much anyway.
Likely anticipating Beshear’s challenge, the Kentucky Legislature has changed the way Senate vacancies are filled once again. Under newly passed legislation, a vacant Kentucky Senate seat will be held open until a special election is held for the remainder of the term. While the previous requirement to appoint from a party list was (IMO) Constitutionally suspect, filling a vacancy by special election is clearly Constitutionally permissible.
Quelle surprise.
I challenge the assertion he believes conservative judges are best for the country (there’s an argument to be made that they are). He believes right-wing and reactionary judges are best for the country (or at least for him and his despicable allies). There is no argument to be made for that proposition.
Norms of civic discourse, institutions of democracy, and respect for our institutions are conservative qualities; trampling over them is not.