Well, if you give a nominee the courtesy of a Senate hearing but deep down fully intend all along to vote him or her down no matter what, then that is essentially the same practical effect as not giving him or her a hearing in the first place. It is just a more civil form of stonewalling; going through the motions.
At this point in time, maintaining proper civil form would be an improvement.
You are aware that Roberts was confirmed with 78 votes, right? Democrats have had no difficulty voting for Republican-appointed justices in the past.
And obviously Merrick Garland deserved exactly the same consideration.
They should absolutely give a nominee named Merrick Garland and born November 13, 1952 a fair hearing. In fact, I think it’s overdue.
If for some reason Trump were to choose to nominate anyone else, no.
Roberts really isnt that bad. John Roberts - Wikipedia
I’ll take Roberts over Kavanaugh any day.
With the OPs hypothetical in mind, I would expect that the Democrats would treat the process and their duty with much more respect than the Republicans do.
While we’re on "should"s, this would all be cleared up by requiring a 90% yes vote to confirm supreme court judges.
If Trump nominates Merrick Garland, yeah, go ahead and confirm him. If not, then the Democrats would have absolutely every right - and Hell, their base would be furious if they didn’t do this - to stone wall ANY Trump judicial nominees until he’s out of office.
The fact that we are still debating this post-Garland is interesting. Did nobody get the memo from that fiasco? From here on out, no president will get judicial nominees confirmed unless his party also controls the Senate.
Then this guarantees no Democratic president could ever get a judge into SCOTUS as long as Republicans hold 11 seats in the Senate.
Garland is done, over, finito.
It is time to look for compromise. Confirm if they are great jurists without a big time right wing agenda.
Let’s not forget that Garland was the compromise candidate.
I hope they do. It’ll be yet another example of the Democrat hypocrisy viz. it’s evil when the Pubs do it but when we do it it’s doing the best for America.
So you’re saying it’s evil?
Have you been reading the thread? Because it’s been explained several times why this isn’t actually hypocrisy.
No it hasn’t other than the standard Straight Dope Democrat explanation of “It’s not hypocrisy when we do it because the Republicans do it too.” conveniently leaving out how the Dems piss themselves bitching about how wrong it is when the Pubs did it.
Not so much hypocrisy but retaliation.
I’m personally good with it morally, but I think it would be a mistake strategically to Merrick any of Trump’s picks.
On the other hand, having hearings and then voting on party lines…how is that stonewalling? (Presuming Trump picks another hard-right candidate like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.)
The Democrats are (largely) center and center-left. They’re elected to enact center and center-left policies. If they didn’t vote against a conservative judge, they’d be failing in their duty, I would think.
Really? Because the “it’s hypocritical” argument only works if you assume that the democrats are following the most basic, shallow, stupid moral philosophy.
If your moral system is “violence is always wrong”, it’s a lousy moral system. Why? Because sometimes, you have violence thrust upon you, and if self-defense is morally wrong, you’re just gonna get beat up a lot. Politics is a bit like this - if you appeal to democratic norms, this doesn’t mean your opposition can be allowed to hold you hostage over those norms. The reality is that, if the democrats turn around and apply the new norms, the ones Mitch McConnell created, they are being entirely consistent. If they instead appeal to norms which their opposition unilaterally destroyed, they are being idiots, but more importantly, they’re not even being consistent.
If you see that as hypocritical, then I’m going to have to ask you why you think hypocrisy is wrong, or why it matters at all.
If Senate Democrats decide in advance that they’re going to reject the nominee no matter what, then it’s stonewalling akin to a jury having already decided in advance that the defendant is guilty before the evidence and arguments have even be presented in trial.
If they listen during the hearings and then decide, based off of the merits or demerits of the nominee, that he/she is unsuitable, then that would be different. But here in this thread we have Dopers suggesting that Democrats should give a hearing while secretly planning inwardly all along to vote unanimously against the Trump-nominated judge come confirmation time, which makes the process nothing more than… a fancy form of stonewalling. It would be just a case of going through the motions.
Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98-0 in his day. He was as conservative as they come. Did the Democrats who voted for him unanimously fail in their duty?
What about the Republicans, when Ginsburg was approved 96-0?
Well, no, because the norm at the time was clearly very different. This norm was fraying back in the aughts, but still held (barely) for Roberts and Alito. At this point, the norm is completely dead. It’s become completely clear through the Roberts court that the supreme court is grossly partisan. The Kavanaugh fight should, hopefully, have put the nail in that coffin.
OK, say you and I are playing Monopoly, and we get into an argument about whether or not one should take all the money from Chance and Community Chest when one lands on Free Parking. It’s an argument Monopoly players have been having for almost a century. So you roll your dice, land on Free Parking and without asking for my permission, reach out and grab all the money. I get angry, but you just smirk and say, “New rule!” A few round pass, money builds up again, and them, BAM! I roll an 8 and land on Free Parking myself. I grin, and take the cash.
Now tell me… am I a hypocrite?